Settlers violence is the root of the problem in Palestine

Settlers attacking Old Palestinians woman/ Old Photo

This is piece is to respond to Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic: The Paranoid, Supremacist Roots of the Stabbing Intifada, where he said his version of the story going back to 1920 through 2015: Palestinian leaders incite violence now as they did in 1920.
The current stabbing Intifada taking place in Palestine he said a quasi-uprising in which Palestinians have been trying, and occasionally succeeding, to kill Jews with knives. Goldberg should know that the definition of Intifada is uprising. He used Intifada as part of the name of the article and then he calls the intifada quasi-uprising. Mr Goldberg, it is an intifada or is not.

Palestinian sources said that when two terrorist settlers tried to strip the woman of her Hijab, she defended herself with a knive. Immediately, one of the settlers shot the woman from a close range. Clashes in al-QudsThe woman was heading to al-Aqsa Mosque, before being attacked by the settlers, eye witnesses said.

Well he goes to blame the current situation to the leaders of Palestine for the anger that is uncontrollable and has been displaced by the Palestinian youth mostly in recent incidents. Worth mentioning that only part of the stabbings did really happened as published by Palestinian news and other outlets, the rest of the Palestinians killed have been staged by  the settlers filled with their common hate for any Arab; Christian or Muslim. And even there is an incident that a settler confused the darker skin of an individual for Palestinian and it was a Jew.  Last Thursday, The New York Post said that 31 Palestinians were killed recently from which only, 14 were recognized as attackers, according to mathematics the other 17 were indeed executed

Anyway, going back to Goldberg’s article, he goes on saying the violence, “is prompted in good part by the same set of manipulated emotions that sparked the anti-Jewsh riots of the 1920’s; a deeply felt desire on the part of the Palestinians to “protect” the Temple Mount from the Jews” he said. Goldberg does not make any mention of the thousands of settlers and IOF incidents of unprovoked attacks prior to this 2015 youth uprising. No, he prefers to say only what the Israel’s public loves to hear; the eternal victim-hood of the Jewish people wondering in the wilderness looking for God’s promise land; for his chosen people. Let’s forget about religion and come back to reality.
Palestinians have been living in Palestine for centuries as history records.
If you like recorded history and want to learn more about Palestine, I invite you to visit Palestine Remembered where you can watch videos of interviews from Palestinians and Jews before the creation of the political entity Israel, photos of villages all gone now, stories of battles and more.”The CORE issues of the Palestinian-Israeli are the collective dispossession and ethnic cleansing (compulsory population transfer to achieve political objectives) of the Palestinian people for the past six decades. In our opinion, the conflict would have been at the same level of intensity even if both parties had been Jewish, Muslims, or Christians. ”

Golberg repeats the same mantra that is being distributed by the Streaming Media: “Netayahu has said that the State of Israel is not trying to change the Status Quo.”

But what is the “Status Quo”?

The State of Israel is not “officially” promoting settler violence but it is permitting the violence with the protection of the IOF and Israeli security forces allowing settlers to attack worshipers and allowing the settlers to enter Al-quds with shoes to vandalize inside the mosque.
If Netayahu mean he is not going to change the Status Quo then:
What is the Status Quo in Jerusalem and in the rest of the occupied territories?
Occupation Territories is the Status Quo?
Are check points the Status Quo?
“Each checkpoint looks like a military zone, consisting of a guard tower, a pedestrian waiting area, and two car lanes: one with a long wait for Palestinian cars and a special open car lane for Israeli cars. ” Electronic Intifada 2004
Palestinian Muslim males over 45 not allow to enter Jerusalem.

The South Africa pass laws implemented in Israel are kicking and running. Palestinians need to secure a permit to move around the occupied territories. If Israel feels like it, it won’t grant a permit.

Palestinians are not allowed to freely move in Palestine at all. Shuhada Street in Hebron is one of the best examples of living under a military dictatorship occupation. Shuhada Street is close for Palestinians but Jews can freely walk and harass the Palestinians residents that live on Shuhada street but need to leave their homes thru a hole on the roof.
Jerusalem is only open on Friday and males 55+, women 45+ after IOF clearance.
People living in Gaza are not allow to enter West Bank at all, actually the refugee camp of Gaza is a deportation camp. Families are completely separated.

Is the #Apartheid Wall part of the Status Quo?

Palestinian protesters and IDF soldiers at the beginning of the weekly protest near Bil’in. The apartment houses of Modi’in Ilit can be seen in the distance. March 30 2013 (photo: Noam Sheizaf)

Do allowing the settlers and sometimes IOF escorting them to harass farmers during their work in the field the Status Quo?
Do allowing the settlers to harass women in their way to the market the Status Quo?
Do allowing the settlers to harass children in their way from and to school the Status Quo?
Do allowing the settlers to burn thousands of olive trees every year the Status Quo?
Are the demolitions of Palestinian homes, separation and forced eviction of Palestinians part of the Status Quo?
Are the separate roads for settlers and Palestinian part of the Status Quo?
Is the killing of youth rather than access to courts the Status Quo?
Is the harassment of the children of Palestine in the middle of the night to take their photos part of the Status Quo?
Is the confiscation of Palestinian land for “security reason” and part of the Status Quo?
And also do not forget that the violence is not only in Jerusalem but in all the occupied territories including the modern concentration camp of Gaza which has been blocked from the rest of the world for almost 10 years.
So, people do not swallow the pill that this is a religious war, is not.Goldberg makes an excellent surgical extraction of the truth to portray the Israel’s side of the story.
For people that only follows the main stream media news, Goldberg’s piece is an excellent source to stay uninformed, misinformed and with this stripping Palestinian of all their humanity and right to fight for their existence in the only way they know; throwing rocks and now using kitchen knives.
Remember Israel has tanks, F16s, Apache Helicopters, Drones, War ships to attack Gaza, in other words Israel has all the defense gadgets and Palestinians has none but stones and knives. The fact that Palestine has been invaded many times in history does not mean it did not exist before United Nations decided to partition the land in 1947. It does not means either that the violence started on 1947.  It only means that Palestinians have been peaceful people that never wonder outside of their land, they have been farmers and shepherds, not conquerors.
Further reading    Survey of Palestine by British Mandate 1200 pages report includes 1917-1945

| More Hubris? What Susan Rice’s White House Promotion Means!

What Susan Rice’s White House Promotion Means ~ Jeffrey GoldbergBloomberg View.


Revenge is a dish best served cold. Except when it’s best served hot.

Just a few months ago, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and now President Barack Obama’s choice to be the next national security adviser, saw her main chance to become secretary of state dissipate before her eyes, as Senate Republicans (withJohn McCain and Lindsey Graham in the lead) excoriated her for, as they saw it, misleading the public about the attacks on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year. (My thoughts about the attacks on Rice can be found here.)

Jeffrey Goldberg

About Jeffrey Goldberg»

Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for the Atlantic, is the author of “Prisoners: A Story of Friendship … MORE


Rice was forced to withdraw her name, and SenatorJohn Kerry was awarded the job. Now Rice will be, in effect, Kerry’s supervisor. McCain and Graham, by turning Rice into the scapegoat of the Benghazi debacle, have inadvertently allowed the president to bring her into the innermost ring of power, in a role that requires no Senate confirmation.

In the highly centralized White House foreign-policy and national-security operation (critics would call it overcentralized, and they have a point) the secretary of state, even one of Kerry’s stature, does comparatively little to set the administration’s overarching policy. Kerry seems to spend most of his waking hours pursuing a semi-quixotic Middle East peace plan. It will be Rice’s job to interpret the president’s broadest wishes and put them into place across several government departments.


Her influence will be especially pronounced, I think, because she is part of Obama’s original foreign-policy team — in what could have been a near-suicidal career move, Rice, a former official in President Bill Clinton’s administration, signed on to Obama’s campaign when his victory didn’t seem at all assured.

In the period when the Senate’s scapegoating of Rice was at its peak, Obama seemed frustrated by the manner in which she was treated. Her appointment today is partly payback for her loyalty, and a thumb in the eyes of her Senate critics. It is also a sign that the president and Rice are in sync on a broad set of issues, and here is where it gets interesting.

Rice is known as a liberal interventionist (as is the woman being named to replace her at the UN, the writer and former National Security Council staffer Samantha Power), but advocates of greater American involvement in the Syrian civil war, the most acute problem Rice will face in her new position, will be disappointed to learn that she isn’t particularly optimistic about the effect that any U.S. action — such as imposing a no-fly zone — will have on the war’s outcome.

Rice, like the president, seems focused on the possibility that the downfall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime could mean a victory for al-Qaeda-like groups that represent some of the strongest elements of the Syrian opposition. The Obama administration is desperately seeking to avoid the creation of terrorist havens in Syria, because they would represent a direct national-security threat to the U.S. and would require an armed American response.

The American experience in Libya — not the Benghazi attack, which was searing in its own way — has also chastened Obama’s national-security team: The intervention on behalf of rebels fighting the late, unlamented dictator Muammar Qaddafi, may very well have saved thousands of innocent lives, but the fallout from Qaddafi’s overthrow (the rise of al-Qaeda-like groups, the spread of Libyan weapons across Africa, the general misery and instability that now afflicts the country) has taught Obama’s advisers, Rice included, important lessons about the unpredictability of intervention. Politically, the administration has seen no upside to the Libyan intervention — it was criticized for recklessness by both Democrats and Republicans — and in a very political White House, these domestic considerations often take precedence.

Formative Experience

That said, Rice is, by disposition and ideology, a strong advocate of American power, and her formative experience in government came when she watched, impotently, as hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered in the Rwandan genocide in 1994. The Clinton administration had the power to intervene but didn’t. Rice is committed to preventing other Rwandas, but notably, I’m told, she doesn’t see what is happening in Syria as the equivalent. At least not yet.

Rice has been known as a tough, sometimes brusque, operator. She suffered, post-Benghazi, because she had previously made little effort to befriend senators and members of the news media, among others. But lately, perhaps in preparation for a job she suspected was coming her way, she has become more, well, diplomatic. Not diplomatic enough for some: One of the darkly humorous moments of the Benghazi witch hunt came when some Republicans complained to me that Rice had manhandled the Russian delegation to the UN. This may have been the first time since the Bolshevik Revolution that Republicans were worried about the feelings of senior Russian officials.

I suspect that McCain and Graham will come, over time, to appreciate Rice’s toughness. I’m not sure I can say the same for the trio of aging white male ex-senators — Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Kerry — who believe themselves to be at the core of the national-security operation. Susan Rice is not Condoleezza Rice, who was steamrolled on more than one occasion by Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, when she served as President George W. Bush’s national security adviser. Susan Rice won’t be easily outmaneuvered.



US except1A