Wikileaks has released a document which shows, the US knew that the blockade on Gaza was impacting people’s health, way back in 2009. The cable says:

Access to Gaza for goods through Israeli crossing points remains severely constrained. While there are adequate stocks of basic food items in Gaza, the lack of variety and continuing price increases are negatively impacting people’s health. A lack of medicine is crippling the health sector. — Cable Refernce:09JERUSALEM1705_a

The definition of starve, is to cause to suffer or die, from prolonged lack of food. Eight year of blockade; with five years of United States knowledge.

The cable is addressed to a number of recipients including the Secretary of State, at that time Hilary Clinton and the National Security Council. However the US decided to do nothing. This should not surprise anybody, who has followed the effects of the US lead sanctions on Iraq.

The information was marked classified by Daniel Rubinstein, a prominent Jewish American Diplomat, at the time “Consul General and Chief of Mission in Jerusalem”.

Given recent revelations, that powerful Zionist lobbies within the United States, have unduly affected American Foreign Policy in the Middle East, the question needs to be asked was he connected to these lobbies, could this have motivated him to classify this information.

Even if there is no lobby question, Israel states that it is involved in a religious conflict. Should such an important and vital piece of information, be able to be classified, by a person who is so closely connected to that religious belief. Especially when Israeli Zionists are widely promoting that Palestinians are intent on committing genocide against all Jews.

Let’s be clear, no connection has been proven. In of itself, it is damaging enough. It shows a diplomat, and a complicit State department of the United States, censoring information, showing that a population was being starved. One for the war crimes tribunal I hope.

It is important that people are not denied employment opportunities based on their religious beliefs. And it is uncomfortable and upsetting that there are now grounds which erode this important civil gain, giving an argument that religion be declared for some roles. It is difficult to see how to address the issue, without opening up a Pandora’s box of other problems. One way is to be transparent, however if the people who control transparency are intent on hiding information, what can be done?