Canada: Harper Ignores First Nations Chief Theresa Spence on hunger strike

Hunger-striking chief calls for action amidst health concerns

Time for Harper to ‘show some leadership and to extend a hand,’ NDP says

Aleksandra Sagan, CBC News

Dec 30, 2012

On First Nations Chief Theresa Spence’s 20th day of her politically motivated hunger strike, Canadians and politicians answered her plea for solidarity for her cause to secure a meeting between First Nations leaders, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and the Governor General.

The Attawapiskat chief sent Friday a public plea to make Sunday a day of solidarity, asking Canadians to stage protests across the country and petitioning politicians to meet with her in Ottawa, both at 2 p.m.

A number of politicians are starting to make the trek to Victoria Island, Ottawa, where the chief is residing in a teepee, including a 15-member NDP delegation, spokeswoman Valérie Dufour told CBC News.

Originally, 17 NDP MPs were expected, Cheryl Maloney, who self-identified as a Spence supporter and is the president of the Nova Scotia Native Women’s Association, told CBC News. However, two expected MPs experienced weather-related delays.

NDP sends MPs to meet with chief

The group, which will visit the chief at 2 p.m. Sunday, will be led by deputy leader Megan Leslie and Timmins-James Bay MP Charlie Angus.

Chief Spence’s expected visitors:

  • Carolyn Bennett, Liberal MP, Aboriginal Affairs critic.
  • Marc Garneau, Liberal MP.
  • Megan Leslie, NDP MP
  • Charlie Angus, NDP MP.
  • Robert Chisholm, NDP MP.
  • Hoang Mai, NDP MP.
  • Andrew Cash, NDP MP.
  • Dan Harris, NDP MP.
  • Raymond Côté, NDP MP.
  • Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP MP.
  • François Lapointe, NDP MP.
  • Craig Scott, NDP MP.
  • Paul Dewar, NDP MP.
  • Hélène Laverdière, NDP MP.
  • Jamie Nicholls, NDP MP.
  • Mathieu Ravignat, NDP MP.
  • Wayne Marston, NDP MP.
  • Denis Blanchette, NDP MP.
  • Carol Hughes, NDP MP.
  • Senator Lillian Dyck, Liberal.
  • Senator Jim Munson, Liberal.
  • Senator, Mac Harb, Liberal

The NDP has been following Spence’s hunger strike very closely, Dufour said. Since the chief started her hunger strike on Dec. 11, she has subsisted on fish broth and tea. Her condition has been worsening, according to a statement released Friday.

“Her condition continues to weaken every hour,” read the statement.

On Dec. 18, party leader Thomas Mulcair wrote a letter to Harper asking him to meet with Spence.”Please act swiftly to avoid a personal tragedy for Chief Spence,” he wrote.

Now, 20 days into Spence’s hunger strike, the NDP is “beginning to be very worried,” said Dufour. “It’s dangerous for her…We’re all a bit afraid because she said she’s even willing to die for it.”

Dufour said Harper should meet with First Nations leaders as soon as possible because it is the only way to settle the matter, adding that Spence isn’t asking for much by requesting a meeting with the prime minister.

“Now it’s time for Stephen Harper to show some leadership and to extend a hand and to meet with the leader,” she said.

Spence supporter Maloney, who forwarded the chief’s latest statement, said she was not authorized to speak about Spence’s condition. She said it is getting harder for the chief to host visitors and conduct interviews. The chief has been resting to prepare for Sunday’s guests, which includes 15 NDP MPs, two Liberal MPs and three Liberal senators.

“[We] haven’t heard anything from any Conservatives at all,” she said.

Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan has offered several times to speak with Spence and form a working group, but she rejected his proposals because she believes he is not the one who should be speaking on a nation-to-nation basis.

Federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, an Inuk who is one of two aboriginal MPs in the Conservative cabinet, urged Spence to stop fasting and accept a meeting with Duncan. “That’s the best way to address her issues,” Aglukkaq said.

Spence chose to continue her fast, hoping to secure a meeting with Harper and the Governor General instead.

Former PM visits Spence

On Saturday afternoon, former prime minister Joe Clark visited Spence, following her open invitation.

In a statement after his meeting, Clark said that “there is a general concern that First Nations–Canada relations are headed in a dangerous direction.”

‘First Nations – Canada relations are headed in a dangerous direction’—Joe Clark, former prime minister

People no longer active in political life may have to help support “the resumption of productive discussions,” he said.

“Chief Spence expressed a humble and achievable vision — one which I believe all Canadians can embrace,” he said, adding honest dialogue and mutual commitment can carry-out her vision.

Idle No More rallies staged across Canada

Meanwhile, Canadians are holding rallies in a show of support for the chief.

At least half a dozen events are planned for Sunday across Canada, said CBC’s Shannon Martin.

The Idle No More movement — which has hosted several demonstrations in past weeks and is loosely tied to Spence’s protest — staged a rally in Toronto, Ont., in response to the chief’s call for action. Participants gathered near the Eaton Centre for a “round dance flash mob,” according to the Toronto chapter’s Twitter account.

In Alberta, about 400 protesters gathered outside Harper’s Calgary office, reported CBC’s Devin Heroux. People performed a round dance, carried signs and played drums as part of an Idle No More flash mob.

Various rallies and demonstrations supporting Spence also took place yesterday in Oklahoma, Washington, Cincinnati, and Regina — where a four-day hunger strike is underway, said Martin. Source

Go to Above Source for Video as well.

Canada | Arrange meeting requested by Chief Spence, Lawyers Rights Watch Canada tells PM December 29, 2012

Idle No More is a movement to assert indigenous sovereignty, and to work towards sustainable, renewable development. The movement began in response to Canadian Bill C-45, the government’s omnibus budget implementation bill, that includes changes to land management on reservations which critics feel would enable Canada to control reserves. Along with other areas limiting the control of First Nations in their own territories. For entire Story go HERE

Idle No More Website

The following editorial was originally featured in the First Nations Strategic Bulletin (FNSB), June-October 2012. You can view/download this latest edition of the FNSB by clicking the following link: FNSB June-October 2012

On September 4th the Harper government clearly signaled its intention to:

1) Focus all its efforts to assimilate First Nations into the existing federal and provincial orders of government of Canada;

2) Terminate the constitutionally protected and internationally recognized Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights of First Nations.

Termination in this context means the ending of First Nations pre-existing sovereign status through federal coercion of First Nations into Land Claims and Self-Government Final Agreements that convert First Nations into municipalities, their reserves into fee simple lands and extinguishment of their Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty Rights.

To do this the Harper government announced three new policy measures:

  • A “results based” approach to negotiating Modern Treaties and Self-Government Agreements. This is an assessment process of 93 negotiation tables across Canada to determine who will and who won’t agree to terminate Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights under the terms of Canada’s Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies. For those tables who won’t agree, negotiations will end as the federal government withdraws from the table and takes funding with them.
  • First Nation regional and national political organizations will have their core funding cut and capped. For regional First Nation political organizations the core funding will be capped at $500,000 annually. For some regional organizations this will result in a funding cut of $1 million or more annually. This will restrict the ability of Chiefs and Executives of Provincial Territorial  organization’s to organize and/or advocate for First Nations rights and interests.
  • First Nation Band and Tribal Council funding for advisory services will be eliminated over the next two years further crippling the ability of Chiefs and Councils and Tribal Council executives to analyze and assess the impacts of federal and provincial policies and legislation on Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

These three new policy measures are on top of the following unilateral federal legislation the Harper government is imposing over First Nations:

Then there are the Senate Public Bills:

  • Bill S-207: An Act to amend the Interpretation Act (non derogation of aboriginal and treaty rights)
  •  Bill S-212: First Nations Self-Government Recognition Bill

The Harper government’s Bills listed above are designed to undermine the collective rights of First Nations by focusing on individual rights. This is the “modern legislative framework” the Conservatives promised in 2006. The 2006 Conservative Platform promised to:

Replace the Indian Act (and related legislation) with a modern legislative framework which provides for the devolution of full legal and democratic responsibility to aboriginal Canadians for their own affairs within the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Of course “modern” in Conservative terms means assimilation of First Nations by termination of their collective rights and off-loading federal responsibilities onto the First Nations themselves and the provinces.

One Bill that hasn’t been introduced into Parliament yet, but is still expected, is the First Nations’ Private Ownership Act (FNPOA). This private property concept for Indian Reserves—which has been peddled by the likes of Tom Flanagan and tax proponent and former Kamloops Chief Manny Jules—is also a core plank of the Harper government’s 2006 electoral platform.

The 2006 Conservative Aboriginal Platform promised that if elected a Harper government would:

Support the development of individual property ownership on reserves, to encourage lending for private housing and businesses.

The long-term goals set out in the Harper government’s policy and legislative initiatives listed above are not new; they are at least as old as the Indian Act and were articulated in the federal 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy, which set out a plan to terminate Indian rights as the time.

Previous Termination Plans: 1969 White Paper & Buffalo Jump of 1980’s

The objectives of the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy were to:

  • Assimilate First Nations.
  • Remove legislative recognition.
  • Neutralize constitutional status.
  • Impose taxation.
  • Encourage provincial encroachment.
  • Eliminate Reserve lands & extinguish Aboriginal Title.
  • Economically underdevelop communities.
  • Dismantle Treaties.

As First Nations galvanized across Canada to fight the Trudeau Liberal government’s proposed 1969 termination policy the federal government was forced to consider a strategy on how to calm the Indian storm of protest.

In a memo dated April 1, 1970, David Munro, an Assistant Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs on Indian Consultation and Negotiations, advised his political masters Jean Chrétien and Pierre Trudeau, as follows:

. . . in our definition of objectives and goals, not only as they appear in formal documents, but also as stated or even implied in informal memoranda, draft planning papers, or causal conversation. We must stop talking about having the objective or goal of phasing out in five years. . . We can still believe with just as much strength and sincerity that the [White Paper] policies we propose are the right ones. . .

The final [White Paper] proposal, which is for the elimination of special status in legislation, must be relegated far into the future. . . my conclusion is that we need not change the [White Paper] policy content, but we should put varying degrees of emphasis on its several components and we should try to discuss it in terms of its components rather than as a whole. . . we should adopt somewhat different tactics in relation to [the White Paper] policy, but that we should not depart from its essential content. (Emphasis added)

In the early 1970’s, the Trudeau Liberal government did back down publicly on implementing the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy, but as we can see from Mr. Munro’s advice the federal bureaucracy changed the timeline from five years to a long-term implementation of the 1969 White Paper objectives of assimilation/termination.

In the mid-1980’s the Mulroney Conservative government resurrected the elements of the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy, through a Cabinet memo.

In 1985, a secret federal Cabinet submission was leaked to the media by a DIAND employee. The Report was nicknamed the “Buffalo Jump of the 1980’s” by another federal official. The nickname referred to the effect of the recommendations in the secret Cabinet document, which if adopted, would lead Status Indians to a cultural death — hence the metaphor.

The Buffalo Jump Report proposed a management approach for First Nations policy and
programs, which had the following intent:

  • Limiting & eventually terminating the federal trust obligations;
  • Reducing federal expenditures for First Nations, under funding programs, and prohibiting deficit financing;
  • Shifting responsibility and costs for First Nations services to provinces and “advanced bands” through co-management, tri-partite, and community self-government agreements;
  • “Downsizing” of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) through a devolution of program administration to “advanced bands” and transfer of programs to other federal departments;
  • Negotiating municipal community self-government agreements with First Nations which would result in the First Nation government giving up their Constitutional status as a sovereign government and becoming a municipality subject to provincial or territorial laws;
  • Extinguishing aboriginal title and rights in exchange for fee simple title under provincial or territorial law while giving the province or territory underlying title to First Nations lands.

The Mulroney government’s “Buffalo Jump” plan was temporarily derailed due the 1990 “Oka Crisis”. Mulroney responded to the “Oka Crisis” with his “Four Pillars” of Native Policy:

  • Accelerating the settlement of land claims;
  • Improving the economic and social conditions on Reserves;
  • Strengthening the relationships between Aboriginal Peoples and governments;
  • Examining the concerns of Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples in contemporary Canadian life.

In 1991, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney also announced the establishment of a Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which began its work later that year; the establishment of an Indian Claims Commission to review Specific Claims; the establishment of a BC Task Force on Claims, which would form the basis for the BC Treaty Commission Process.

In 1992, Aboriginal organizations and the federal government agreed, as part of the 1992 Charlottetown Accord, on amendments to the Constitution Act, 1982 that would have included recognition of the inherent right of self-government for Aboriginal people. For the first time, Aboriginal organizations had been full participants in the talks; however, the Accord was rejected in a national referendum.

With the failure of Canadian constitutional reform in 1992, for the last twenty years, the federal government—whether Liberal or Conservative—has continued to develop policies and legislation based upon the White Paper/Buffalo Jump objectives and many First Nations have regrettably agreed to compromise their constitutional/international rights by negotiating under Canada’s termination policies.

Canada’s Termination Policies Legitimized by Negotiation Tables

It has been thirty years since Aboriginal and Treaty rights have been “recognized and affirmed” in section 35 of Canada’s constitution. Why hasn’t the constitutional protection for First Nations’ Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights been implemented on the ground?

One answer to this question is, following the failure of the First Ministers’ Conferences on Aboriginal Matters in the 1980’s, many First Nations agreed to compromise their section 35 Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights by entering into or negotiating Modern Treaties and/or Self-government Agreements under Canada’s unilateral negotiation terms.

These Modern Treaties and Self-Government Agreements not only contribute to emptying out section 35 of Canada’s constitution of any significant legal, political or economic meaning. Final settlement agreements are then used as precedents against other First Nations’ who are negotiating.

Moreover, Canada’s Land Claims and Self-Government policies are far below the international standards set out in the Articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Canada publicly endorsed the UNDRIP in November 2010, but obviously Canada’s interpretation of the UNDRIP is different than that of most First Nations, considering their unilateral legislation and policy approach.

Canada’s voted against UNDRIP on Sept. 13, 2007, stating that the UNDRIP was inconsistent with Canada’s domestic policies, especially the Articles dealing with Indigenous Peoples’ Self-Determination, Land Rights and Free, Prior Informed Consent.

Canada’s position on UNDRIP now is that they can interpret it as they please, although the principles in UNDRIP form part of international not domestic law.

The federal strategy is to maintain the Indian Act (with amendments) as the main federal law to control and manage First Nations. The only way out of the Indian Act for First Nations is to negotiate an agreement under Canada’s one-sided Land Claims and/or Self-Government policies. These Land Claims/Self-Government Agreements all require the termination of Indigenous rights for some land, cash and delegated jurisdiction under the existing federal and provincial orders of government.

Canada has deemed that it will not recognize the pre-existing sovereignty of First Nations or allow for a distinct First Nations order of government based upon section 35 of Canada’s constitution.

Through blackmail, bribery or force, Canada is using the poverty of First Nations to obtain concessions from First Nations who want out of the Indian Act by way of Land Claims/Self- Government Agreements. All of these Agreements conform to Canada’s interpretation of section 35 of Canada’s constitution, which is to legally, politically and economically convert First Nations into what are essentially ethnic municipalities.

The first groups in Canada who have agreed to compromise their section 35 Inherent and Aboriginal rights through Modern Treaties have created an organization called the Land Claims Agreement Coalition. The Coalition Members are:

  • Council of Yukon First Nations (representing 9 land claim organizations in the Yukon)
  • Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)
  • Gwich’in Tribal Council
  • Inuvialuit Regional Corporation
  • Kwanlin Dun First Nation
  • Maa-nulth First Nations
  • Makivik Corporation
  • Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach
  • Nisga’a Nation
  • Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
  • Nunatsiavut Government
  • Sahtu Secretariat Inc.
  • Tlicho Government
  • Tsawwassen First Nation
  • Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation

The Land Claims Agreement Coalition Members came together because the federal government wasn’t properly implementing any of their Modern Treaties. So the Coalition essentially became a lobby group to collectively pressure the federal government to respect their Modern Treaties. According to Members of the Coalition Modern Treaty implementation problems persist today.

The fact that Canada has already broken the Modern Treaties shouldn’t inspire confidence for those First Nations who are already lined up at Canada’s Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government negotiation tables.

According to the federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs there are 93 Modern Treaty and/or Self-Government negotiation tables across Canada [http://www.aadncaandc.gc.ca/eng/1346782327802/1346782485058].

Those First Nations who are negotiating at these 93 tables are being used by the federal government (and the provinces/Territories) to legitimize its Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies, which are based upon extinguishment of Aboriginal Title and termination of Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights.

The First Nations who have been refusing to negotiate and are resisting the federal Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government negotiating policies are routinely ignored by the federal government and kept under control and managed through the Indian Act (with amendments).

Attempts by non-negotiating First Nations to reform the federal Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies aren’t taken seriously by the federal government because there are so many First Nations who have already compromised their Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty rights by agreeing to negotiate under the terms and funding conditions of these Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies.

For example, following the 1997 Supreme Court of Canada Delgamuukw decision, which recognized that Aboriginal Title exists in Canada, the Assembly of First Nations tried to reform the Comprehensive Claims policy to be consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada Delgamuukw decision.

However, the then Minister of Indian Affairs, Robert Nault on December 22, 2000, wrote a letter addressed to then Chief Arthur Manuel that essentially said why should the federal government change the Comprehensive Claims policy if First Nations are prepared to negotiate under it as it is?

A fair question: why do First Nations remain at negotiation tables that ultimately lead to the termination of their peoples Inherent and Aboriginal rights, especially since it appears that Modern Treaties are routinely broken after they are signed by the federal government?

Many of these negotiations are in British Columbia where despite the past twenty years of negotiations the B.C. Treaty process has produced two small Modern Treaties, Tsawwassan and Maa’Nulth. The Nisga’a Treaty was concluded in 2000, outside of the B.C. Treaty process.

All of these Modern Treaties have resulted in extinguishing Aboriginal Title, converting reserve lands into fee simple, removing tax exemptions, converting bands into municipalities, among other impacts on Inherent and Aboriginal rights.

The Harper Government’s Termination Plan

Aside from the unilateral legislation being imposed, or the funding cuts and caps to First Nation’s and their political organizations, the September 4, 2012, announcement of a “results based” approach to Modern Treaties and Self-Government negotiations amounts to a “take it or leave it” declaration on the part of the Harper government to the negotiating First Nations.

Canada’s Comprehensive Claims Policy requires First Nations to borrow money from the federal government to negotiate their “land claims”. According to the federal government:

To date, the total of outstanding loans to Aboriginal groups from Canada to support their participation in negotiations is $711 million. This represents a significant financial liability for the Aboriginal community. In addition, the government of Canada provides $60 million in grants and contributions to Aboriginal groups every year for negotiations.

It is Canada’s policies that forced First Nations to borrow money to negotiate their “claims”, so the “financial liability” was a policy measure designed by the federal government to pressure First Nations into settling their “claims” faster. As the federal government puts it, the Comprehensive Claims negotiation process has instead “spawned a negotiation industry that has no incentive to reach agreement.”

This accumulated debt of $711 million along with the $60 million annual in grants and contributions have compromised those negotiating First Nations and their leaders to the point that they are unable or unwilling to seriously confront the Harper government’s termination plan.

Over 50% of the Comprehensive Claims are located in B.C. and the First Nations Summit represents the negotiating First Nations in B.C., although some negotiating First Nations have now joined the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs (UBCIC), thus blurring the historic distinctions between to two political organizations. The latter organization previously vigorously opposed the B.C. Treaty process, but now the UBCIC remains largely silent about it.

These two main political organizations — the First Nations Summit and the UBCIC — have now joined together into the B.C. First Nations Leadership Council, further blending the rights and interests of their respective member communities together, not taking into account whether they are in or out of the B.C. Treaty process.

This may partially explain why the Chiefs who are not in the B.C. Treaty process also remain largely silent about the Harper government’s “results based’ approach to Modern Treaties and Self-Government negotiations.

First Nations in British Columbia are failing to capitalize on that fact, that since the Delgamuukw Decision, the governments have to list unresolved land claims and litigation as a contingent liability. Such liabilities can affect Canada’s sovereign credit rating and provincial credit ratings. To counter this outstanding liability, Canada points to the British Columbia Treaty Process as the avenue how they are dealing with this liability, pointing to the fact that First Nations are borrowing substantive amounts to negotiate with the governments.

Another recent example of how disconnected B.C. First Nations and their organizations are on international versus domestic policy and law, is the First Nations’ outcry over the recent Canada-China Treaty.

The B.C. Chiefs and their organizations are publicly denouncing the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement as adversely impacting on Aboriginal Title and Rights, yet they say or do nothing about Harper’s accelerated termination plan. It seems the negotiating First Nations are more worried about the Canada-China Treaty blocking a future land claims deal under the B.C. Treaty process.

The Chiefs and their organizations at the B.C. Treaty process negotiation tables have had twenty years to negotiate the “recognition and affirmation” of Aboriginal Title and Rights, but this continues to be impossible under Canada’s policies aiming at the extinguishment of collective rights. As a result only two extinguishment Treaties have resulted from the process. Even Sophie Pierre, Chair of the B.C. Treaty Commission has said “If we can’t do it, it’s about time we faced the obvious – I guess we don’t have it, so shut her down”.

By most accounts the twenty year old B.C. Treaty process has been a failure. It has served the governments’ purpose of countering their contingent liabilities regarding Indigenous land rights. Yet it seems the negotiating First Nations are so compromised by their federal loans and dependent on the negotiations funding stream that they are unable or unwilling to withdraw from the tables en masse and make real on the demand that the Harper government reform its Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies to be consistent with the Articles of the UNDRIP.

The same can also be said for the negotiating First Nations in the Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic regions.

The Chiefs who are not in the B.C., Quebec or Atlantic negotiating processes have not responded much, if at all, to Harper’s “results based” approach to Modern Treaties and Self-Government. The non-negotiating Chiefs seem to be more interested in managing programs and services issues than their Aboriginal Title and Rights. As one federal official put it, the Chiefs are involved in the elements of the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy like economic and social development while ignoring the main White Paper objective—termination of First Nations legal status.

Conclusion

Given their silence over the Harper government’s “results based” “take it or leave it” negotiations approach, it seems many of the negotiating First Nations at the Comprehensive Claims and/or Self-Government tables are still contemplating concluding Agreements under Canada’s termination policies.

This can only lead to further division among First Nations across Canada as more First Nations compromise their constitutional and international rights by consenting to final settlement agreements under the terms and conditions of Canada’s termination policies, while undermining the political positions of the non-negotiating First Nations.

In the meantime, Harper’s government will continue pawning off Indigenous lands and resources in the midst of a financial crisis though free trade and foreign investment protection agreements, which will secure foreign corporate access to lands and resources and undermine Indigenous Rights.

Some First Nation leaders and members have criticised AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo for agreeing to a joint approach with the Harper government, including the Crown-First Nations Gathering (CFNG), but to be fair, the Chiefs across Canada did nothing to pressure Prime Minister Harper going into the CFNG. Instead, many Chiefs used the occasion as a photo op posing with the Prime Minister.

The negotiating First Nations who are in joint processes with Canada seem to be collectively heading to the cliff of the “Buffalo Jump” as they enter termination agreements with Canada emptying out section 35 in the process.

Much of the criticism of AFN National Chief Atleo has come from the Prairie Treaty Chiefs. Interestingly, if one looks at the federal chart of the 93 negotiation tables [http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1346782327802/1346782485058] not too many First Nations from historic Treaty areas are involved in the Self-Government tables, except for the Ontario region where the Union of Ontario Indians and Nisnawbe-Aski Nation are negotiating Self-Government agreements.

As a result of the September 4, 2012 announcements regarding changes to Modern Treaties and Self-Government negotiations, cuts and caps to funding First Nations political organizations and unilateral legislation initiatives, it is obvious that Prime Minister Harper has tricked the AFN National Chief and First Nations by showing that the CFNGoutcomes” were largely meaningless.

One commitment that Prime Minister Harper made at the CFNG—which he will probably keep—Is making a progress report in January 2013. The Prime Minister will probably announce the progress being made with all of the negotiating tables across Canada, along with his legislative initiatives.

It appears First Nations are at the proverbial “end of the trail” as the Chiefs seem to be either co-opted or afraid to challenge the Harper government. Most grassroots peoples aren’t even fully informed about the dangerous situation facing them and their future generations.

The only way to counter the Harper government is to:

  • have all negotiating First Nations suspend their talks; and
  • organize coordinated National Days of Action to register First Nations opposition to the Harper government’s termination plan;
  • Demand Canada suspend all First Nations legislation in Parliament, cease introducing new Bills and
  • Change Canada’s Land Claims and Self-Government Policies to “recognize and affirm” the Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty Rights of First Nations, including respect and implementation of the Historic Treaties.

If there is no organized protest and resistance to the Harper government’s termination plan, First Nations should accept their place at the bottom of all social, cultural and economic indicators in Canada, just buy into Harper’s jobs and economic action plan—and be quiet about their rights. Source

From 2011 First Nations people again were ignored until the media got involved.

Canada: Attawapiskat Citizens In Desperate Need of Housing -Some are Living in Tents

Here are a couple of videos on Idle No More

Probably not seen on the News

Seems the Canadian press did not do so well in reporting these protests. There are more then the two below that took place across Canada. Check Youtube for more coverage. Or other world media.

Other wise you may not get all the facts. Even Al Jazeera covered the protests.  Indigenous groups protest across Canada

#idlenomore Winnipeg

Idle no more Saskatoon!

Well at least some are covering the hunger strike. Bless their hearts.

From Common Dreams Story and Videos at below link

Canada’s ‘Idle No More’ Movement Spreads Like Wildfire Chief Theresa Spence on 14th day of hunger strike – Craig Brown, staff writer

Seems stopping a few trains will get a bit of attention. Watch all the videos. You will discover Canada’s water will no longer be protected. All Canadians should be concerned. The bill puts about 99 percent of Canada’s water at risk. Stand behind the Canadian First Nations, they are helping protect Canada’s water, not just their own concerns. Get educated before you condemn them. This is a Canadian thing.

Mean while Harper remains silent. As par usual.

I am guessing Harper missed this report or like Chief Spence, is  just ignored it. Ignoring people will not make it go away.

UN food envoy blasts inequality, poverty in Canada Published on Wednesday May 16, 2012

Harper is ignoring the people he is representing. He is ignoring the fact that poverty is killing people.

One must ask themselves, is Harper is a fit leader for Canada?

Ignoring ones own people is a crime against said people.

So is Harper going to follow Germany’s lead. Throwing the poor out of the country.  Link below. Be sure to check it out.  Canada is following their lead with all the privatization.

I am discussed by all of this. For two so called fist world nations they are both appalling. No excuse for either or.

Seems to me the people of your countries should come first and fore-most.

No real leadership in Germany nor is there any in Canada. Both brag of how wealthy they are and yet both treat their citizens like yesterdays garbage.

Both leaders think they have the right to tell others what to do and yet either or cannot even keep the people of their own countries safe.

As first world countries both are failures.

Both should look into their own back yards and clean up the mess.

Getting old in Germany is now a nightmare.
Germany ‘exporting’ old and sick to foreign care homes

People are not trash to be thrown out.

Harper’s running record is sad to begin with.

Here are just a few things he has done to Canadians. Not all just a few.

The above is just one more in Harper’s Glass manajorie.

“Canada”Trouble in Toryland: their Dirty Tricks catalogue

“Canada”Trouble in Toryland: their Dirty Tricks catalogue Part Two

“Canada”Trouble in Toryland: their Dirty Tricks catalogue Part Three

Published in: on December 31, 2012 at 3:03 pm  Comments Off on Canada: Harper Ignores First Nations Chief Theresa Spence on hunger strike  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

GLENN BECK: Interview with Benjamin Netanyahu

Glenn Beck

Interview with Benjamin Netanyahu

Aired November 17, 2006

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GLENN BECK, HOST (voice-over): Benjamin Netanyahu, elected prime minister in Israel in May 1996 in Israel’s first direct election. As prime minister, he combined fighting terror with the advancement of the peace process. Through his three-year term, the number of terror attacks drastically decreased.

In the U.S., he’s been credited for his central role in changing American policies on international terrorism. Now, he’s come out with a bold, new statement: urging the world to pay attention to Iran and warning we could be facing World War III.

Powerful, influential, and frighteningly honest, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tonight faces honest questions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Welcome to the program. On Fridays, this show breaks every rule. Well, it kind of does that all week. We spend an hour talking about one person, one thing, one item. This week, the focus of our program has been our special, which was on Islamic extremism. We wanted to spend an hour with a gentleman who knows it extraordinarily well, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Hello. Welcome, sir.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, FMR. ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Hello. Good to be with you.

BECK: This program and this particular hour, we spend time asking just sometimes I think politically incorrect questions. I’m a regular American shmoe that quite honestly, right before 9/11 — and I don’t mean any offense, sir — but Israel and the Palestinians, everybody who’s been arguing for so long, as a typical American before 9/11, I was like, “Oh, you know what? Just set it out — you can all just fall into the middle of the sea and it doesn’t matter to me, because you’re always fighting.”

Now 9/11 happened. I thought, “Gee, maybe I should pay attention to this.” And many Americans did and saw, “Wait a minute. There’s trouble.” But now that’s changing even more, and you said something in Los Angeles that I’m so grateful that somebody’s finally saying, that this is World War III, this is Germany 1938.

Could you explain that?

NETANYAHU: Iran is Germany, and it’s 1938, except that this Nazi regime that is in Iran, that’s a religious kind of fanaticism, but it wants to dominate the world, annihilate the Jews, but also annihilate America. Remember, we’re the small Satan. You’re the big Satan.

BECK: Right.

NETANYAHU: We’re just the first way station en route to you. So there is this fundament fanaticism that is there. It’s a messianic cult. It’s a religious messianic cult that believes in the Apocalypse, and they believe they have to expedite the Apocalypse to bring the collapse of the West.

BECK: See, nobody is saying — why isn’t George Bush saying this? Why is it nut jobs like me who is saying this? Why isn’t the media bringing this stuff out?

NETANYAHU: Well, I think they’re getting around to it, but it has to be explained. And that’s why I appreciate the opportunity to say it. But if I had to offer an analogy — you know, Glenn, I was looking for an analogy to try to explain to Americans what it is that is so dangerous about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. You remember those crazy people in Waco, Texas?

BECK: Yes, David Koresh.

NETANYAHU: David Koresh?

BECK: Yes.

NETANYAHU: So imagine David Koresh with nuclear weapons. Imagine David Koresh, not with hundreds of followers, but millions of followers, with nuclear weapons, wanting to obliterate America, wanting to obliterate America’s allies, wanting to take over the world’s oil supply.

If the lunatics escape from the asylum, that’s one thing. But if they can get their hands on a nuclear weapon, that’s another. And this is that kind of cult. It’s the cult of the Mahdi, a holy man that disappeared a thousand years ago. And the president of Iran believes that he’s supposed to — he was put here on Earth to bring this holy man back in a great religious war between the true Muslim believers and the infidels. And millions will die in this Apocalypse, and the Muslim believers will go to heaven.

That’s dangerous, if they have nuclear weapons to realize this fantasy. And that is where the world is coming to. Now, people said that of Hitler in the 1930s. They said this man has a mad ideology, very fanatic, very dangerous, and if he gets his hands on a military power, he would use it. Hitler did use it, but Hitler developed atomic weapons, tried to develop them only after embarking on the world conflict.

Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, is first trying to develop nuclear weapons and then going about his mad fantasy of global conflict. So he has to be stopped. I think when you have something as fanatic and as dangerous as this, the question now is not whether he should be stopped, but how’s he going to be stopped?

BECK: I was in the Holocaust Memorial in Washington, D.C., and one of the more powerful rooms for me was the room where they have all of the newspapers up on the wall and all of the headlines. And to me, what stuck out was, Hitler was very clear, very clear. Basically, he was saying, “Take the Jews before I kill them.” And everybody was in denial.

Now, let me play devil’s advocate with you. We’ve heard nut jobs, especially in Iran, for a very long time. What makes you say we should take this nut job at his word? Why is this guy different than what we have seen with religious fanatics that are really only interested in power and not interested in the Apocalypse?

NETANYAHU: Well, I was getting this question in the 1990s, and I said that the West really doesn’t understand militant Islam. So I wrote a book in 1995, and I said that, if the West doesn’t wake up to the suicidal nature of militant Islam, the next thing you will see is militant Islam is bringing down the World Trade Center.

Other nut ideologies don’t do that, but militant Muslims do, and they are competing. They have two strains: the Sunni type, led by Al Qaeda, who have done the World Trade Center; the Shia types, led by Iran, who want to top that by having nuclear weapons with which they can dominate the world, ultimately bring down America.

We’re merely the first target. They hate us because we’re you, and we’re the first station, in the Middle East. They hate Israel because it represents America. They don’t hate America because of Israel, because we’re part and parcel of that same free, to their minds, hated hedonistic civilization.

BECK: Right.

NETANYAHU: So I think the real problem is: Do we let this fanatic regime, this messianic cult of the Apocalypse, get their hands on atomic weapons? I think it’s folly.

And I don’t think it’s just an Israeli question any more so than Hitler was just a Jewish question. Hitler started with the annihilation of the Jews, but pretty quickly moved on to threaten the entire world. And America woke up late, after 6 million Jews died.

But in our case, you know, we don’t have to wake up dead in order for people to realize that he threatens America. We want to both defend ourselves, defend the Jewish state, certainly, but also defend America and free civilization against people who would extinguish our freedoms and our lives.

BECK: I am amazed at the parallels of World War II, just it is incredible, all the way down — you hear people say all the time, “Well, it’s the Jews. It’s Israel. They’re causing the problem. They’ve done all these horrible things, yadda, yadda, yadda,” just as though Hitler used the Europeans and saying, “Well, it’s the Versailles treaty, and it’s this, and it’s that.” That was a mask to bring in the real point of Hitler.

NETANYAHU: Well, let me ask you a question, you know, because people really don’t get this. Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, and the cult that he represents, they couldn’t care less if we made a deal with the Palestinians or we didn’t. As far as they’re concerned, the only deal possible is the elimination of Israel. And even that would merely remove an obstacle on the way to Europe and on the way to the United States. Israel could disappear, and it wouldn’t make a difference.

BECK: So…

NETANYAHU: Because they’re out to get you; they’re not out to get us. We’re simply standing in their way. They’re not interested in Israel, per se. They’re interested in bringing down Western civilization, led by the United States. That’s why you’re the great Satan, and we’re just the little Satan.

BECK: Tell me what the world looks like if we don’t act.

NETANYAHU: If you don’t act, it means that it will be the first time in the history of the world that a totally unstable, globally mad regime will have atomic bombs and the means to deliver them.

This means, a, that they will dominate the Middle East very quickly. They will make the Persian Gulf an Iranian pond. They will control the world’s oil supply. And they will probably use the weapons, first against my country, and then to intimidate or threaten Europe. They want to control the world.

Now, eventually, they’ll be brought down. How many millions will have to die for that? How many cities will be wiped out before the Western world and civilization realizes that this is not a local problem, that this is their problem, that it’s directed against them, directed against you?

BECK: OK. When we come back — we have to take a break — but when we come back, I want you to answer my father’s question. My father told me on the phone a couple of weeks ago, “You know what? We’re the United States of America. Nobody can defeat us. Stop. It’s not that big of a problem.”

And the second thing I want you to address is, how long do we have before we are right on the front lines?

Back with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Back with a full hour with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, about the situation we’ve been talking about all week. Before we broke, I told you that I was on the phone with my father, and he says, “You know, you’re talking about this scary stuff. Glenn, we’re the United States of America. Nobody can come in here and destroy us.” And I said, “Dad, if people don’t wake up, that’s exactly what’s going to happen.”

Please convince my father and others like him that that is a possibility.

NETANYAHU: What your father says is absolutely true in the case of deterrable powers. The Soviet Union had enough firepower to destroy the United States, but they realized that you would destroy them, so they were deterred. They were not suicidal.

But militant Islam is suicidal. They often put their zealotry, their ideology above their survival. That’s why you didn’t have any Communist suicide bombers, but militant Islam produces hordes of them, battalions, and they smash into buildings in New York.

Now, do you doubt that if, for example, Al Qaeda had nuclear weapons, this city would not exist today?

BECK: Oh, it would be gone.

NETANYAHU: Where does your father live?

BECK: Seattle.

NETANYAHU: No, that’s far away, but they could get there, too, right? And Seattle could disappear, because they’re not deterrable. That’s the whole point.

If they were a normal power, a normal regime, without this crazy messianic cult of death, the idea that millions have to die in order for their particular Islamic messiah to come, millions have to die, and the sooner the better, in their view, because they have this cult, that’s what makes them so dangerous, if they acquire nuclear weapons to realize it. So your father is right if you were dealing with the Soviet Union…

BECK: Sure.

NETANYAHU: … or with Russia, or with China, or with India. None of the powers that have nuclear powers today have this zealotry, this mad ideology, but Iran does. So if Iran acquires it, and they think that you are their worst nemesis, we’re just an underling, we’re just your subordinate, we happen to be a small Satan, a small appendage of America.

But their goal is to reverse a thousand years of history. The rise of the West, the rise of America. This was the mistake of history that has to be corrected through this Apocalypse. Don’t wait for them to realize this; don’t let this David Koresh in Tehran get his hands on atomic weapons so he can test out his theories on us or on you.

BECK: OK. I had a conversation with Rush Limbaugh this week. And when you’re on his program, you don’t usually disagree with him, because he’s a pretty bright man. And he said, “Glen, I think this is coming, and I think we’ve got — and the world is going to change within the next 15 years.” And I said, “I hate to disagree with you, but I think we may have three.” How long do we have before it is just too late to wake up?

NETANYAHU: There are different estimates, but they all hover between the two- to four-, five-year range, and we may be wrong. We were wrong about North Korea. And it turned out that they could get…

BECK: But North Korea, when you say North Korea, you know, North Korea, we said it’s unacceptable for North Korea to have nuclear weapons. I think when you — you know, we saw those pictures of that mountain where they tested. I think, when we see the ground rise up in Iran, I think when you see that they’ve successfully tested a nuclear weapon, I don’t think they say, “Hey, well, I’m going to wait for the U.N. to tell us” — I think they make a call to us and say, “Get all of your stuff and get out of the Middle East,” and then game on.

NETANYAHU: Yes. And, well, they’ll go a lot further than that, I can tell you.

BECK: Well, yes.

NETANYAHU: How long will it take? The estimates could be wrong. I was referring to the fact that people thought that North Korea would take longer to produce a device, first device. And here, we think — we don’t know — the official statement give by the chief of Israeli intelligence — and I can say this because it was publicized — it was said in our foreign affairs and defense committee in our Knesset, our parliament, he said it will take them anywhere up to three years to cross all the nuclear technology threshold, and then it takes about a year or two to weaponize.

But this at most would give us five years. It could very well be next year. Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, is boasting that he’s on the express train.

BECK: Right.

NETANYAHU: Yesterday, the international atomic agency commission two days ago found enriched plutonium traces in Iran, which means that they’re moving ahead towards making that weapon. Again, that weapon is aimed at my country. I want to be, as you say, complete open…

BECK: Sure.

NETANYAHU: … divulgence. How do you call it?

BECK: You want to be cards face-up on the table.

NETANYAHU: Absolutely, yes. I’m worried about the survival of my country, but so is Czechoslovakia.

BECK: Sure.

NETANYAHU: It was engulfed, and the Jewish people were engulfed by Hitler. So what? That was on the path towards engulfing the world. And when you have this religious fanatic cult, you do not let it, hating the United States, wanting to bring down the United States, and anything associated with it, like Israel, you do not let these fanatics get their hands on atomic bombs.

BECK: People…

NETANYAHU: And tell your father that they’re not deterrable. That’s the main problem: They’re not deterrable.

BECK: People have said that I was nuts when I said, before we went into Iraq, it is about Iraq. This is about Iran, right, wrong, and why?

NETANYAHU: I think you’re right. I think in the larger – there’s a pecking order here. I think Afghanistan was the first one. It dispatched Al Qaeda. You got the right to do. By getting Iraq, you got Libya. Libya dismantled its nuclear program.

But Libya and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq were essentially neighborhood bullies, very dangerous, very, you know, poisonous, but you could either bring down their dictatorship or force them to become reborn, OK, as Gaddafi was trying to be. They are not suicidal.

If you got Iran, you would have folded the entire chain down and you would have eliminated the most virulent and the most dangerous of the lot. This is a regime that seeks to influence a billion people worldwide, a billion Muslims. Now, granted, they’re not going to influence a billion Muslims, but suppose they influence 10 percent. That’s 130 million or over 100 million people.

And it’s not merely the ability to incite radicals in every Western capital, or in anywhere from San Francisco to Bali, Indonesia, and Bali and even north, south, anywhere. It is that they will have the nuclear weapons to back up terror. They’ll have terror with a nuclear umbrella, so the terror that we’ve seen will be on a scale we haven’t seen. And the greatest terror of all is that they may actually use atomic bombs against our cities and our countries.

BECK: OK. More with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in just a minute. And we get to Iraq and also why so many Jewish people here in America vote for the Democrats.

(LAUGHTER)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Welcome back to the program. We’re spending a whole hour with ex-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from Israel. Are you going to run again?

NETANYAHU: Yes.

BECK: Good. Let’s talk a little bit about Iran — I’m sorry, about Iraq. First, honest question: Are you afraid of us? Are you afraid that we’re going soft?

NETANYAHU: Maybe in the short term the United States could have some setbacks. In the long term, the free peoples always win, you know? But the question is: At what cost?

BECK: That really wasn’t the question. I’ll let you escape.

NETANYAHU: Well, come on…

BECK: I’ll try one more time. Are you afraid we’re…

NETANYAHU: I got out of that one.

BECK: We are now proposing a phased redeployment, which, if you would translate, would be cut and run. What happens if we get out of there?

NETANYAHU: I think you’re going to find it a lot more difficult than you think, because what happens when you run, when you cut and run, from terror, terror has this unfortunate quality of chasing you. This is, however, an American decision you make.

BECK: Yes, but a lot of people believe that if we just — you know, they haven’t stood up. I don’t think most people understand the fear that people live under of these kooks that are, you know, beheading people. But they’re saying, “If the Iraqis want it so bad, they should step up for it and we will leave them, because most people think that, well, it’s their responsibility.”

NETANYAHU: Look; I won’t get into a debate on Iran — Iraq, rather, because in a way I think it sidelines the main argument. What you decide to do — it’s an American decision…

BECK: Yes.

NETANYAHU: … whether you leave in phases, you leave with a timetable, you leave with no timetable, you stay in Iraq, OK, either way, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons next door, you lose Iraq. Not only do you lose Iraq, you lose the entire Middle East, and you lose control of the world oil supply, and your cities come under a nuclear threat of a crazy, fanatic regime.

So the question is: Why is the American debate exclusively focused on Iraq when you should look next door? And the last thing you should do — whatever you decide on Iraq, I would give one piece of advice: Do not mortgage that solution to the Iranians. Do not get into a situation where you are giving the Iranians any kind of license to develop their nuclear program in exchange for anything that they do with you in Iraq, do or not do.

You should stop the Iranian nuclear program because it is a great threat to the security of the world and the security of the United States.

BECK: Let me give you my biggest fear. My biggest fear is — we only have one minute? Let me state it, and then I want to come back, because I want to hear your full answer on this.

My biggest fear is that you’re being set up, that Israel is going to – – we’re not going to do anything about it. The rest of the world is already starting to talk, “Hey, let’s talk peace with Iran. Let’s bring Iran and Syria in as partners for peace,” which is absolutely insane. You will be sitting in a position saying, “OK, well, we can’t deal with it”. You’ll go in and do something about it, and then the whole world will turn and say, “It’s Israel. We were close to peace.”

NETANYAHU: Yes, well, that’s what they said about Czechoslovakia when they sacrificed it for Hitler and they thought they’d have peace in their time, and the Munich Accords. And it turned out to have been merely feeding the wolf and wetting its appetite.

But I’ll tell you one thing: Somebody has to take out the Iranian nuclear program.

BECK: OK, I want to get to that. We have to take a quick break. Back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Back with Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister of Israel, talking a little fear-mongering here with Glenn Beck. What a surprise.

We ended with my belief that you’re being set up to make your — because you’re going to — well, let me ask you. Are you going to make a move, if nobody else does, on Iran? Do you feel that you would have to make a move if nobody else does to stop them?

NETANYAHU: If that’s the only option. It has to be stopped. And if it means saving the life of the Jewish state and another 6 million Jews who live in Israel, then the answer is yes, because we reserve the right to live.

The Jewish people are not going to be set up again for a second Holocaust by a man who denies the first Holocaust as he prepares our mass annihilation. What would you do? Suppose somebody said, “We’re going to bomb America. We’re going to destroy America.” And you sit back and you say, “Oh, he doesn’t mean it.” And he prepares, and he does mean it. Are you going to sit back and let him do it?

BECK: I got to tell you, I’ve said this many times before — no offense, Canada, because I know we’ve got a lot of Canadian listeners, but you’d be toast. I mean, if we had somebody sitting on our border saying the same thing, that people on your border are saying, oh, we’d roll over him or her with a steamroller.

But what does that mean? I mean, let’s say you go in. They’re so far underground. Do you, a, have the capability of doing this? And, b, if you did, what does that do to the Middle East and the whole world?

NETANYAHU: I think that it’s not particularly useful to discuss these kinds of questions. I would say that there’s a time factor. The longer you wait, the harder it becomes, the more firepower you need.

The earlier you do it — and you may even — the earlier you do it, you can actually avoid the need for military action. If you had, for example, a concerted international effort, you could probably get Iran to back off. But the longer you wait, the more you have to get into the harder options and the harder the options become.

And I think that that is unfortunate. But you asked me, what will the world look like if action were taken against Iran by us or by you? Would they retaliate? Yes, of course. But they wouldn’t have nuclear weapons to retaliate with. You do not want them to have these atomic bombs.

BECK: I get that. I get that. I’m with you. However, you know, when you say — if you go in and take it…

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: … and people will rise up — you know, I was talking to James Baker, and I said, you know, how much trouble is Europe in? We think of these — oh, well, we’ll just be able to, you know, rely on our European allies. My gosh. If the Muslim extremists that are in the center of those cities all throughout Europe ever decide to rise up and connect, the armies of Europe are going to be busy in Europe doing guerrilla warfare street to street.

NETANYAHU: But, you know, it’s an interesting question. There are Muslim communities interspersed now throughout the world and throughout Europe, as well. Many of them, most of them are peaceable people.

BECK: Yes.

NETANYAHU: OK? But there’s an extremist core. The extremists core gets more extreme as the two virulent strains of militant Islam get more and more powerful. When they knock out the World Trade Center, they get new adherents. When Iran acquires nuclear weapons, they get more adherents.

So the Muslim communities around the world are looking at it. They’re sitting in the bleacher, and they’re looking at this, and they’re saying, “Who’s winning, the West, the forces of civilization as we understand it, or the militants?” If the militants appear to be succeeding, then the ability to recruit more radicals in Europe and elsewhere, in the United States, grows. So it’s important…

BECK: Well, that’s because they have an understanding that the reason why they are still living the way they are with sticks and stones is because they haven’t been militant enough in their own religion, that they haven’t submitted enough to Shiva law, et cetera, et cetera.

NETANYAHU: Not true. I think it`s actually the other way around. I think that, if they see them winning, then they say, “Ah, Allah is with us. That means that the direction of extremism has a future.”

What you want to do is actually create despair in the militants. You want to create despair that nothing will succeed; you will never defeat the West. Even if we have setbacks, the free societies, this pro-realistic, free societies that we have, we’ll defeat you. Your way of this pre- medieval, crazy creed that you have, it’s not going to govern the world. There’s no chance that it will govern the world, because the free societies are much tougher than you think.

When they think that, they can’t recruit. When they think the opposite, they do recruit. It’s very important that they understand they’re going to lose and early.

BECK: OK. Now, we’ve talked about millions of people possibly dying in World War III, and nuclear holocaust, and another Holocaust for the Jews, but now let me get to the tough question.

NETANYAHU: That was the easy part?

(LAUGHTER)

BECK: That was the easy part. Here’s the tough question. I am so frustrated — and I said you were going to be on. I got so much e-mail from people asking me the same question that we can’t figure out.

Why is it that it seems as though conservatives are the ones that are the most strong on the protection of Israel, we are the most — that we’re the strongest in defense, and yet so many Jews here in America are so on- fire liberal and they side with the people, the politicians who are ready to just give away the candy store?

I don’t understand it, and so many Americans don’t. What is it that they can’t see who’s willing to stand up and think it’s important to defend Israel?

NETANYAHU: There is a difference of opinion, obviously, on what is the right sort of defense. And I’m not going to get into that. I mean, Jewish-Americans…

BECK: I told you it was going to be the hard question.

NETANYAHU: … Jewish-Americans are loyal Americans. They just have a different…

BECK: No, no, no, no, I’m not saying…

(CROSSTALK)

NETANYAHU: They have differences among them. You know, some of the most staunchest conservatives in the United States are Jewish, and some of the most staunchest liberals are Jewish, so there are different views. I have enough in my politics in Israel not to get into…

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: Sure, not to get into ours.

NETANYAHU: … American politics. And I have enough Jewish politics in Israel, by the way, more than you can imagine.

BECK: Then let me go here on politics where I think you’re a little freer to talk, the United Nations. Holy cow, I don’t understand the United Nations. I don’t understand — I don’t even understand — when I went to Israel for the first time, it was after 9/11, and I really wanted to understand.

And I went to Israel, and I went up to the Israeli-Lebanon border. And I was standing there, and I saw a billboard with beheaded Israeli soldiers and underneath, in Hebrew, it said something along the lines of, “Sharon, your dogs die here.” And it was one of the most shocking — I’m an American — one of the most shocking things I had ever seen. And it was sitting next to a little, like, pillbox area, and it had two flags. It had the Lebanese flag…

NETANYAHU: And the U.N. flag.

BECK: … and the U.N. flag.

NETANYAHU: Right.

BECK: What does that say to you?

NETANYAHU: It says to me that the U.N. is a pretty good separation between consenting adults. If you have two governments who want to make peace between them and they put an U.N. tripwire basically symbolizing their agreement to make peace, then the U.N. works.

Anywhere where you have real combat, anywhere where you have real enemies, anywhere where you have a crazy outfit like Hezbollah, which is really a proxy for Iran that we’re talking about, then the U.N. is fairly useless. It doesn’t really get the job done, and that billboard was a perfect example.

BECK: I don’t mean to be crass here, but they were meat shields for Hezbollah over the summer. They were…

NETANYAHU: Well, you know that we had this whole war in the summer. And Lebanon was ignited by the kidnapping of a few of our soldiers.

BECK: Yes.

NETANYAHU: The previous…

BECK: Which seemed to get lost in the shuffle.

NETANYAHU: Well, the previous kidnapping took place — there was a previous kidnapping of three of our soldiers by Hezbollah, and the U.N. was there. You know what the U.N. did? They photographed it.

So what are they going to do, bring bigger cameras to photograph it, and to have bigger billboards? I mean, this is not — I think the U.N. is of limited value. It started out as a wonderful idea, but the U.N. is a reflection of its components. And if there’s not enough political will to actively face down the extremists, the radicals, the murderers, the killers in the world, then the U.N. can’t really do the job. It`s left to the free societies to do it, unfortunately.

BECK: Then let me go here. We’re going to have to take a break, but when we come back I want the ask you about political will. There were a lot of us rooting for Israel over the summer and saw the way the war was fought and the saw the concessions made and were horrified. Your answer to that here in just a second.

(NEWSBREAK)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Back with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Sir, I watched the fight this summer with great interest, and it didn’t take me very long to figure out — I watched the events unfold. And within just a couple of days — and, again, I’m a rodeo clown — but it took me a couple of days to go, “Wait a minute. This is all about misdirection. This is all about Iran.”

And for you to lose that war was pretty significant. And I don’t know if you perceive it as a loss, but it certainly was a shift of perception by the rest of the world. You seemed to be the “drive them all the way back to Saudi Arabia” kind of act. Did you perceive that as less than stellar?

NETANYAHU: It certainly wasn’t a victory. I think basically the war was not won because we lacked a strategy, and the strategy’s a very simple one. We faced about 5,000 Ebola, which are really Iranian forward infantry with missiles, when you — in a war, in order to win, you take overwhelming force, with the firepower and mobility. You move very quickly at the enemy’s weakest point. That’s basically how you win wars.

And in our case, we went with almost the same number of troops against right into their gun sites. Not smart. We should have come from the behind, if you will, with 10 times the force.

BECK: So you would say that it was a lack of strategy. It wasn’t your catching our politically correct disease? You’re not fighting a war for media or anything like that?

NETANYAHU: I think the decisions, the strategic decisions were flawed. No, the people fought, even under bad strategy, the Israeli soldiers fought very, very well.

BECK: No, no, I don’t mean — yes, yes, yes. I don’t mean that. I mean…

NETANYAHU: … and ultimately defeated any Hezbollah that were there. But in order to crush an enemy, you have to find his weak point and apply maximum force, and that wasn’t done. And there’s a whole range of commissions now examining in Israel why it wasn’t done. But I think it was basically a problem of strategy and leadership.

BECK: Can either of us win against a foe that understands how to use media, how to manipulate it…

NETANYAHU: Yes, we can win. Of course we can win. We could have won that war. And the next time they do it, you know, if I have anything to do with it, I can guarantee you that the results will be different.

And I think the people in Israel have that power. The soldiers have that power. They have that fighting spirit and ability. But even the best of soldiers need to have the right guidance, the right direction.

And so I wouldn`t give up on the free societies, but we always learn. In history, we see that the free societies, they always get it at the end. But the question is: Do they need what Churchill called a jarring gong of self-preservation? You sort of have to be woken up from your stupor, from your sleep to realize that you’ve got a new Hitler around the block and you have to take action. Do you let him first demolish a few countries and a few millions of peoples?

I hope not. I hope that we have the ability to learn something from history. And certainly, I think that we’re facing a juncture of history unlike any other, where primitive religious creeds are trying to acquire the weapons of mass death. That has never happened before, because nuclear weapons have been around only for half a century. And now the most primitive creed on Earth is trying to get the most advanced weapons on Earth.

And we’d better wake up. We’d better hear the jarring gong of self- preservation and act to preserve our lives, our cities, our children, and our civilization in time.

BECK: What is a sign that people can recognize here? What is it that you — the first sign that you said, back in Israel in the day and you went, “Oh, boy, that’s not good.” What is the sign that may be just beginning to hit over here, that people can recognize over here, and say, “Oh, wait a minute. I have noticed that.” Do you remember the first signs you saw over Israel?

NETANYAHU: I think the most important thing to understand is that — you know the best sign of how dangerous things are? That the president of Iran is not even trying to fake it.

You know, normally, if he wasn’t as fanatic as he is, he’d say, “Well, you know, yes, I think we could recognize Israel if it made the right concessions to the Palestinians.” He’d play along; he’d play the game. He’d say, “We’re not really developing nuclear weapons. We just want nuclear energy for peace.” You know, he’d say all that.

But that’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying — and listen to him carefully. He’s saying, “We’re going to wipe Israel off the map. The Holocaust didn’t happen. America’s the great Satan. Iran will have the power to reshape history.”

Now, a normal person would not say that. An insane person says that. In the 1930s, an insane person wrote in a book called, “Mein Kampf,” “My Struggle,” and that was Adolf Hitler. He said exactly what he would do. He was stark-raving mad, but he communicated.

You asked for a sign? That was a sign, 300 pages of signs, OK? Ahmadinejad every day is writing a page. He’s saying what he’s going to do. That’s the best sign. That tells you that there’s a fanaticism at work here which is not even calculating. He’s just going to do it. And let’s not enable him to do it. Let’s stop him.

BECK: It is interesting to me that “Mein Kampf” is “My Struggle.” Jihad is “my struggle.” Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Back with Benjamin Netanyahu. In the last break, you said that Islam is the most primitive religion.

NETANYAHU: I didn’t say that.

BECK: You didn’t say that?

NETANYAHU: No. I said that militant Islam is a primitive religion.

BECK: How much of…

NETANYAHU: Most Muslims are not part of this crazy creed.

BECK: OK.

NETANYAHU: You know, just like you have crazy creeds and crazy cults in Christianity or in Judaism, you have people who are crazy. The difference here is that here you have a crazy cult that is a small percentage, but these are very large numbers when you talk about a billion people. And it’s very violent, very violent, and it may get its hands on nuclear weapons. That’s the reason we’re discussing it.

BECK: All right, only time for one e-mail here. This is from Michelle in Ohio. She says, “I am just an average, middle-class mom and wife in America. What can I do to fight this extremist terrorism? I try to stay informed by listening to Glenn’s show and reading, but I feel helpless.”

So many Americans feel this way. They don’t know what to do.

NETANYAHU: Well, they shouldn’t feel helpless, because the difference between this, what’s happening now and the 1930s, is that, at the time, America was an isolationist power and didn’t operate on the world stage. So as we were facing the tremendous fanaticism and destructive power of Hitler, there was no one to face up to him. France and Britain at the time did not have the kind of leadership or the kind of power to stop him.

The fortunate thing is that, in the first half of the 20th century, the dominant power in the world is the United States. And citizens like the one that wrote in do have power. You have representatives. You have a voice. You have Internet and you have congressmen and senators. Make your views known.

If citizens in a free society rise up, in a society like America rise up, and they say, “We want to act in time while action can be effective, while the danger can be stopped, before it gets out of hand,” then America will act. And in that sense, I have the confidence that we live in a different age because we’ve already witnessed the horrors of the previous century and we know that we have to stop it. And that’s why it fills me with hope that action is possible.

BECK: We are up against the clock here. I’ve only got 15 seconds, but I want to thank you, sir. And thank you for joining us for this hour. And thank you for your service to, not only your country, but, I believe, the rest of the world, as well.

NETANYAHU: Thank you very much.

BECK: Thank you.

NETANYAHU: Thank you.

END

Source

Sounds like the Ranting of  “Pure Hate”.

Now if this were said of Israel I bet the Zionists would be going mad. They would be screaming from the roof tops. They would be ranting and raving and screaming in the streets.  They would freak.

They would be horrified, but since it was Benjamin Netanyahu it’s OK.

Well it isn’t OK.

Israel has over 200 Nuclear Bombs.

Iran has zero Nuclear Bombs.

Israel has committed war crimes galore.

Netanyahu is saying Iran is Germany in the time of Hitler.

Funny it doesn’t seem like Iran has been attempting to take over anything.

Israel on the other hand has been attempting to take over countries all around them for years.

But whatever turns his crank.

This is Israels New Leader.

Would you want him as your leader?

I certainly wouldn’t want him as my next door neighbor.

An Israeli Scholar has already bragged,

“We Could Destroy All European Capitals” he also said all Palestinians should be deported etc etc.  Deported from their own land???? What is said is pure hate.

The US and Sanctions
The United States has imposed sanctions on Iran for the past three decades since the two countries severed ties in the wake of the 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled the US-backed Shah.

Well how dare anyone topple a US backed leader.

Well the US like’s Dictators and and very oppressive regimes.

The IAEA has so far made 25 unannounced inspections of the Iran’s nuclear facilities and has published more than 20 reports — all of which confirm that there has been no diversion of the civilian nuclear program for military needs.

IAEA has not inspected Israels however in spite of UN Resolutions. Even J F Kennedy wanted inspections.

Putin Aide’s Stance
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin underscored Iran’s right to civilian nuclear energy.
Talking to the German news magazine Der Spiegel on Saturday, Vladimir Yakunin said “Iran has the right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

Nuclear Hydro and Medical Isotopes are peaceful purposes and many countries do the exact same thing.

Iran has also signed the Non Proliferation Treaty and “Israel has not”.

Personally I would feel safer having Iran next door to me then Israel.

I know for a fact,  “Israel would find a way to bomb the crap out of my country”. They have proven that repeatedly over the years.

Iran doesn’t need oil or gas they have their own. They have no need to control anyone else, but the US and Israel do. That is obvious in recent years.  No one can argue that. Both countries are war mongers.  All you have to do is listen to their news casters.

They spew out more hate and propaganda, then Iran could ever dream of spewing.  The interview with Beck says it all.

UN backs Goldstone UN Mission Report in spite of Israeli Threats

Aftermath of war: Drug addiction taking a toll in Gaza

Israel: True Cost to U.S. Taxpayers/Legally Israel owns the US Billions

Published in: on October 21, 2009 at 9:57 am  Comments Off on GLENN BECK: Interview with Benjamin Netanyahu  
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

If Hamas Did Not Exist

‘This crisis has nothing to do with freedom, democracy, justice or peace.’

By Jennifer Loewenstein
December 31 2008

Let us get one thing perfectly straight. If the wholesale mutilation and degradation of the Gaza Strip is going to continue; if Israel’s will is at one with that of the United States; if the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and all the international legal agencies and organizations spread across the globe are going to continue to sit by like hollow mannequins doing nothing but making repeated “calls” for a “ceasefire” on “both sides”; if the cowardly, obsequious and supine Arab States are going to stand by watching their brethren get slaughtered by the hour while the world’s bullying Superpower eyes them threateningly from Washington lest they say something a little to their disliking; then let us at least tell the truth why this hell on earth is taking place.

The state terror unleashed from the skies and on the ground against the Gaza Strip as we speak has nothing to do with Hamas. It has nothing to do with “Terror”. It has nothing to do with the long-term “security” of the Jewish State or with Hizbullah or Syria or Iran except insofar as it is aggravating the conditions that have led up to this crisis today. It has nothing to do with some conjured up “war” – a cynical and overused euphemism that amounts to little more the wholesale enslavement of any nation that dares claim its sovereign rights; that dares assert that its resources are its own; that doesn’t want one of the Empire’s obscene military bases sitting on its cherished land.

This crisis has nothing to do with freedom, democracy, justice or peace. It is not about Mahmoud Zahhar or Khalid Mash’al or Ismail Haniyeh. It is not about Hassan Nasrallah or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. These are all circumstantial players who have gained a role in the current tempest only now that the situation has been allowed for 61 years to develop into the catastrophe that it is today. The Islamist factor has colored and will continue to color the atmosphere of the crisis; it has enlisted the current leaders and mobilized wide sectors of the world’s population. The primary symbols today are Islamic – the mosques, the Qur’an, the references to the Prophet Muhammad and to Jihad. But these symbols could disappear and the impasse would continue.

There was a time when Fatah and the PFLP held the day; when few Palestinians wanted anything to do with Islamist policies and politics. Such politics have nothing to do with primitive rockets being fired over the border, or smuggling tunnels and black-market weapons; just as Arafat’s Fatah had little to do with stones and suicide bombings. The associations are coincidental; the creations of a given political environment. They are the result of something entirely different than what the lying politicians and their analysts are telling you. They have become part of the landscape of human events in the modern Middle East today; but incidentals wholly as lethal, or as recalcitrant, deadly, angry or incorrigible could just as soon have been in their places.

Strip away the clichés and the vacuous newspeak blaring out across the servile media and its pathetic corps of voluntary state servants in the Western world and what you will find is the naked desire for hegemony; for power over the weak and dominion over the world’s wealth. Worse yet you will find that the selfishness, the hatred and indifference, the racism and bigotry, the egotism and hedonism that we try so hard to cover up with our sophisticated jargon, our refined academic theories and models actually help to guide our basest and ugliest desires. The callousness with which we in indulge in them all are endemic to our very culture; thriving here like flies on a corpse.

Strip away the current symbols and language of the victims of our selfish and devastating whims and you will find the simple, impassioned and unaffected cries of the downtrodden; of the ‘wretched of the earth’ begging you to cease your cold aggression against their children and their homes; their families and their villages; begging you to leave them alone to have their fish and their bread, their oranges, their olives and their thyme; asking you first politely and then with increasing disbelief why you cannot let them live undisturbed on the land of their ancestors; unexploited, free of the fear of expulsion; of ravishment and devastation; free of permits and roadblocks and checkpoints and crossings; of monstrous concrete walls, guard towers, concrete bunkers, and barbed wire; of tanks and prisons and torture and death. Why is life without these policies and instruments of hell impossible?

The answer is because Israel has no intention of allowing a viable, sovereign Palestinian state on its borders. It had no intention of allowing it in 1948 when it grabbed 24% more land than what it was allotted legally, if unfairly, by UN Resolution 181. It had no intention of allowing it throughout the massacres and ploys of the 1950s. It had no intention of allowing two states when it conquered the remaining 22% of historic Palestine in 1967 and reinterpreted UN Security Council Resolution 248 to its own liking despite the overwhelming international consensus stating that Israel would receive full international recognition within secure and recognized borders if it withdrew from the lands it had only recently occupied.

It had no intention of acknowledging Palestinian national rights at the United Nations in 1974, when –alone with the United States—it voted against a two-state solution. It had no intention of allowing a comprehensive peace settlement when Egypt stood ready to deliver but received, and obediently accepted, a separate peace exclusive of the rights of Palestinians and the remaining peoples of the region. It had no intention of working toward a just two state solution in 1978 or 1982 when it invaded, fire-bombed, blasted and bulldozed Beirut so that it might annex the West Bank without hassle. It had no intention of granting a Palestinian state in 1987 when the first Intifada spread across occupied Palestine, into the Diaspora and the into the spirits of the global dispossessed, or when Israel deliberately aided the newly formed Hamas movement so that it might undermine the strength of the more secular-nationalist factions.

Israel had no intention of granting a Palestinian state at Madrid or at Oslo where the PLO was superseded by the quivering, quisling Palestinian Authority too many of whose cronies grasped at the wealth and prestige it gave them at the expense of their own kin. As Israel beamed into the world’s satellites and microphones its desire for peace and a two-state solution, it more than doubled the number of illegal Jewish settlements on the ground in the West Bank and around East Jerusalem, annexing them as it built and continues to build a superstructure of bypass roads and highways over the remaining, severed cities and villages of earthly Palestine. It has annexed the Jordan valley, the international border of Jordan, expelling any ‘locals’ inhabiting that land. It speaks with a viper’s tongue over the multiple amputee of Palestine whose head shall soon be severed from its body in the name of justice, peace and security.

Through the home demolitions, the assaults on civil society that attempted to cast Palestinian history and culture into a chasm of oblivion; through the unspeakable destruction of the refugee camp sieges and infrastructure bombardments of the second Intifada, through assassinations and summary executions, past the grandiose farce of disengagement and up to the nullification of free, fair and democratic Palestinian elections Israel has made its view known again and again in the strongest possible language, the language of military might, of threats, intimidation, harassment, defamation & degradation.

Israel, with the unconditional and approving support of the United States, has made it dramatically clear to the entire world over and over and over again, repeating in action after action that it will accept no viable Palestinian state next to its borders. What will it take for the rest of us to hear? What will it take to end the criminal silence of the ‘international community’? What will it take to see past the lies and indoctrination to what is taking place before us day after day in full view of the eyes of the world? The more horrific the actions on the ground, the more obscenely insistent are the words of peace. To listen and watch without hearing or seeing allows the indifference, the ignorance and complicity to continue and deepens with each grave our collective shame.

The destruction of Gaza has nothing to do with Hamas. Israel will accept no authority in the Palestinian territories that it does not ultimately control. Any individual, leader, faction or movement that fails to accede to Israel’s demands or that seeks genuine sovereignty and the equality of all nations in the region; any government or popular movement that demands the applicability of international humanitarian law and of the universal declaration of human rights for its own people will be unacceptable for the Jewish State. Those dreaming of one state must be forced to ask themselves what Israel would do to a population of 4 million Palestinians within its borders when it commits on a daily, if not hourly basis, crimes against their collective humanity while they live alongside its borders? What will suddenly make the raison d’etre, the self-proclaimed purpose of Israel’s reason for being change if the Palestinian territories are annexed to it outright?

The lifeblood of the Palestinian National Movement flows through the streets of Gaza today. Every drop that falls waters the soil of vengeance, bitterness and hatred not only in Palestine but across the Middle East and much of the world. We do have a choice over whether or not this should continue. Now is the time to make it.

-Jennifer Loewenstein is the Associate Director of the Middle East Studies Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Source

If Hamas did not exist, Israel would find another scapegoat to blame. This is of course what they have always done.

The Holocaust

By Dahlia Wasfi
December 31, 2008

Holocaust denial is anti-Semitic. But I’m not talking about World War II, Mahmoud Ahmedinijad, or Ashkenazi Jews.  What I’m referring to is the holocaust we are all witnessing and responsible for in Gaza today and in Palestine over the last 60 years.  By definition, a holocaust is a mass slaughter of people or a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life, especially through fire.  There isn’t a more accurate description of the hell that US-armed and –funded Israeli Occupation Forces are unleashing on the people of Gaza at this moment.  Since Arabs are Semites, US-Israeli policy doesn’t get more anti-Semitic than this.

If you think I’m being grandiose, let us look at the words of Matan Vilnai, Israel’s Deputy Defense [sic] Minister, from February of this year: “The more Qassam [rocket] fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves.” In Hebrew, “shoah” refers to the Jewish Holocaust of the 1940’s.  But massive airstrikes are not self-defense if you are the aggressor.  That goes for the whole stupid so-called “War on Terror,” in which not a single one of its victims had anything to do with the events of September 11, 2001.  That goes for the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan; that goes for Israel in Palestine.

And that goes for Germany in Poland.  In 1940, the Germans began massing Polish Jews into ghettoes prior to their deportation to extermination camps.  The largest one was the Warsaw Ghetto, where an uprising—a Jewish insurgency—began in 1943.

Today, Gaza is essentially a large ghetto, with a population of around 1.5 million living on about 139 square miles.  Israel controls Gaza’s land border, airspace, water, maritime access, and the flow of goods including food and medical supplies.

Since June 2007, Israel has imposed a blockade on the people of Gaza, slowly starving them to death, slowly killing them by denial of medical care amidst intermittent gunship airstrikes.

These crimes against humanity are, of course, in violation of the Geneva Conventions—international law established after World War II in the spirit of “never again.”  Unlike in Warsaw, Gaza is not the staging area for the extermination camps; Gaza IS the extermination camp.

Qassam rockets fired from Gaza as retaliation for Israeli F-16 airstrikes are the equivalent of the Molotov cocktails used by the resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943.  Like the small arms of the Polish Jews, they are no match for the sophisticated weaponry of the invading army.  This is why the death toll is so high for the people on the ground in Gaza, and minimal for Israelis.

The mainstream media is depicting this as an “all-out war,” as it depicts the illegal occupation of Iraq.  But in both cases, you have a starving, essentially unarmed people being assaulted with F-15s/F-16s, cruise missiles, depleted uranium, cluster bombs, tanks, and artillery.  This is not war; this is mass murder; this is genocide.  And it is American military, financial, and political support that makes this bloodletting possible.

From North America to Germany to Cambodia to Rwanda to Palestine to Iraq, mass murder is wrong.  When Americans are looking for whom to blame, we cannot blame the victims.  Yes, there are many players involved and many governments turning a blind eye to genocide, but don’t we brag about how much better we are than that?  Shouldn’t we stop being complicit in these supreme crimes against humanity?  All we have to do is abide by our own laws, which include all signed international treaties and agreements.

We must end our illegal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and stop funding and providing armaments for the illegal occupation and stealth of Palestinian land.  In the words of Rachel Corrie, a 23 year old American college student who was murdered in Rafah by the Israeli Occupation Forces on March 16, 2003:

“…Just want to write to my Mom and tell her that I’m witnessing this chronic, insidious genocide and I’m really scared, and questioning my fundamental belief in the goodness of human nature. This has to stop. I think it is a good idea for us all to drop everything and devote our lives to making this stop. I don’t think it’s an extremist thing to do anymore. I still really want to dance around to Pat Benatar and have boyfriends and make comics for my coworkers. But I also want this to stop. Disbelief and horror is what I feel.  Disappointment. I am disappointed that this is the base reality of our world and that we, in fact, participate in it. This is not at all what I asked for when I came into this world. This is not at all what the people here asked for when they came into this world…So when I sound crazy, or if the Israeli military should break with their racist tendency not to injure white people, please pin the reason squarely on the fact that I am in the midst of a genocide which I am also indirectly supporting, and for which my government is largely responsible.”

Let us heed her brave wisdom, and end illegal occupation.  If we fail to act, then the next time someone flies airplanes into American buildings, let us not ask ignorantly, “Why do they hate us?”

Source

Actions we can take to help Palestinians in Gaza