Standing up for what’s right

Members of the American Congress who voted that Israel has no right to defend itself (with US-citizen tax money). Hopefully more will find the courage to stand up for what’s right.

Dennis J. Kucinich (D – OH)
Gwen Moore (D-WI)
Ron Paul (R – TX)
Nick Rahall (D-WV)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)

Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
John Dingell (D-MI)
Donna F. Edwards (D-MD)
Keith Ellison (D- MN)
Sam Farr (D-CA)
Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ)
Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)
Henry Johnson (D-GA)
Carolyn C. Kilpatrick (D-MI)
Barbara Lee(D-CA)
Betty McCollum (D-MI)

James McDermott (D-WA)
George Miller(D-CA)
James Moran(D-VA)
John Olver (D-MA)
Donald Payne (D-NJ)
Loretta Sanchez(D-CA)
Pete Stark (D-CA)
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)


Filed under Palestinian/ Israel conflict, Regional and International

4 responses to “Standing up for what’s right

  1. ewait

    I don’t get it. Yes, Israel has made a lot of mistakes. They have been all too ready to punish innocent people for crimes committed by a small number of people, and I’m not just talking about the present Gaza war. But Israel doesn’t have the right to defend itself?

    If Saudi Arabia had a neighboring country launching rockets at it day after day, are you telling me that it wouldn’t defend itself?

    Israel and the Palestinians are in a vicious circle of violence, and there’s fault on both sides.

  2. saudiwoman

    Isreal is not a country it is a colony, an invasion based on scripture.

  3. Andrew


    I would respectfully urge you to move beyond the pain and anger.

    Rejectionism will not serve the goals of the Arab nation.

    If our side takes the position that the enemy is fundamentally illegitimate, and that as a result there can be no accommodation but only a demand that the enemy dissolve and disappear, then the position of the enemy will be the mirror of ours.

    They will assume a position that the Palestinians must be made to disappear, and will work towards their goal of creating a disappearance, just as we are working to make the enemy disappear.

    In such a process in which each side requires total defeat of the other, and in which no compromise is possible, then each side will assert that any conceivable measures to achieve total defeat are justifiable.

    If we are engaged in a struggle in which the enemy must be totally destroyed, and as a consequence any measures are justified, then we could not be surprised or lament that the enemy uses extreme violence.

    Indeed, if one were to accept such a premise of no compromise and the total use of violence, then there would be no logical grounds for anger at the tactics of the enemy.

    Their tactics would simply be the converse of our own, if we had the means.

    This is a path of recursive violence.

    Are we prepared to accept limitless violence is a question to be asked.

    I would respectfully suggest that the historical lessons of Mohandas Gandhi has much to offer regarding the futility of such hatred and the attendant violence that it engenders.

    Non-violence is the only rational choice, and non-violent resistance.

    As such, we must be prepared to engage in negotiation with the possibility of compromise with the enemy.

    There is no other rational alternative.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s