| |
|
Human Rights Watch targets Israel's
power cutoff to Gaza, but ignores others
By Peter Garas
 CANBERA—Israel's move to cut energy supplies to the Gaza Strip violates the laws of war, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said in a report published on Thursday 7th February 2007
"Israel's cuts of fuel and electricity to Gaza, set to escalate today, amount to collective punishment of the civilian population, and violate Israel's obligations under the laws of war," the New York-based group said.
Israel began reducing the amount of fuel it supplied to Gaza in late October after declaring the coastal strip a "hostile entity" following its takeover by Hamas, an Islamist movement pledged to the destruction of the Jewish state.
"Israel views restricting fuel and electricity to Gaza as a way to pressure Palestinian armed groups to stop their rocket and suicide attacks," HRW's Middle East director Joe Stork said in the statement.
"But the cuts are seriously affecting civilians who have nothing to do with these armed groups, and that violates a fundamental principle of the laws of war," he said."
Whenever I read stories like this one I have an immediate and visceral reaction to the hypocrisy of the groups that make such comments and their lack of focus on the rest of the world where similar acts take place, but because they are are not in the Middle East; they do not involve Palestinians and Israelis, they are ignored and pass without any comment at all.
Recently the South African electricity producer cut off supplies to the whole of Zambia and Mozambique, because those countries did not pay their bills.
While not an 'act of war' perhaps, is this action by a private company less deserving of criticism?
Is such an act not going to provide "collective punishment" of the civilian population because the governments of those countries are simply not paying their bills?
Is this act any less deserving of comment from organisations such as Human Rights Watch?
Are ordinary people, their hospitals etc not affected by all this?
Is there a lack of criticism because the people who make up the Human Rights Watch simply have different views about the actions of companies that protect their shareholders interests and about governments that take action to try and protect the safety and security of their citizens from rocket attacks and bombings by terrorist groups that are pledged to the destruction of the Jewish state.
Taking heart it seems from such commentary, other companies elsewhere in the world are now putting their commercial profits (and/or the interests of their shareholders) above the interests of the civilian population.
This from the BBC today:
"Russian gas monopoly Gazprom has warned Ukraine it will reduce its gas supplies from next Monday if a $1.5bn (£772m) gas debt is not paid off.
Gazprom said only gas piped from Russia would be affected which would make up around 25% of Ukraine's total supply."
Gazprom spokesman Ilya Kochevrin said:
"We're a commercial company: our investors won't understand if our profits fall."
And this in the middle of winter!
Is such an act not going to provide 'collective punishment of the civilian population' because the governments of those countries are simply not paying their bills?
Is this act any less deserving of comment from organisations such as Human Rights Watch?
Are ordinary people, their hospitals etc. not affected by all this?
Is there a lack of criticism because the people who make up the Human Rights Watch simply have different views about the actions of companies that protect their shareholders interests and about governments that take action to try and protect the safety and security of their citizens from rocket attacks and bombings by terrorist groups that are "pledged to the destruction of the Jewish state"?
At what point is the Human Rights Watch going to make some comment about actions like this?
Or is it all different?
The rights of shareholders to their profits is obviously more "deserving" than the right of the citizens of Israel to simply live their lives in peace without being continually attacked by terrorist rockets and suicide bombers from a pseudo government that is pledged to the destruction of the Jewish state.
Wake up HRW, your bias appears to be showing, as does your lack of concern for the 'civilians'; who have nothing to do with these things that are happening in THEIR countries.
BOOKS ON SDJW
Garry Fabian tells of his childhood in Theresienstadt, move to Australia
—-SDJW Staff Report—
SAN DIEGO—Inaugurating a program of making the memoirs of its Jewish writers available online, San Diego Jewish World today is publishing A Look Back Over My Shoulder by Garry Fabian, district governor of B'nai B'rith of Victoria state and Australian bureau chief for our daily online news service.
 In his book, which will be permenently accessible via his individual author page on this site, Fabian tells how his family initially eluded the Nazis by escaping from Germany to Czechoslovakia, but how they too eventually were caught up in the net of terror. While at Theresienstadt, Fabian witnessed the efforts by the Nazis to disguise its genocidal program against the Jews.
Following the ghetto's liberation by Russian forces, the Fabians eventually made their way to Melbourne, Australia, where they built a new life. Fabian became active in the B'nai B'rith Youth Organization, an affiliation that was to have lifelong impact. He rose in the ranks of the B'nai B'rith, and today is the organization's governor in Victoria state.
His story may be read by clicking here
REFLECTIONS
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Forgotten Facts
By Sheila Orysiek
 SAN DIEGO—February 10, 2008 was the forty-fourth anniversary of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the United States House of Representatives. However, as Jews we’ve been celebrating the passage from bondage to freedom for about three thousand plus years - starting with the confrontation with Pharaoh. Ever since, civil rights for us as well as others, has been a consuming goal and Jews have been deeply involved in many of the activities surrounding the ongoing march for freedom.
Relative to the ongoing election process, I’ve listened to discussions as to why this or that demographic group votes the way they do. In one particular discussion (fairly representative of dozens of others) it was noted that the black community votes overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates and the reason given was because Republicans did not support the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is stated as accepted fact. Well, I decided to see if this was true. Is it really possible the Civil Rights Act in particular and civil rights in general were only supported by Democrats?
The following is a very brief thumbnail sketch of United States presidents from World War II on and their involvement in the forwarding of civil rights.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democrat, proposed no civil rights legislation that I could find. He did establish the Fair Employment Practices Commission which addressed discrimination only in government and defense industries. However, he refused to integrate the military and he also refused to support legislation against so horrifying a crime as lynching. Under pressure from Democratic southern governors, he agreed to segregation in the Works Progress Administration and the Civil Conservation Corps. He signed the authorization to incarcerate innocent Japanese Americans.
President Truman, Democrat, integrated the armed forces - a courageous thing to do at that time.
President Eisenhower, Republican, completed the integration of the armed forces. However, his most important action was enforcing the Supreme Court’s decision, Brown v Board of Education (desegregating public schools), and preserving the judicial branch of government - read more about this extraordinary event below.
President John F. Kennedy, Democrat, spoke strongly about the abolition of segregation in the South though he never actually proposed legislation. It must of course be said that because of the tragedy of his assassination, there is no way to know what he might have done.
President Lyndon Johnson, Democrat, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He also appointed the first black Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall.
President Nixon, Republican, started affirmative action. His intent was to aid those who had been left behind by prejudice in educational and employment opportunities. He made enforcing the desegregation of public schools a priority for his administration. When he came to office in 1969 - 68 percent of black children were still in segregated schools, when he left office only 8 percent were in segregated schools. That this was accomplished through negotiation by the Nixon administration rather than physical violence against an entrenched opposition is a noteworthy achievement.
President Carter, Democrat, spoke about civil rights, did make a number of appointments drawing from the black community, but proposed no legislation.
President Reagan, Republican, while California’s governor spoke strongly for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stating that if necessary it should be enforced at gun point - which is exactly what Eisenhower had done. Reagan appointed the first woman, Sandra Day O’Connor, to the Supreme Court. He signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which gave reparations to Japanese interned in camps during WWII, sponsored by Rep. Norman Mineta, Democrat, and Sen. Alan Simpson, Republican.
President George H. W. Bush, Republican, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 which provided stronger legal remedies for intentional discrimination in employment. He appointed Clarence Thomas as Supreme Court Justice, keeping Thurgood Marshall’s seat for black representation on the court.
President Clinton, Democrat, has been declared by some in the black community the “first black president,” though he never proposed any legislation and the Civil Rights Act in Arkansas passed only after he left the governor's mansion.
President George W. Bush, Republican, has spoken in strong support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and has made more appointments, and at higher levels of government, from the black community than any other president.
Though the above list is not complete – it would take several books to do that - it is a thumbnail sketch of the record of each president. And it by no means is absent of positive Republican involvement in forwarding Civil Rights. To come to the conclusion that only Democratic presidents supported civil rights is to ignore history. It is also true that for each president there are negatives - but that doesn’t allow us to ignore the positives.
The most striking example is the historic actions of President Dwight David Eisenhower, Republican - five star general, former Supreme Allied Commander WWII, former president of Columbia University and two term president.
When the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of desegregating the public schools in the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, Governor Orval Faubus, Democrat, of Arkansas not only refused to enforce the ruling - he personally undertook to thwart it. If the Supreme Court’s decisions are not enforced by the executive branches of government (local/state/federal) then the Supreme Court, and thus the judicial branch of government, is in fact null and void. It has no enforcement mechanism of its own. Therefore, Governor Faubus not only stood in the door of the high school in Little Rock blocking integration, he also stood in the door blocking the Supreme Court of the United States and thereby rendering the Court useless.
It was a pivotal moment in our history. Eisenhower understood that the ruling of the Supreme Court was the Law of the Land and had to be obeyed. When Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard to block the Supreme Court’s decision, Eisenhower overruled Faubus and federalized it. The Guard was now taking orders from the President of the United States. In addition, Eisenhower sent a division of the 101st Airborne paratroopers. By 3 a.m. soldiers surrounded the school with bayonets fixed. Not only were years of abhorrent wrongs righted, but also the viability of the judicial branch of our entire government (local/state/federal) was preserved.
We were fortunate to have a president with the foresight, the understanding and the courage to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution to which he had taken an oath. One can’t help but wonder why this historic event in the course of our nation’s history is so easily overlooked or how it can be construed that Republicans didn’t support civil rights. Eisenhower’s response changed the course of history on one hand, and preserved the course of our system of government on the other.
Not only are the positive actions of Republican presidents ignored but Republican Senators and Representatives are often accused of having not voted in favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Is this condemnation is deserved?
The Republicans were in the minority in the House of Representatives and Senate during the Johnson administration. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the Civil Rights Act and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34 (79 percent); Democrats supported it 152 to 96 (63 percent). Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Without Republicans the bill would have failed in the House.
How about the Senate? Since the Democrats were in the majority in the Senate, it was natural that Senator Hubert Humphrey, Democrat, would lead the fight. But it soon became clear it was conservative Republican Senator Everett Dirksen who was the key to victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without him and the Republican vote, the Act would have died. Dirksen was a tireless supporter in his efforts to craft and pass the Civil Rights Act. He began the tactical arrangements for passage of the bill and organized Republican support by choosing floor captains for each of the bill’s seven sections.
A filibuster opposing the Civil Rights Act had been organized and led by three senators: Robert Byrd, Democrat; Albert Gore, Sr., Democrat; and Sam Ervin, Democrat. The filibuster, one of the longest in the Senate’s history, lasted eighty three days. When Byrd finally sat down after speaking in opposition to the Civil Rights Act for fourteen hours and thirteen minutes, he was followed by Senator Richard Russell, Democrat, the final speaker in opposition. The vote for cloture (to shut off debate) which requires 67 votes had arrived.
On June 10, 1964, the Senate gallery was packed as all 100 senators were present for the climactic moment - they were voting on cloture. Late in the morning Everett Dirksen, Republican, addressed the Senate. By this time Dirksen was very ill, drained from working fifteen and sixteen hour days, he quoted Victor Hugo, “Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come. The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied."
After Dirksen spoke the roll call vote was called for cloture. As each name was read, members of the press and spectators in the gallery kept tally. At 11:15 a.m., Senator John Williams, Republican of Delaware, replied "aye" to cloture. It was the sixty-seventh vote; cloture had passed, ending the filibuster. It opened the way for the Civil Rights Act to be passed. After successfully defeating the 83-three day filibuster, Dirksen, when asked why he had become a crusader in this cause, replied, "I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind."
In the final vote the Senate passed the Civil Rights Act by 73 to 27. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats voted against passage. Democrats voted 46 to 21 in favor – that’s 69 percent. Republicans voted 27 to 6 in favor – that’s 82 percent. Republicans voted in a higher percentage than Democrats in favor of passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Yet, somehow history has been re-written - and accepted - that Republicans were against the Civil Rights Act.
But…even before the Civil Rights Act….it was a Republican appointed federal judge who desegregated many public facilities in the South. Appointed by President Eisenhower in 1955, Judge Frank Johnson in his very first decision had overturned Montgomery, Alabama's infamous "blacks in the back of the bus" law. During the 1960s, Judge Johnson continued to advance civil rights despite opposition from George Wallace, Democrat, Lester Maddox, Democrat, and other Democrat governors.
Every political party and each segment of the political divide has its negatives, but the positives must also be recognized.
Sources: article by Diane Alden of News.Max.com (Dec. 14, 2002), the website of the Northern Illinois University Library and the website of the National Leadership Network of Conservative African-Americans.
 SAN DIEGO—"That's funny!" giggled my grandson Shor, a first-grader, as he looked at the photographs of pre-schoolers acting out a trip to Israel to celebrate it forthcoming 60th birthday.
It's Israel's Birthday written by Ellen Dietrick and photographed by Tod Cohen is a wonderful flight of fancy that also can serve as a lesson plan for pre-school and, dare I say, lower elementary school teachers throughout the country as Yom Ha'Atzma'ut approaches.
The children in this 21-photograph book published by Kar-Ben are identified as pupils of the CBI preschool, but the location of the school is not mentioned. Their imaginary trip to Israel takes place in their classroom and on the playground of their school. It starts, per the image below, with a flight to Israel.
When they arrive at Ben-Gurion Airport, they have their passports stamped. They go to a kibbutz and taste the sweet oranges grown there, to a shuk in Jerusalem to sample the vegetables and to buy a Kiddush cup, and stop for lunch at a felafel stand. At the Kotel, built from blocks, the say a prayer, and tuck notes into the crevices.
Given that much of Israel is a desert, they go to the sandbox, where they dig for archaeological artifacts. Then to cool off, they decide to go for a swim in the Dead Sea. They lie atop a blue tarp, because "the Dead Sea has so much salt you can float without trying."
Next they visit an Israeli school and learn some letters and numbers in Hebrew. Then it's on to Tel Aviv for the big Yom Ha'Atzma'ut parade for which the children march enthusiastcally around the classroom, while waving their Israeli flags.
At last it is time to gather up their sovenirs, packs their bags, and fly back home.
As a bonus, on the back page of this thoroughly delightful book, there is a set of instructions for making a special Israel birthday hat out of colored paper.
As Shor has traveled to Israel several times because that is where the family of his father, Shahar, lives, I asked him if there were any other activities he could suggest for the preschoolers to act out.
He remembered crawling through a tunnel in Ir David (David's City) that took him to the ruins of an ancient swimming pool. Maybe, the kids could go through a tunnel, he suggested. Very much into building things lately, he said the classroom chairs could be turned over on their sides to make the tunnel.
.
SAN DIEGO JEWISH WORLD THE WEEK IN REVIEW
Shoshana Bryen in Washington, D.C. : Gaza crisis threatens Mubarek's rule
Donald H. Harrison in San Diego: Paying attention to Paying for Justice
Rabbi Baruch Lederman in San Diego: A Shmitah miracle in a banana orchard
Sheila Orysiek in San Diego: A letter to Margot—19 years wasn't enough
Rabbi Leonard Rosenthal in San Diego: The more you study, the more to learn
Lynne Thrope in Encinitas, California: The buzz about Firefly Grill & Wine Bar
Peter Garas in Canberra, Australia: Finding mom's effects led to columnist's study of genealogy and the Holocaust
Donald H. Harrison in San Diego: San Diegans bid farewell to Rose Schiff: matriarch to performers and educators
Donald H. Harrison in San Diego: When triplet sisters become mothers
Donald H. Harrison in San Diego: First graders receive siddurim in special presentation at Hebrew Day School
Natasha Josefowitz in La Jolla, California: Reading, writing, counting and speaking —are we as competent as we should be?
Dorothea Shefer-Vanson in Mevasseret Zion, Israel: Israeli school ceremony celebrates pupils demonstrating their reading of Bible
Ira Sharkansky in Jerusalem: Why Israel prefers to just muddle through
Carol Davis in San Diego: Works by Young Playwrights impressive
Donald H. Harrison in San Diego: Field Notes: A 17-Mile Drive kind of novel
Alan Rusonik in San Diego: Why genealogy is important for children
Plus: Super Tuesday results, State by State
Shoshana Bryen in Washington, D.C.: U.S. winning Al Qaeda's strong horse derby
Cynthia Citron in Los Angeles: The Monkey Jar riddle: who’s the monkey?
Donald H. Harrison in San Diego: Eternal Light documentary highlights one of the more meaningful television series
Ira Sharkansky in Jerusalem: Palestinians, Labor have penchant for self-inflicted political damage
< BACK TO TOP
|
|
