Human Rights Watch: Israel, Hamas Violating International Law

Sorry but they are comparable. The law is very simple. If you use civilians as a shield then you are responsible for their well being. In the case of a hostage it is the hostage taker who is responsible for the well being of those hostages. PERIOD.

While it is always sad to see civilians killed, that is precisely what Hamas wants. They use those images against Israel on the world stage. From their perspective they can't lose. If Israel doesn't fight back then Hamas wins. If Israel does shoot back then Hamas wins. Hamas does not care at all about the civilians.
About Israel
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Do they see something we don't see?

I was reading an article recently about Palestinians' views on the upcoming elections. While the people don't see a big change in US policy regardless of who wins the election it seems that many people on the street believe that Obama will be better for their cause. The question of course is why.
It can't be any of Obama's actions while he was a Chicago State Senator where he cosponsored a bill authorizing the state of Illinois to invest in Israel bonds.
It can't be any of his actions in the US Senate where he was a lead sponsor of the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, a cosponsor of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, among other things.
It can't be his statements; “Israel’s security is sacrosanct […] I will also carry with me an unshakable commitment to the security of Israel and the friendship between the United States and Israel.” – New York Sun, 2/25/2008) The list goes on.

There's of course been a lot of talk about Obama's connections to noted Palestinians like Rashid Khalidi. However, as recent news reports show, McCain has connections to him as well, funding his organizations with hundreds of thousands of dollars in a relationship that spans from 1993 to 1998. Zbigniew Brzezinski has endorsed Obama but when McCain was asked who he would pick as his representative to the Arab/Israeli conflict Zbigniew Brzezinski was among those he named, along with "the smartest guy I know" to the Middle East .... "Brent Scowcroft, or Jim Baker though I know that you in Israel don't like Baker.” So that can't be it either.
One thing that I didn't think about, however, was an opinion by David Rabinovich of Mesquite, NM. He said "The man on the street in Arab countries considers Barack Obama as a Muslim because of their patrilinial outlook on religion, not realizing that in the secular West, religion is a matter of individual choice!"
Genius!! Finally something that might make sense. Muslims see someone as one of their own if their father is Muslim. As Jews, we view people who have a Jewish mother as Jewish. Therefore the Palestinians' view that Obama will be better for their cause may simply be a matter of liking someone because they believe he's one of them religiously. And before you snicker or thumb your nose at people who hold those kinds of beliefs, let's think back to those ridiculous polls in 2000 about who you would rather have over at your barbecue, Bush or Gore? Many people feel more comfortable with those they are familiar with or seem more like them.

We must be smarter than that.
Elections must be about the issues.
They must be about a candidates intelligence.
They must be about who you trust to do a better job.
They must be about experience.

If we fail to use those criteria then we are simply acting like those people back in 2000 who used, as one of their criteria, who they would rather have over for a barbecue.
If we fail to use those criteria then we are simply acting like the Palestinians.

Obama's Call For An "Ethic of Responsibility"

In tonight's closing of the presidential debate Senator Obama said three words that we very infrequently hear from our leaders; "Sacrifice Service & Responsibility".

If anyone has had any reservations about Senator Obama's "presidential" characteristics, his call for America to take some responsibility for itself should seriously put those reservations to rest.

It is rare to ever hear from a politician that we can't have our cake and eat it too. It's almost unheard of to hear those sentiments in the throes of a financial crisis and a national election only weeks away!

Obama made a speech in Toledo this past Monday in which he called for a new ``ethic of responsibility''. This was aimed squarely at the causes of our current economic crisis in which ``everyone was living beyond their means, from Wall Street to Washington to even some on Main Street.''

Our current financial crisis is a direct result of almost every component of our economy throwing responsibility to the wind, consequences be dammed.

If "Presidential" is synonymous with "leadership", and "leadership" is synonymous with telling people what they need to hear as opposed to what they want to hear, then Senator Obama has acted in a more presidential manner than many of our politicians of the past 30 years!!

The T. Boone Pickens Plan & An Alternative Letter

I can't say I'm a fan of T. Boone Pickens (Swift Boater), but his Energy Independence Plan is certainly a start. Mr. Pickens is asking people to join him and send letters to their members of congress asking them to pledge their support for the Pickens plan. I just want to talk about some of the points in the plan that I think could be slightly misleading. I would like to clarify them and offer a counter letter for people to send to their congressional representative.
According to the CIA's World Factbook Imported oil accounts for about two-thirds of US consumption. For our purpose lets use T. Boone Pickens' numbers and we actually import 70% at a cost of $700 billion. The Pickens plan would like to reduce our IMPORTED oil consumption not our overall consumption. Reducing our "imported" oil is like saying that drinking from one side of the cup makes a difference from drinking from the other side of a cup. Oil however is an international commodity. Think of oil like water in a bathtub. It really doesn't matter where you take the water from. As long as you take from the tub then money goes to those who put the water in the tub to begin with. It doesn't matter if we buy our own oil or someone else's. It all comes from the same bathtub. Therefore, the $700 billion that we send abroad to rogue or hostile nations still get the same amount of money. They'll just get it from someone else. The only way to keep that kind of money from reaching those countries is if we reduce, not simply our IMPORTED oil, but our consumption, period.

The T. Boone Pickens plan should ask our members of congress to pledge to reduce our overall consumption of oil and NOT just our imported oil. We should help move the world off of an oil based energy platform and onto other form of energy, preferably cleaner local energy. Only curtailing our consumption and developing a comprehensive energy plan, can we halt the huge flight of capital continuing to flow to those countries by others!!

Here's a sample letter that I believe should be sent to your Congressional delegation:


Our fight against terrorism, our fight for the environment, our fight against our growing balance of payments deficits and our fight for our health care in this country can all be improved by getting our country off of the debilitating effects of our oil addiction/consumption.

We must get this country, and others, off of oil and stop the unprecedented flight of capital to rogue and hostile nations. This plan must include proven American technology and resources; the development of new energy sources; and the expansion and modernization of the national electrical grid to transport renewable energy to homes and businesses.

Delaying is tantamount to negligent homicide by continuing America's, and the world's, addiction to oil.

I urge you to support any and all plans that can legitimately move this country from an oil based energy economy to one that relies on local, clean technology/energy. This should be the call of a new generation. This should be part of the new president's first 100 days of the new administration.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Zucker"

Obama / McCain: Who & Why

Rarely have we seen an American election mean so much to Israel. Both Obama and McCain are in fact and have always been supporters of Israel. All non-partisans have acknowledged that. This is NOT a choice of who is a bigger supporter of Israel but who will be a more EFFECTIVE supporter of Israel.

Lets first take a look at where we are today. To paraphrase President Reagan "Are we better off today than we were four years ago?". Are we? Iran is closer than ever to acquiring nuclear weapons, Syria is breaking out of its international isolation, Hezbollah is stronger and Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise.

Could the US have done better over the past 8 years on these issues? Just think about what the world was like after 9-11. What were world leaders willing to do after they saw the twin towers destroyed, the Pentagon hit and another plane go down in PA, all at the hands of Islamic fundamentalists? Even France- a European antagonist towards the US, trying to counterbalance the US's power- was behind the US and willing to do whatever was asked of it to go after the terrorists.

However, some people in the White House's brain trust decided to go after Sadaam, who presented no imminent threat, instead of the other real terrorist threats in the Middle East like Iran or Syria.This in turn has kept other countries from committing themselves to the same cause that the US and Israel share. The simple fact is that McCain wants to continue Bush's policies that have hurt America's standing and by extension Israel's security.

While Bush certainly has had the best of intentions regarding Israel (as opposed to Bush 41 who was one of the worst vis-a-vis Israel) his actions/policies have NO DOUBT left Israel in more existential danger, in a more precarious state since 1948!

What Bush has done, and what McCain wants to continue, are those policies that made the US weaker both nationally with an overstretched military and worldwide. It is what has kept the US from taking on the biggest local threat to Israel, Iran and their nukes. Those policies that took the US's resources away from terrorism and instead go after Sadaam are the policies that are at fault for allowing Iran to go full steam ahead on acquiring nukes. Those are the policies that are at fault for Russia's new assertiveness.

Right now we NEED someone who can rally the US's standing. McCain simply is not that person. If McCain were to win then his policies would be viewed as an extension of the "neocon agenda" of the past eight years. The world will say "there go the neocons again" and the US would be forced to go it alone.

If Obama wins the presidency, the world would be more likely to renew their allegiance with the US. If they decide to take out Iran's nuclear facilities and claim that it is a "clear and present danger", the world will not say "there go the neocons again". They will fight with the US side by side.

And make no mistake. Even the strongest military on earth does not have the manpower to go after Afghanistan, Iraq AND Iran at the same time!!

When we look back at Nixon going to China we understand that, at the time, only a Republican could have done that . Today, only a Democrat can actually take on Islamic fundamentalism and hope to have the rest of the world united behind it.

Many are going to vote for Obama, NOT in spite of their support for Israel.

Many are going to vote for Obama BECAUSE of their support for Israel!