Israel got tank shell that killed 20 at UN school from US without Obama’s approval — WSJ bombshell

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/without-approval-bombshell.html

When Walt and Mearsheimer published their book on the Israel lobby in 2007, I thought, they’ve scratched the surface, we don’t know the half of it. Well here you go, friends. The Wall Street Journal reports today that even as Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were trying to brake Israel during the slaughter in Gaza, Israel relied on its “allies” in “Congress and elsewhere in the administration” to dip into American weapons stocks to refill its guns, without Obama’s approval.

And those tank shells were used on a UN school on July 30, killing 20 Palestinian civilians. The US is a partner to this war crime, a Palestinian says in the WSJ article.

It’s a shocking report about Israel’s autonomy inside the US government, in defiance even of the president.
---
The Wall Street Journal says what we all know, but that the liberal Israel lobby groups Peace Now and J Street are unable to say, the Israeli attacks on civilian settings were indiscriminate.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

1. I'm sure Issah is gonna launch and immediate investigation,....

....into why Obama didn't know about this.

[lob1]

2. So congress sold weapons to Israel without Obama's knowledge.

And people say they're a do-nothing congress.

[leftynyc]

3. This doesn't require Presidential approval

Arms packages are approved (or not) by Congress. This has been pointed out over and over again and still we see BOMBSHELL!!!!!

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. And 448 Palestinian children have been murdered

Last edited Fri Aug 15, 2014, 10:56 AM - Edit history (1)

WRT this process.

Funding murderers or giving them arms si they can murder mire should nit be tolerated. Ever.

[leftynyc]

5. While certainly heartbreaking and tragic

That has nothing to do with whether the President has the authority to approve arms sales.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

6. Actually if there were more control

or overcite it certainly could.

Seeing how PBO put a stop on the transfer perhaps he realized that it needed to be done.

[leftynyc]

7. And Congress will overturn that

stop the second Israel asks them to (since the stuff is already paid for). It's Congress's job so I'm not sure what kind of oversight you're talking about.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

8. Well, as long as Congress kmows who they

are working for I guess everything will turn out fine.

[leftynyc]

9. Working for?

It couldn't possibly be that they support Israel because the terrorist hamas has made life for Gazan intolerable what with spending all the aid money sent to them on tunnels and weapons. You really need to look at where your fellow Americans (as well as a majority of Democrats) stand on this issue and realize you are in a small minority. You can quote how the kids feel all day long - until they get off their asses and vote, they're feelings are meaningless.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

10. You keep on telling yourself and you'll be

alright in no time. Don't bother about anything else.

"Israel...good. Everybody else bad."

[leftynyc]

11. It's been an interesting day

You think I'm an Islamophobe who couldn't care less about the Gazans and I'm having another onlike argument with some other liberals (people I met on Daily Kos) who are way more hawkish on Israel than I am and I'm defending President Obama because as far as they're concerned the President hates Israel and gives much too much consideration to Muslim countries that hate us. I'm getting slammed from both sides and that tells me I'm right on the money. So you all can continue to live in your black and white worlds where everyone that doesn't agree with you is ABSOLUTELY WRONG (and ascribing venal intentions) and I'll continue to live in the real world where gray is reality.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

13. What a joke.

They're liberals but hawkish on Israel.

I don't consider that very liberal while Israel is an apartheid state.

Fail.

Poor you. You're getting slammed on both sides so you're right on the money...

But if you are getting slammed on "both sides" it sounds like your liberals are really conservatives, and you didn't think that through at all before typing.


But I do agree about the black and white when it comes to the murder of civilians and children by a colonizing apartheid state with weapons from the USA. I also don't buy your convenient shades of gray BS.

The question is very simple. Do you condone the murder of children?

[leftynyc]

14. LOL - more black and white thinking

This is becoming a joke. So people that all voted for Pres Obama, are pro choice, screaming about the criminals on wall street, vote Democratic DOWN THE LINE are all conservatives in your narrow and ridiculous mind because they support Israel. You obviously want to drive away the MAJORITY of Democrats because they disagree with you. You're a cartoon of the far left. You must be so proud of your righteousness. Enjoy being in the tiny minority you're in. You're making yourself meaningless and irrelevant. If anyone want to alert this post, do yourself a favor and read the entire conversation.

[King_David]

15. Well democrats do support Israel and gay rights too.

I have been posting in IP for years now and there is a lot af people who don't support Israel at all and a lot of homophobic posts have been hidden in this IP group too .

Hamas is the most right wing conservative gay hating movement around and it also gets it's fair share of support.

And then you get those advocating for a one state "solution " which is just a recipe for annihilation of Israel's thriving and huge gay community too .

[leftynyc]

16. It's mind boggling

that the treatment of ALL minorities is ignored by so many on DU to push their antipathy to Israel. I pay no attention to the one state solution crowd. They're irrelevant and it will never happen.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

19. It's mind boggling how some supposed Democrats support murderous apartheid Israel.

[leftynyc]

21. As opposed to those who

support the terrorist hamas? Because that's as logical as the vomit you're spewing. According to you, if I support Israel, I support murder. Well, if you support the Gazans you must support suicide bombers, the murder of gays and terrorism. That's the black and white thinking you engage in. It's ridiculous.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

32. Name one person here that supports Hamas. Ready? Go.

[leftynyc]

34. I'll simplify this for you

because obviously complex thinking is either beyond you or you have no use for it. According to you, if I support Israel, I support murder - you have said those exact words time and time again, you did it right in this thread. Using that simplistic, childish logic, if you support the people of Gaza (the was I support the people of Israel) you MUST support their leaders and their tactics- which we all know include suicide bombings, killing gays, strapping bombs onto children. See what simplistic arguments bring you? So if your claim is that I support murder because I support Israel, you must support hamas. So I guess the answer is you.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

18. If they support Israel then they support murder, Dave.

Do you support the murder of 448 Palestinian children, Dave?

[backwoodsbob]

30. if you support Hamas you support terror groups

R Daneel,do you support blowing up children in pizza parlors and shooting rockets at schools?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

31. Seeing how I have never supported Hamas, but the king supports Israel my query still stands.

[MFM008]

53. Israel worse

dropping bunker busters on sleeping kids, killing them in UN buildings, in hospitals, on a beach. There is no safe place in Gaza. Im protesting to my congressman no more US $$$$$ to blow up babies.

[Scootaloo]

51. And again, here you go with exploiting gay people to justify brutalization of Palestinians

As if the rights of Israeli gays were dependent on the mass murder and subjugation of Palestinians.

ETA: oops, two weeks old. Darned thread necro's! ah well, point stands - using gay people as objects and ammunition to justify the killing and abuse of other people, yadda yadda, same right-wing fascist shit the EDL pulls, using one minority to advocate violence against another.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

17. Nope. But the straw dog anecdote you constructed sure sounds like conservative hawks.

Perhaps you get taken in rather easily by those who say the are liberals but really aren't.

[leftynyc]

29. Only a hypocrite

or someone with no self awareness doesn't see the comparison. That would be entirely your problem. As is the complete unraveling of this story (first posted from a right wing website and lapped up like ice cream here at DU)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322634/--No-change-in-procedure-for-arming-Israel

[azurnoir]

20. Congress sets foreign policy? since when?

if that is true why isn't the American Embassy in Jerusalem? Congress can indeed go through the motions on some issues however it is the Executive Branch that sets foreign policies not the legislative

[leftynyc]

22. You're confusing things and

I think you may be doing it deliberately. Congress approves arms deals. NO President could decide to arm (or disarm) any country without the approval of Congress. If he tries to disarm Israel (by not sending them what they've already agreed to), Congress will go against this President and they have the votes to overcome any veto. Do you really think Pres Obama is going to risk that kind of embarrassment in order to satisfy the hard left? Never going to happen.

[azurnoir]

23. Congress allocates the money for arms

however the executive branch has the final word on what arms those moneys can be spent on

[leftynyc]

24. LOL

Good luck with that. If you think Pres Obama is going to go against Congress, against a majority of Americans, against the majority of Democrats in order to satisfy the far left, you really don't understand politics at all. There's a reason the far left has zero power in this country. This web site is a perfect illustration why that is.

[leftynyc]

25. I knew this whole

story was bullshit:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322634/--No-change-in-procedure-for-arming-Israel

[azurnoir]

26. in the offcial statement Ms Harf seems to 'squirm' at direct questions

it's not a second look but not a review that we're reviewing

QUESTION: But – I know. You already said that. But what we’re getting at here is that the implication is that the reason, in this particular instance, that extra care is being taken is because of concern in some quarters of the Administration – particularly in the White House and the State Department – that some of this ammunition was being used to contribute to civilian deaths and that’s why – don’t call it a review, taking a second look, whatever you want to call it – is that that’s why --

MS. HARF: I’m not going to give a specific reason behind why, during a crisis, we would take a second look. I just made very clear that we were concerned about civilian deaths on the Palestinian side.

QUESTION: So if you’re very concerned about civilian deaths, then you must be extra concerned that U.S. weapons are being – contributing to those civilian deaths.

MS. HARF: I’m just not going to outline the rationale behind taking a second look at some of these things.

QUESTION: Marie --

QUESTION: So it didn’t – it wasn’t – I mean, I’m sure it wasn’t lost on you that in your – and you from this podium used words like “appalled,” used words like – I don’t know, help me out, but --

QUESTION: Outraged.

QUESTION: -- “outraged, disgraceful,” I don’t know – remember, exactly.

MS. HARF: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: You used those words to describe some of the civilian deaths. I’m sure it was not lost on this Administration in its decision to take a second look, or whatever you want to call it, that U.S. weapons could be playing a part in that.

QUESTION: Just to clarify --

MS. HARF: I just don’t have any more analysis on this for you.

QUESTION: Wasn’t it – it wasn’t a second look, it wasn’t a review. Well, how do you characterize it? Because you said that there is no long-term policy change, but you did say that there was a --

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/08/230614.htm

[leftynyc]

27. Story that the administration is

changing any policy regarding Israeli arms is complete bullshit. You can try and deflect all you like.

[azurnoir]

28. no BS needed simply facts a 'second look' is quite diplomatic I'd say :)

and Congress does not decide what arms any given country can buythat is the Executive branch

[leftynyc]

33. LOL - hang your hat on that

kind of bullshit. I know you find it comforting to believe bullshit. This was the disgusting right wingers trying to drive a wedge between Jewish voters and the Democratic party and you fell for it hook, line and sinker. You should be embarrassed.

[azurnoir]

35. are you opining that the votes of American Jews will go to whomever unconditionally supports Israel?

wow just wow I would say that American Jews like any other Americans have more pressing issues than Israel and that is why American Jews vote for Democrats

[leftynyc]

36. Sigh

Why do you continually put words into my mouth that I've never said? Is your argument so freeking weak that you feel you have to set up strawmen CONSTANTLY to try and win an argument? I'm finding it pathetic and finding you too tedious to have a discussion with. Try actually using what I actually say if you wish to be honest.

[azurnoir]

37. I asked you a question which you claim as putting words in your mouth

which is a reply indicative of attempting a defense by offense

[leftynyc]

38. Don't lie

I told you what the story was about - right wingers trying to drive a wedge and you LIED and turned it around and said it was something I was opining about. You're getting very tedious and boring and you don't even want to know what I think of adults using idiot smilies to make a point.

[azurnoir]

39. again I am not lying as you claim look at the comment are you with a question mark is a question

not a statement , it seems you can't comment without making a personal attack, why is that?

[leftynyc]

40. More lies

Anyone who reads the whole conversation knows you put words in my mouth and like a child is now trying to back away from it. I'm done with you.

[azurnoir]

41. No I asked you a question period and I guess you're out of accusations here?

is that why you're backing away because I'm up for more if you wish I have not lied nor made any false accusations towards you

[azurnoir]

44. now 2 weeks later ........... still no Hellfires

What is clear is that two weeks after the revelation that the US had added an additional level of scrutiny to resupplying the IDF with weapons, business was anything but usual regarding the military-to-military relationship upon which Israel relies

The administration in Washington is hunkered down tight on the transfer of Hellfire missiles to the IDF — a transfer that would most likely have been routine until the additional level of scrutiny was applied. And, despite optimism that the transfer would soon go ahead as planned, no such action has been confirmed by Washington.

Details on the timeline for the release of the Hellfires have proven elusive. Even on Capitol Hill, the sense is that the missiles will be released “soon” — a word repeated in numerous off-the-record conversations on the subject — but neither the timeline, nor the mechanism for their release, is clear.

Washington has, in fact, been extremely closed-lipped about the Hellfires.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-missiles-to-be-released-soon-whatever-the-hellfire-that-means/#ixzz3Bo23md7U


which I guess lays to rest your claim that this was some Rightwing plot to "drive a wedge between Jewish voters and the Democratic party" which could appear to be election year fear mongering.........I'll let that speak for itself

also note this is not a general election year so the actions of the Executive branch really have no bearing here not to mention from what I've read it was a rightwinger George W Bush that instituted the direct transfers between IDF and the Pentagon

[MFM008]

52. It would if we didnt do it

Israel doesnt need anymore weapons of mass destruction and not a dime of US taxpayer money. Let S. Adelson supply the arms.

[Shaktimaan]

46. Question...

Considering how all military conflicts result in the deaths of civilians and children, do you feel that EVERY instance of military aid, response, and intervention should have necessarily been opposed?

For example, Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia marked the end of Pol Pot's rule and the genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge. This invasion was made possible by arms given to Vietnam by China. Was this transfer of arms (used to murder many civilians during the war), "intolerable?"

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

49. All murder is intolerable. It's funny how you use Vietnam, a country that did its own house cleaning

...aka murder...as did China, to bolster a lagging argument.

Neither Vietnam or China were Democracies whereas supposedly Israel is. Are you comparing Israel to two repressive communist regimes?

[Shaktimaan]

55. Try and stay on track.

I'm arguing against the absurdity of simplistic platitudes like "killing is always wrong" regardless of context.

Let's try this... Forget about national conflicts and states for a minute. I'll use a classic ethical paradox to illustrate this point.

A railway trolley is rushing towards a group of 5 people who are trapped on the railway track. If the trolley is not stopped or diverted, it will definitely kill all 5 people. You are observing the situation and the ONLY option you have is to press a button that will divert the trolley to a different track. However, there is 1 person trapped on the other track too and he will be definitely killed if you divert the trolley. What would you do?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

56. I am on track. You compared Israel with two repressive communist countries. Your fail.

Last edited Fri Sep 5, 2014, 12:01 AM - Edit history (1)

Whatever you are arguing you are doing it poorly.

Here's a better query.
So a train leaves from Chicago traveling at 100 miles per hour.
How many Palestinian children will the IDF kill before it reaches New York City?

[Shaktimaan]

57. No. You're pretty far off track.

I compared Israel with China and Vietnam? That's about as off track as you could get and still use the same alphabet.

Maybe I haven't been making myself clear, if you're truly so confused as to what I'm saying. It's basic high school level ethics... I'm not talking about Israel or Vietnam or Gaza right now at all. I'm trying to test your statement, (which you supposedly believe in as an ethical benchmark of sorts), using hypothetical situations.

What about this are you confused about?

Do you stand by your earlier statement, "killing is always wrong, no matter what?" Or do you want to revise it... Something like, "Killing is usually wrong, most of the time, depending?"

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

58. Please, keep pulling from your big ole bucket of fail. It's amusing.

And while you're at it you can tap dance your slip shod excuses around all the (IDF) murdered Palestinian Children and civilians.

Yes, I actually used the term "murdered" and not killing. Check the thread. Another fail on your part, but I expect no less.

I compared Israel with China and Vietnam?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113477120#post46

46. Question...

Considering how all military conflicts result in the deaths of civilians and children, do you feel that EVERY instance of military aid, response, and intervention should have necessarily been opposed?

For example, Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia marked the end of Pol Pot's rule and the genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge. This invasion was made possible by arms given to Vietnam by China. Was this transfer of arms (used to murder many civilians during the war), "intolerable?"

Whoomp there it is!

[Shaktimaan]

59. Whoop where what it?

I used the words china and Vietnam. Can you show me where I compared Israel to either?

Of course not. And it's obvious you're not so dense as to be this confused. You just don't like the question i asked because it forces you to admit that some questions lack easy answers.

[Purveyor]

12. Thanks for posting and a decent amount of 'recs' and 'views'. +1 eom

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

42. And a varied amount of whining and excuses

by team hasbarista.

[Purveyor]

43. Oh now you know it would be disappointing and boring if it were any other way.

Always interesting watching/reading the apartheid apologists.

[Shaktimaan]

45. For the record...

You describe all pro-Israel posters as "apartheid apologists" here. Can you link to anyone who has ever actually defended or excused apartheid policies?

[Calista241]

47. This seems a bit hypocritical to me...

Given the fact that US bombings and drone strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan / Pakistan killed orders of magnitude more civilians than the Israeli's have in all of their conflicts since the 1980's.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

48. Ah yes, it's the Israel has killed less so they are better argument.

No, I am also against the USA when it kills brown people in other countries, and would love to see the MIC's wings clipped drastically.

Given the fact that the MIC supplies Israel with weapons they are just as guilty as Israel in this whole mess.

[Calista241]

50. The US, NATO, etc.

Basically, if you're engaged in armed conflict, period, you've more than likely killed way more people than the Israeli's did.

The Russians are coldly exterminating Ukrainians, the UK, US, Germany, France, etc. all participated in Afghanistan. Where's the ICC when it comes to these countries?

The ICC is not looking for justice, they've been corrupted by political machinations of countries and individuals trying to get what they want through subversion of the legal process rather than military force.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

54. Keep on hugging the "Israelies are killing less so they are okay" meme all you like.

It doesn't make your argument any more sane.