Obama supporters speak out; he writes to U.N. on Israel

[oberliner]

Sen. Barak Obama’s campaign staff and colleagues spoke out this week against allegations questioning the senator’s support of Israel, while the presidential hopeful urged the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday to either condemn Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel or remain silent about events in Gaza.

http://www.jstandard.com/articles/3790/1/Obama-supporters-speak-out%3B-he-writes-to-U.N.-on-Israel

The actual letter can be found as a JPG at the above link.

It appears that the UN Security Council may, in fact, pass such a resolution, as Obama suggests. A recent article suggests that they are one vote away (Libya) from a unanimous vote.

[Tom Joad]

1. there seems to be a debate within the Democratic Party about starving people into submission

Thanks for the link.

i have heard from some sources that the letter may not be authentic, but i think it probably is.

we know what side Obama is on. and i am not surprised.

[oberliner]

2. What sources have indicated that the letter may not be authentic?

I'd also be curious to know which candidate(s) you are supporting for President?

[Tom Joad]

5. the sources turned out to be wishful thinkers. People who support

peace and justice, while at the same time thinking Obama supported the same. Obviously he opposes international law and the work of the United Nations.

[oberliner]

8. Opposes the work of the United Nations?

The UN Security Council is on the verge of passing a resolution which includes exactly what Obama was suggesting.

[LeftishBrit]

9. I don't understand this comment...

Obama is only supporting an action that most of the UNSC are proposing anyway. So how is he opposed to 'international law and the work of the United Nations'?

I support both Barbara Lee's letter about events in Gaza, and Obama's/ the UNSC majority's remarks about Hamas' actions.

As regards effects on the UN, I disagree with you. I think that if the UNSC does pass this resolution, it could *enhance* international law and the influence of the United Nations. If the UN shows a more even-handed policy in the future - condemning both violence *by* Israel (as it has always been very ready to do!) and violence *toward* Israel (as it has generally been less ready to do) - then Israel and others may take its resolutions more seriously; and Israel, Gaza, and others in the region may feel more able to go to the 'police' (the UN) in response to an attack or injustice, instead of escalating violent retaliation. Perhaps Israeli overdependence on American support, often criticized here, would also be reduced if Israel felt that they could rely on a fair hearing from the UN if necessary.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Don't you see any problem with what Obama said?

It's this bit that's not the slightest bit even-handed...

'All of us are concerned about the impact of the closed border crossings on Palestinian families. However, we have to understand why Israel is forced to do this….'

Are you referring to the Security Council when you claim that the UN shows bias against Israel?

[LeftishBrit]

12. I don't like the word 'forced' in that statement, no

Better just to say that there is escalation on both sides.

As regards UN bias - well, how many resolutions have they passed against Israel in their time, as compared with Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Burma, the USA and UK over Iraq, all the oppressive Latin American governments in the 80s, etc. etc etc.?

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Are you talking about the Security Council or the General Assembly?

If it's the General Assembly, who cares? They're nothing but a toothless tiger made of paper, but the Security Council is another matter. Their Resolutions actually mean something, despite some people in the past in this forum trying to claim that only Chapter VII are worth anything....

Out of the six countries you mentioned, four of them are permanent members of the Security Council and hold veto power. Of course there's never going to be a Resolution passed that is critical of them, unless it's snuck in while they're off having a loo-break and they don't get back in time to veto the resolution. It would be interesting, though, to go through a list of resolutions passed over the past decade or two and see how many resolutions they've passed when it comes to other countries (I kind of expect that at one point South Africa would have been popping up). But given the structure of the Security Council, members with veto power are always going to veto resolutions against themselves if they ever come up (or in the case of the US, vetoing Resolutions against Israel), which of course is unfair, but seeing the permanent members are resistant to reforming the Security Council, things aren't going to change any time soon. I think all veto power should be removed, especially from the US, which has abused its power and has shown incredible enmity towards the UN and multilateralism...

[Tom Joad]

16. what is "leftish" about denying people their basic right to

the necessities of life?

[LeftishBrit]

18. Nothing. And there is also nothing leftish about firing rockets at them.

I oppose both, as a matter of fact.

[sam sarrha]

3. i believe you can starve them into extinction, otherwise you just really piss them off.

[Tom Joad]

4. well, Gazans seem to refusing to die quietly. neither are they

going to surrender. boy, is Israel pissed.

[bellasgrams]

6. Israel is a bully and will get us into another war.

I believe all the candidates support Israel unconditionally

[msmcghee]

7. Ever think about that? They all support Israel - and you don't? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

14. You dropped the word *unconditional*...

Why should anyone who unconditionally supports anything be taken seriously?

[msmcghee]

15. I thought it was too stupid to mention.

Didn't want to further embarrass bellasgrams so I gave him/her the benefit of the doubt.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. There's a huge difference between *support* and *unconditional support*

And the only stupid thing in that exchange was yr removing the word *unconditional*....

[LeftishBrit]

20. No, there was something else stupid

And that was the idea that Israel would 'get (America) into another war'.

Whether you support Israel unconditionally, conditionally, or not at all, it is only responsible for its own actions, and not for whatever wars the American government chooses to pursue.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. So we shouldn't apply the 'slight cultural differences' thing to that post?

Why not?

[LeftishBrit]

22. Before we go on...

my remark about 'slight cultural differences' referred simply to cases where people have misunderstood ME, possibly due to my British usages. E.g. my saying that certain people were 'nutcases' has been misunderstood as implying that they were fools and could do no harm.

And of course it IS possible that I misunderstood this last post too! Such things are always possible; and if I did, no doubt the poster will point it out. But I still think that it's stupid to think that Israel could get America into a war. For one thing, America is a much bigger and more powerful country than Israel; and its leaders are noted (sometimes notorious) for going their own way without regard to what any other country thinks.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. I'm glad you explained that...

my remark about 'slight cultural differences' referred simply to cases where people have misunderstood ME, possibly due to my British usages. E.g. my saying that certain people were 'nutcases' has been misunderstood as implying that they were fools and could do no harm.

I've encountered that sort of thing myself, especially when I first saw posts from Americans saying 'I could care less' and sat there scratching my head wondering why they were saying they could care less about something they obviously couldn't care less about...

When it comes to bigotry, which is what I was mistaken about and thought you were referring to, it's very rare in my experience that slight cultural differences have come into things. I remember once (pretty sure it was here at DU) when an American referred to indigenous Australians as *Abos*, obviously not realising that it is a derogatory term. If they'd been Australian there'd have been no doubt on my part that they'd know the term was derogatory and were using it because it was, but with Americans it's more than likely down to not knowing...

I doubt there's any misunderstanding when it comes to the post you mentioned in this thread, or the instance of where dehumanising language was used in a recent thread. Of course it's stupid to believe that Israel could drag the US into a war, and it's something I've talked about more than a few times in the past here. The US doesn't get dragged into anything, and will only do something if there's something in it for the US. Other countries can support it out of their own self-interest, but encouraging the US to do something is not the same as getting it to do something...

[Tom Joad]

17. I support the Israeli peace movement, and you don't

[Vegasaurus]

30. Are you sure Tom?

I think you support the end to a Jewish state (a bi-national state is exactly that), which is not exactly a peaceful aspiration.

[oberliner]

31. Yet you do not support Uri Avnery's call for a two-state solution?

"Our hearts are with our Palestinian brothers who are demonstrating with us on the other side of the fence. Don't lose hope that one day we will meet without fences and walls, without weapons and violence, as two nations living together in peace, in friendship, in partnership.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3498945,00.html

Uri Avnery is by most accounts one of the leaders of the Israeli peace movement.

His vision is that of "two nations living together in peace, in friendship, in partnership."

Is it fair to assume that you oppose Avnery's statement and would instead hope that his thinking will "evolve" towards a one-state solution?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

29. They all supported the Iraq war too. Remember what our moms asked: If your friends all jumped off

the bridge would you?

And if we're tally the # of supporters, let's do a world-wide tally to see who supports Israel, shall we?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

11. Chastise the victims for not responding to their subjugation properly. Gotta love it. nt

[azurnoir]

25. He went way beyond that

In the statement asking to "ensure" the UN Security Council either "condemn Palestinian (note not Hamas or IJ or even the ubiquitous militants but Palestinian) attacks on Israel or say nothing he has effectively placed the lives of Palestinians above those of Israel's any one, but especially a Presidential candidate espousing such a position is morally wrong.

[LeftishBrit]

27. I interpreted it differently

I understood him to say that the UN should criticize either both sides or none - not that they should only criticize the Palestinian side.

The word 'forced' was indeed unfortunate (see earlier post); but for the rest, it seemed to be recommending a two-sided policy. There *are* some American politicians, notably Giuliani, who do seem blindly anti-Palestinian - but I wouldn't put Obama in this category.

In any case, whether one agrees with the view or not, he was only recommending a policy that most of the UNSC support anyway; so he isn't opposing the work of the United Nations.

[azurnoir]

35. Normally I would agree with you on this

the statement read at face value, even without the word "forced" read that way to me, that coupled with the fact that Mr Obama is running a campaign where in some areas he is being "forced" to prove what he is not rather then what he is and what he stands for makes me wonder, hopefully truly you right.

[azurnoir]

37. I owe you an apology

just reread my post and realized that I said that Obama placed the lives of Palestinians above the lives of Israel's when in fact it should have read the opposite that Obama's letter placed the lives Of Israeli's above those of Palestinians, my apologies :blush:

[Tom Joad]

24. 12 people in congress have written condi demanding humanitarian aid get through

including Barbara Lee's letter and a letter by Dennis Kucinich (i think he initiated it, but not sure) that was signed by 11 congresspeople.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x198374

[LeftishBrit]

26. I support that too.

[LeftishBrit]

28. Also for the longer term...

www.allmep.org


Congress Adopts ALLMEP Proposal, Dedicates $9 Million for People-to-People Projects in the Middle East

Washington, DC, Dec. 24 -- With a final vote of approval in the House of Representatives last week, Congress passed a massive omnibus spending bill for the federal government that included $9 million in funding for people-to-people coexistence and reconciliation activities aimed at building grassroots support for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, Arabs and Jews in the Middle East. The funding stems from a proposal by the Alliance for Middle East Peace ("ALLMEP"), a coalition of non-governmental organizations that bring together individuals and communities across conflict lines to cooperate on joint projects involving education, medicine, the environment, business, sports, culture, religion, and other areas of everyday life.

Congress allocated the funds as part of the U.S. "Economic Support Fund" that provides most U.S. foreign aid. Earlier in the year, the House included $11 million for these activities after a bi-partisan, Arab-Jewish-Christian coalition of 35 members of the House, led by Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), and Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), circulated a letter to appropriators seeking the funding. Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), Chair of the House Appropriations Sub-committee on Foreign Operations, played a key role in supporting the funding as appropriators drafted the legislation.

In a parallel effort, a full 25% of the U.S. Senate signed a bi-partisan letter to appropriators in support of Israeli-Palestinian coexistence funding, led by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE), and Sen. John Sununu (R-NH).

[Tom Joad]

33. so you think Israel was "forced" to bar humanitarian aid, and is obligated

by international law to make sure it gets through. hmmmm. you running for office?

[LeftishBrit]

34. I have said several times already that I do NOT think so..

and that the use of the word 'forced' was unfortunate.

Nevertheless, I do support condemning rocket attacks. No one is forced to fire rockets, either.

And I'm not running for office; and if I were, I probably wouldn't get very far by condemning violence by everyone on all sides. It doesn't seem to be a very popular view, unfortunately.

[Tom Joad]

36. I really have no problem with Obama's condemning the Qassams

but his support of a war crime, withholding humanitarian aid is despicable, and all so common in the US congress.
He is also supporting the continued occupation of Iraq. Another crime against humanity.

but hey, obama is a politician, not a human rights supporter, not an anti-war activist, not a justice advocate. He does well advocating the positions corporate america is comfortable with.

change that looks just like the status quo.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

32. The Magnes Zionist has an interesting take on Obama:

http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-i-still-support-obama.html