Annie Lennox and Brian Eno Stand Tall for Gaza in the UK -- In the U.S., the Congress rolls over for AIPAC

"Our voices will not be silenced until there is a complete and absolute end to the genocide."
- Annie Lennox, January 10, 2008

In a London rally estimated by organizers to be 100,000 strong, people in the UK spoke out loudly against Israel's incursion into Gaza, with the former lead singer of the Eurythmics, Annie Lennox standing tall and proud;

In his typical subdued but thoughtful fashion, the legendary Brian Eno also called for an end to the violence;

When the BBC covered the rally, they downplayed the crowd by half, estimating 50,000, and focusing on a few violent incidents, to spin the rally as a mediocre little get together. They broadcast no sweeping shots of the crowd on last night's newscast (1.10.2008), but UK Indymedia has a few.

In Washington, approximately 10,000 marched through the streets;

However, the U.S. Congress and Senate approved Israel's over-the-top bombing campaign against the Palestinians.

At the Huffington Post, Max Blumenthal laments the sad state of affairs in America's OpEd pages;

"Almost as soon as the first Israeli missile struck the Gaza Strip, a veteran cheering squad suited up to support the home team. "Israel is so scrupulous about civilian life," Charles Krauthammer claimed in the Washington Post. Echoing Krauthammer, Alan Dershowitz called the Israeli attack on Gaza, "Perfectly 'Proportionate.'" And in the New York Times, Israeli historian Benny Morris described his country's airstrikes as "highly efficient."

While the cheerleaders testified to the superior moral fiber of their team, the Palestinian civilian death toll mounted. Israeli missiles tore at least fifteen Palestinian police cadets to shreds at a graduation ceremony, blew twelve worshipers to pieces (including six children) while they left evening prayers at a mosque, flattened the elite American International School, killed five sisters while they slept in their beds, and liquidated 9 women and children in order to kill a single Hamas leader. So far, Israeli forces have killed at least 500 Gazans and wounded some two thousand, including hundreds of children. Yesterday, the IDF blanketed parts of Gaza with white phosphorus, a chemical weapon Saddam Hussein once deployed against Kurdish rebels."

Robert Fisk puts the record straight regarding Israel's approach to civilian casualties;

"So once again, Israel has opened the gates of hell to the Palestinians. Forty civilian refugees dead in a United Nations school, three more in another. Not bad for a night's work in Gaza by the army that believes in "purity of arms". But why should we be surprised?

Have we forgotten the 17,500 dead - almost all civilians, most of them children and women - in Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon; the 1,700 Palestinian civilian dead in the Sabra-Chatila massacre; the 1996 Qana massacre of 106 Lebanese civilian refugees, more than half of them children, at a UN base; the massacre of the Marwahin refugees who were ordered from their homes by the Israelis in 2006 then slaughtered by an Israeli helicopter crew; the 1,000 dead of that same 2006 bombardment and Lebanese invasion, almost all of them civilians?

What is amazing is that so many Western leaders, so many presidents and prime ministers and, I fear, so many editors and journalists, bought the old lie; that Israelis take such great care to avoid civilian casualties. "Israel makes every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties," yet another Israeli ambassador said only hours before the Gaza massacre. And every president and prime minister who repeated this mendacity as an excuse to avoid a ceasefire has the blood of last night's butchery on their hands. Had George Bush had the courage to demand an immediate ceasefire 48 hours earlier, those 40 civilians, the old and the women and children, would be alive.

What happened was not just shameful. It was a disgrace. Would war crime be too strong a description? For that is what we would call this atrocity if it had been committed by Hamas. So a war crime, I'm afraid, it was. After covering so many mass murders by the armies of the Middle East - by Syrian troops, by Iraqi troops, by Iranian troops, by Israeli troops - I suppose cynicism should be my reaction. But Israel claims it is fighting our war against "international terror". The Israelis claim they are fighting in Gaza for us, for our Western ideals, for our security, for our safety, by our standards. And so we are also complicit in the savagery now being visited upon Gaza."

Ah yes, the "War on Terror". Now reduced to; "The War on the Palestinians". Nafeez Ahmed comments;

"Israel claims it is fighting in Gaza to stop Hamas rocket-fire against Israel, the continuation of which constituted a flagrant breach of the six-months ceasefire. Hence, the objective of the military operation is limited by the aim of putting an end to the rocket-fire. In fact, the current outbreak of violence cannot be understood without analysing the asymmetries in military violence between the two parties; the dynamic structure of the conflict in the context of the character of the Israeli occupation; the central role of recent discoveries of substantial natural gas reserves in Gaza; and joint Anglo-American and Israeli attempts to monopolise the lucrative (and strategic) energy resources through a political process tied to a corrupt Palestinian Authority run by Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah Party. Hamas’ unprecedented victory in democratic elections in 2006 fundamentally threatened these plans. Operation Cast Lead, the concurrent Israeli military venture, was operationalised as a war plan in early 2008, and already finalised in detail as far back as 2001 by Israeli military intelligence. Its execution in late December 2008 into January 2009 is designed to head-off not only domestic Israeli elections, but more significantly, the outcome of further incoming Palestinian democratic elections likely to consolidate Hamas’ power, to permanently shift the balance of geopolitical and economic power in its favour. The long-term goal is the “cantonization” of the Occupied Territories making way for increased Israeli encroachment, and ultimately the escalation of Palestinian emigration."

But in the U.S., both Houses rolled over for AIPAC. With only five members of Congress showing any guts at all;

Dennis Kucinich

Gwen Moore

Ron Paul

Nich Rahall

Maxine Waters

Please take a moment to contact them, and thank them for being sane, especially if that is your congress-person.

We are Jews who say 'Not in Our Name' to the Israeli Government

(via Mark Crispin Miller's email list)

Monday, January 12 from 5:30-6:30 P.M., as we stand together in front of the Israeli Consulate at 800 Second Ave., between 42nd and 43rd Streets. (New York City)

We are Jews who say "Not in Our Name" to the Israeli Government.

We ask you to stand with us as we call for:

- an immediate end to the massacre of the Palestinian people
- an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of Israeli troops
- an immediate end to the blockade of Gaza
- immediate steps taken to end the Israeli occupation

We stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people, with our sisters and brothers in Israel who are bravely opposing the brutality of their government, and with all those around the world calling for justice and peace in the Middle East.

There will be no speakers at this event. We will stand together holding up signs, our demands reverberating with a powerfully resounding silence.

initiators of this call for action:

Renate Bridenthal
Nina Felshin
Michelle Fine
Sherry Gorelick
Jane Hirschmann
Carol Horowitz
Esther Kaplan
Melanie Kaye/Kantrowitz
Abigail Levine
Alan Levine
Richard Levy
Marilyn Neimark
Donna Nevel
Michael Ratner
Amy Schoenwald
Alisa Solomon
Len Weinglass
Dorothy Zellner

Gaza Resolution One-Sided

Gaza Resolution One-Sided and Unwise

by Rep. Ron Paul

Editor's note: The following is Rep. Ron Paul's statement on H. Res. 34, "Recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process."

Madame Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the floor with almost no prior notice and without consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one side in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or U.S. interests. I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers. What will adopting this resolution do to the perception of the United States in the Muslim and Arab world? What kind of blowback might we see from this? What moral responsibility do we have for the violence in Israel and Gaza after having provided so much military support to one side?

As an opponent of all violence, I am appalled by the practice of lobbing homemade rockets into Israel from Gaza. I am only grateful that, because of the primitive nature of these weapons, there have been so few casualties among innocent Israelis. But I am also appalled by the long-standing Israeli blockade of Gaza – a cruel act of war – and the tremendous loss of life that has resulted from the latest Israeli attack that started last month.

There are now an estimated 700 dead Palestinians, most of whom are civilians. Many innocent children are among the dead. While the shooting of rockets into Israel is inexcusable, the violent actions of some people in Gaza does not justify killing Palestinians on this scale. Such collective punishment is immoral. At the very least, the U.S. Congress should not be loudly proclaiming its support for the Israeli government's actions in Gaza.

Madame Speaker, this resolution will do nothing to reduce the fighting and bloodshed in the Middle East. The resolution in fact will lead the U.S. to become further involved in this conflict, promising "vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state." Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country? I believe it would be better to focus on the security and survival of the United States, the Constitution of which my colleagues and I swore to defend just this week at the beginning of the 111th Congress. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.

-Edit BTW pls have a look at the following

We Can No Longer Afford the Empire

Somebody is going to have to whisper in President-elect Obama's ear that the unipolar moment has passed and the United States can no longer afford its informal worldwide empire. Even though the looming economic meltdown will likely be serious – and maybe even cataclysmic – the foreign policy chattering classes of both parties are on autopilot and have not yet abandoned their interventionist consensus. A rude awakening awaits.....
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it


Even though we've heard that the dinky rockets the Palestinians fire are homemade, where do they obtain their matierials from? The US, Germany?

Live Gaza web cam

UK, Europe hit with riots over Israel's Gaza campaign|

UK, Europe hit with riots over Israel's Gaza campaign| Saturday January 10, 2009 | RAW STORY

UK, Europe hit with riots over Israel’s Gaza campaign

EDIT: (kinda scary Joe ... almost a double post)

Infowars, Raw Story, Daily Mail. Many links to videos and incredible photos of protests here:

Westwood Federal Bldg, Los Angeles, CA 1/10/09 photo by Chic

If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

Lennox/Eurythmics Made the Soundtrack for Film "1984"


When Eurythmics were asked to compose
original music for director Michael Radford's
film version of George Orwell's 1984, the result
was a provocative and ground breaking
electronica album that was years ahead of the
ambient and techno movement. The hit U.K.
single Sexcrime (1984) generated controversy
in the United States resulting in little airplay.
The song reflected 1984 author George
Orwell's vision of a society where sexual
relations are outlawed, but this concept was
lost on radio programmers amid the U.S.
Government's rock music indecency hearings
in the early to mid 1980s. The intriguing
video intersperses clips from the film with
shots of Annie Lennox and Dave Stewart in full
Orwellian guise. Chilling and appropriate, the
video accurately reflects the desperation of
Orwell's futuristic society.

Sex Crime

I'm also a longtime admirer of Brian Eno. Another Brilliant Mind.

I really liked her then

but I love her now for speaking out.

This genocide must stop.

Garofalo mentions Israeli false flag

Feb. '03: Janeane Garofalo Destroys Fox's Brian Kilmeade

Janeane Garofalo running circles around Brian Kilmeade. What Janeane had to say afterward: "The only time I've ever lost my cool is on Fox and Friends -- this alleged morning news show on Fox. One of the first things one of the morning crew said to me was, "Boy, Saddam must love you." I'm not going to put up with that shit. I don't need to take that on a television program. You booked me, and you have a choice: You can either respect the guests you book, or book a guest you can respect. But I'm not going to come on there and have you make such an inflammatory statement. So I lost my cool. And then, of course, Fox News has run that clip ad nauseum as if it doesn't embarrass them."

From February 2003, about a month before the Iraq War began and just after the worldwide protests of the impending U.S.-led invasion.

The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

another great post, Rep

thanks much.