Posted on 11/18/2011 by RamallahOnline

Mic tells tale of growing US-Israel gap

Kourosh Ziabari

Despite pretentiously showing gestures of friendship and cordiality, the ideological gap between the U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is getting wider increasingly.

The contents of a recent would-be private conversation between the U.S. President Barack Obama and his French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy in which the two described Netanyahu as a “liar” infuriated the Zionist lobby in the West and once again underscored the growing conflicts between the U.S. and its client state, Israel. Continue reading →

Posted on 11/13/2011 by RamallahOnline

When Hillary Clinton doesn’t make sense

Kourosh Ziabari

Kourosh Ziabari

U.S. President Barack Obama will be a lame duck next year and the officials in his administration, especially his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are hilariously doing their best to make sure that they haven’t spared any effort to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries and sabotage the stability and security of those whom they call “enemies”, like Iran.

On October 27, Hillary Clinton gave an exclusive interview to the UK’s state-funded, state-run BBC Persian TV and in an attempt aimed at reaching out to the Iranian nation, made bombastic remarks which have certainly infuriated the Iranian nation and demonstrated that the hostile behavior and antagonistic stance of the U.S. government toward the Iranian nation is a manifestation of the idiom “the leopard can’t change its spots.” Continue reading →

Posted on 09/23/2011 by RamallahOnline

Obama, eloquent hypocrisy

President Barack Obama May 1, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Sami Jamil Jadallah

At the UN President Obama chose to be candidate Obama and not the President of the United States, the leader of the free world and the statement. His message at the United Nation was worthy of delivery at AIPAC or Knesset but not at the United Nation, certainly not to the world.

Mr. Obama, you know, the American people know, the Palestinians know, the Arabs and Muslims know, the Jews know and the world knows but for AIPAC and the American Jewish leadership and community and its power and influence over American politics the Middle East conflict would have been solved long time ago. We would not have a September 11th, we would not have the War on Iraq, we would not have the War on Afghanistan, certainly we would not have the economic mess and meltdown we have now.

I was expecting President Obama to speak so eloquently of the Arab people desire for freedom and democracy in Tunisia, in Egypt, in Syria, in Yemen and in Libya. And I was expecting President Obama to speak and deny the rights of Palestinians to self determination, a right people around the world worthy of, and yes, I was expecting President Obama to scum to domestic political pressure and threatened the use of ‘veto” against the Palestinians quests for independent nation and I was expecting candidate Obama to grant Israel the “veto’ over the Palestinian rights of self determination and their absolute right to bring the Israeli and Jewish Occupation to and end.

He spoke of the people’s uprising against tyranny and corruption of regimes that killed human dignity, human spirit, imprisoned an entire nation and confiscated its free will and fleeced the national treasuries corrupting every thing and every thing.

He spoke of the rights of the people to take to the streets, even to carry arms and guns and fight tyranny of the regime and he supported the Libyan liberation movement with arms and weapons and squadrons of NATO jet fighters and bombers. He never called for the people of Tunisia, of Egypt, or Libya, of Yemen and of Syria to sit with these criminal regime and negotiate an end to the tyranny that lasted for too long thanks to America and its allies that kept these corrupt and criminal regimes going extending them the life line with arms, weapons, and funds, and overlooked all these years the human and civil rights abuses and lack of basics of democracy and human freedoms.

I could not believe what I was hearing when Obama spoke against what he termed “ short cuts” of the Palestinians quests for freedom and liberty as if 20 years of negotiations and “peace process” are not enough. He spoke of “short cuts” as if 45 years of continued military and settler’s occupations was not enough.

He spoke of the needs for negotiations with a party that was born and created with a mission to “exile” the people from their native land. He spoke of the needs for negotiations with a country and a regime that deployed its entire military, economic and political means to exiles, to confiscate the land, to destroy the infrastructures to destroy and wipe off the map entire towns and villages. He spoke of negotiating with a racist and criminal regimes that deemed killing of Palestinians, exile them and ethnically cleanse them from their homes s justified by the Torah.

While he spoke of the needs for Israeli security and the needs for the Israelis to feel safe at home and in the streets, he never once spoke of the same needs for the Palestinian’s needs for safety and security in their homes and in their streets from an ever present military and armed settlers occupation.

Obama spoke of the Israelis as victims of terror yet he never spoke of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who perished as a direct result of an Israeli terror totally funded and politically supported by a very generous United States that saw nothing wrong with sending one million cluster bombs to be dropped over civilian targets, saw nothing with targeting civilians in Gaza and saw nothing with the siege of more than 1.5 million people. He only saw the Israeli victims but chose not to see Palestinians victims.

He saw nothing wrong with Israel massive use of military force to kill over 1500 civilians in the War on Gaza and the deliberate destructions of entire neighborhood and the destructions of over 45,000 homes and the destructions of infrastructures and the use of Palestinian civilians as “human shields” by a well armed Israeli army.

Mr. Obama simply failed to open his eyes to the “facts on the grounds” facts created by deliberate theft and confiscations of the land to build Jewish settlements, Jewish Only Roads, and to build an Apartheid Wall that separated families from each other, that robbed the people from their lands and farms. Mr. Obama simply saw nothing wrong with these “facts on the grounds” and he wanted the Palestinians to negotiate away their rights to the lands stolen and confiscated.

Mr. Obama only saw the death and dying of Jews from “terrorists” acts but he chose not see the blood of tens of thousands of Palestinians spelled sometimes for the fun of it by a well armed Jewish state.

President Obama simply failed to see and address the over 550 security checkpoints where Palestinian people young and old, rich and poor have to wait for hours sometimes for days to cross 5 km of road, sometimes dying at these checkpoints because a teen-ager manning these checkpoints was too busy chatting with his friends on the phone. He simply ignored the daily suffering and humiliations that millions of Palestinians have to put with every day in and every day out for some 45 years.

Poor President Obama, he was over taken by emotion as he spoke of the Jewish sufferings but he shed no tears or showed any remorse to the suffering and exiles of some 6 million people who were driven from their homes by the United States special ally that saw nothing wrong with shooting and killing American sailors on the high seas. He simply never saw the simple and basic justice missing here.

But for the United States policy and leadership the Middle East conflict could have been solved long long time ago, avoiding the many wars that the Middle East went through since 1948, and Mr. Obama failed to see the United States totally responsible for the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives on both sides, Israelis/Jewish and Palestinian/ Arabs that have been wasted by a blind and totally biased policy that deemed the Arab-Israeli conflict not as an international issue but totally domestic issue where money and voted are the only concern and interests.

Mr. Obama failed to see the US policies in the Middle East specially when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict driven by a bunch of committed loyal Jewish Zionists who has taken the lead since 1948, with US presidents having no say so.
To speed up the process of finding a peace settlement is for the United States simply to pull itself out of the entire conflict, since it was never and will never be a fair and honest broker and will never be capable to taking the difficult decisions needed to bring this long conflict to an end. The United States must pull itself out of this conflict since it is a party to and partner and will never be third party. The United States must stop using its “veto” power to provide political and criminal cover for Israel crimes in the Middle East.

Too bad the Palestinian leadership or for more accurate description regime does not have the courage to do the right thing and disband such a regime that has failed at every thing and did not deliver for the people freedom, end of occupation let alone right of return for over 45 years. This regime is simply unfit and unqualified to lead forward. It proved one more time its incompetency, lack of vision certainly lack of courage driven by self-interests as manager of the Jewish Occupation.

Perhaps it is time for the people, the Palestinian people to take the initiatives and get the US out of the equation and out of this shame called “ peace process” and bring the Jewish Occupation to its knees and its end. And yes, time for the people to bring an end to this fraud and lie called “Palestinian leadership” the regime of the PLO/Fatah. The Third Intifada must be unlike the First and Second, and must be well organized and well planned and well executed making sure that Israel with all of its armed and weapons and its armed Jewish terrorists groups and with all of the military, political and financial support Israel gets will not succeed in keeping the Jewish Occupation one more year.

Mr. Obama you have failed your self, failed America and the hundreds of millions of fair decent American people who wants this conflict to end in a fair and just way. You failed the world, certainly you have failed both the Israelis and Palestinians with your hypocrisy and total ignorance of the ‘facts on the ground”. You should send back your Nobel Peace Prize since you proved you are unworthy of it.

Sami Jamil Jadallah

Sami Jamil Jadallah is an international legal and business consultant and is the founder and director of Palestine Agency and Palestine Documentation Center www.palestineagency.com and founder and owner of several business in technology and services. Sami also runs an online website (Jefferson Corner). His articles are also featured on PalestineNote and Veterans Today.

Articles on RamallahOnline by Sami Jamil Jadallah

Posted on 06/01/2011 by RamallahOnline

The U.S.-Israeli Train Wreck

Jeff Gates, 1 June 2011

President Obama hopes to head off a train wreck in September at the U.N. General Assembly. That’s when member nations plan to press for an independent Palestine. The Israel lobby is furious.

Critics doubt that the General Assembly has the authority to recognize Palestine. Yet protection of member sovereignty has been a goal of the U.N. since its founding. Thus the priority that Israel placed on U.N. recognition after President Harry Truman acknowledged Israel on May 14, 1948, eleven minutes after the Zionist enclave declared itself a state.

Truman refused to recognize this enclave as “the Jewish state.” Despite Barack Obama’s reference to the Jewish state in a recent speech on the Middle East, during the final days before granting recognition and thereby “legitimacy,” Truman was consumed with the fear that Zionist aspirations would lead to a racist or a theocratic state.

Those concerns led Zionist leader Chaim Weizzman to lobby Truman with a seven-page letter reassuring him that Jewish settlers envisioned a thoroughly secular state similar to the U.S. and Great Britain. Truman underscored that understanding when he recognized not the “Jewish state” (a description he crossed out) but the “State of Israel.”

Today’s train wreck should have been foreseen when Weizzman lied to Truman about Zionist intentions. As with every U.S. president since, Truman was deceived.

The Joint Chiefs cautioned Truman about the “fanatical concepts” of a Jewish-Zionist elite that sought recognition as a legitimate state. Even then, U.S. military leaders warned that this extremist enclave sought “military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.” Truman, a Christian-Zionist, chose to believe otherwise.

Albert Einstein was also worried. He and other concerned Jews described the Zionist political party that produced Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon and now Benjamin Netanyahu as a “terrorist party” with “the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party.”

The Train Wreck

Truman’s worst fears have since been realized except that the effects were far worse than either he or the Joint Chiefs envisioned. To persuade other nations to endure this enclave of fanatics, the U.S. assured nearby Arab neighbors that Israel would seek no more land.

We now know that the Zionists saw nation-state recognition as only an initial foothold in the region from which to expand their territory and wield geopolitical influence—behind a U.S.-enabled facade of legitimacy.

Secretary of State George Marshall assured Truman that if he recognized these extremists as a legitimate state, Marshall would vote against him. This former WWII general anticipated the dynamics that have since devastated U.S. national security as we Americans were induced to expend our blood and treasure in support of Zionist goals.

The U.S. now appears culpable due to our alliance with a nuclear-armed theocratic enclave of extremists with an apartheid domestic policy and an expansionist foreign policy.

The U.S. diplomatic community also warned Truman against recognition, as did the intelligence community and the policy planning staff at the State Department. Clark Clifford, chairman of Truman’s 1948 presidential campaign, told Truman that if he withheld recognition, campaign funding expected from the Israel lobby would be withheld.

Ally or Agent Provocateur?

Fast-forward to 1967 and we find this same transnational network pre-staging a conflict designed to appear defensive. Since mythologized as the heroic “Six-Day War,” that agent provocateur operation set in motion geopolitical reactions still playing out today.

How far ahead of time was this provocation planned? An Israel Air Force general conceded that attack simulations began in the early 1950s. United Artists president Arthur Krim and his wife, Mathilde, began a strategic friendship with Texas Senator Lyndon B. Johnson. By acquiring property near the LBJ Ranch, Mathilde, a former Irgun operative, could carry on an affair with Johnson while her husband chaired the finance committee for the Democrats.

On the night that the Six-Day Land Grab began, Mathilde was enjoying a sleepover in the Johnson White House. But for that Zionist aggression, would Israel have been able to live peacefully with its neighbors? Israel and its supporters staged an elaborate charade to recast this provocation as defensive. That ruse included the cover-up of an Israeli assault on the U.S.S. Liberty that killed 34 Americans and left 175 wounded.

Then as now, the fabled “Israelites” were portrayed as victims of a hostile world. Then as now, anyone chronicling the consistency of this duplicity risks portrayal as an “anti-Semite.”

This trans-generational deceit continues to undermine U.S. national security at every turn. Zionist treachery began long before George Marshall and the Pentagon cautioned Truman against what these fanatics would now deny the Palestinians: legitimacy.

By the consistency of our support over more than six decades, the U.S. now appears guilty by association. If the U.N. vote becomes a diplomatic train wreck, we have only ourselves to blame.

A Vietnam veteran, Jeff Gates is a widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide. He served for seven years as counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance. He is widely published in the trade, popular and academic press. His latest book is Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War. His previous books include Democracy at Risk: Rescuing Main Street From Wall Street and The Ownership Solution: Toward a Shared Capitalism for the 21st Century. Topical commentaries appear on the Criminal State website. You may reach him at jeff DOT gates AT criminalstate DOT com. The author contributed this article to Ramallah Online, more articles by Jeff Gates on Ramallah Online can be found here.

Posted on 05/22/2011 by RamallahOnline

Obama’s Flawed Approach to the Israel/Palestine Conflict

Richard Falk, 22 May 2011

There is no world leader that is more skilled at speechmaking than Barack Obama, especially when it comes to inspiring rhetoric that resonates with deep and widely held human aspirations. And his speech on Middle East policy, symbolically delivered to a Washington audience gathered at the State Department, was no exception, and it contained certain welcome reassurances about American intentions in the region. I would point to his overall endorsement of the Arab Spring as a demonstration that the shaping of political order ultimately is a prerogative of the people. Further that populist outrage if mobilized is capable of liberating an oppressed people from the yoke of brutal and corrupt dictatorships, and amazingly to do so without recourse to violence. Obama also was honest enough to acknowledge that the national strategic interests of the United States sometimes take precedence over this preferential option for democracy and respect for human rights. Finally, his proposed $1 billion in debt relief for Egypt was a concrete expression of support for the completion of its revolutionary process, although the further $1 billion tied to an opening to outside investment and a free trade framework was far more ambiguous, threatening the enfeebled Egyptian economy with the sort of competitive intrusions that have been so devastating for indigenous agriculture and industry throughout the African continent.

But let’s face it, when the soaring language is taken away, we should not be surprised that Obama continues to seek approval, as he has throughout his presidency, from the hawks in the State Department, the militarists in the Pentagon, and capitalist true believers on Wall Street. Such are the fixed parameters of his presidency with respect to foreign policy and explain why there is so much disappointment among his former most ardent followers during his uphill campaign for the presidency, who were once energized and excited by the slogan “change, yes we can!” Succumbing to Washington ‘realism’ (actually a recipe for imperial implosion), the unacknowledged operational slogan of the Obama presidency has become “change, no we won’t!”

Obama’s Pro-Israeli Partisanship

With these considerations in mind, it is not at all surprising that Obama’s approach to the Israel/Palestine conflict remains one-sided, deeply flawed, and a barrier rather than a gateway to a just and sustainable peace. The underlying pressures that produce the distortion is the one-sided allegiance to Israel (“Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempt to single it out for criticism in international forums.”). This leads to the totally unwarranted assessment that failure to achieve peace in recent years is equally attributable to Israelis and the Palestinians, thereby equating what is certainly not equivalent. Consider Obama’s words of comparison: “Israeli settlement activity continues, Palestinians have walked away from the talks.” How many times is it necessary to point out that Israeli settlement activity is unlawful, and used to be viewed as such even by the United States Government, and that the Palestinian refusal to negotiate while their promised homeland is being despoiled not only by settlement expansion and settler violence, but by the continued construction of an unlawful barrier wall well beyond the 1967 borders. Obama never finds it appropriate to mention Israel’s reliance on excessive and lethal force, most recently in its response to the Nakba demonstrations along its borders, or its blatant disregard of international law, whether by continuing to blockade the entrapped 1.5 million Palestinians locked inside Gaza or by violently attacking the Freedom Flotilla a year ago on international waters while it was carrying much needed humanitarian aid to the Gazans or the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.

At least in Obama’s Cairo speech of June 2009 there was a strong recognition of Palestinian suffering through dispossession, occupation, and refugee status: “..it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people—Muslims and Christians—have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations—large and small—that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.” Of course, this formulation prejudges the most fundamental of Palestinian entitlements by confining any exercise of their right of self-determination as a people to a two-state straight jacket that may no longer be viable or desirable, if it ever was. And throughout the speech in Cairo there was never a sense that the Palestinians have rights under international law that must be taken into account in any legitimate peace process, taking precedence over ‘facts on the ground.’

But at least in Cairo Obama was clear on the Israeli settlements, or reasonably so: “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for the settlements to stop.” Even here Obama is only pleading for a freeze (rather than dismantling what was unlawful). In the new speech settlement activity is blandly referred to as making it difficult to get new negotiations started, but nothing critical is said, despite resumed and intensified settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This unwillingness to confront Israel on such a litmus test of a commitment to a negotiated peace is indicative of Obama’s further retreat from even the pretense of balanced diplomacy as measured against Cairo.

And there were other demonstrations of pro-Israeli partisanship in the speech. On the somewhat hopeful moves toward Palestinian Authority/Hamas reconciliation as a necessary basis for effective representation of the Palestinian people at the international level, Obama confines his comments to reiterating Israeli complaints about the refusal of Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist. What was left unsaid by Obama is that progress toward peace might be made by at last treating Hamas as a political actor, appreciating its efforts to establish ceasefires and suppress rocket attacks from Gaza, acknowledging its repeated acceptance of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders buttressed by a long-term proposal for peaceful co-existence with Israel, and lifting a punitive and unlawful blockade on Gaza that has lasted for almost four years. It is possible that such an approach might fail, but if the terminology of taking risks for peace is to have any meaning it must include an altered orientation toward the participation of Hamas in any future peace process.

A Disturbing Innovation

Perhaps, the most serious flaw in the Obama conception of resumed negotiations, is the separation of the territorial issues from the wider agenda of fundamental questions. This unfortunate feature of his approach has been obscured by Israel’s evident anger about the passage in the speech that affirms what was already generally accepted in the international community: “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” If anything this is a step back from the 1967 canonical and unanimous Security Council Resolution 242 that looked unconditionally toward “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territory occupied in the recent conflict.”

Obama’s innovation involves deferring consideration of what he calls “[t]wo wrenching and emotional issues..the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees.” Leaving Jerusalem out of the negotiating process is in effect an uncritical acceptance of the Israel’s insistence that the city as a whole belongs exclusively to Israel. What is worse, it allows Israel to continue the gradual process of ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem: settlement expansion, house demolitions, withdrawal of residency permits and deportations, and overall policies designed to discourage a continued Palestinian presence. It must be understood, I believe, as an unscrupulous American acceptance of Israel’s position on Jerusalem, which is not only a betrayal of legitimate Palestinian expectations of situating their capital in East Jerusalem but also a move that will be received with bitter resentment throughout the Arab world.

Similarly, the deferral of the refugee issue is quite unforgivable. As of 2010 4.7 million Palestinians are registered with the UN as refugees, either living within refugee camps under conditions of occupation or in precarious circumstances in neighboring countries within camps or as vulnerable members of the host country. This refugee status has persisted for more that 60 years despite the clear assertion of Palestinian refugee rights contained in General Assembly Resolution 194 adopted in 1948 and annually reaffirmed: “The refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date.” This persistence of the Palestinian refugee status six decades later is one of the most notorious denials of human rights that exist in the world today. To remove it from the peace process, as Obama purports to do, is to consign the refugees to an outer darkness of despair, and as such, is a telling disclosure of the bad faith embedded in the most recent Obama rendering of his approach to peace. Those who are dedicated to achieving a just peace for the two peoples—Israelis and Palestinians—are doomed to fail unless the refugees are treated as a core issue that can neither be postponed nor evaded without a grave betrayal of justice.

Legitimacy Confusions

And finally, Obama does his best to dash Palestinian hopes about their one effort to move their struggle a step forward, gaining their acceptance as a state by the United Nations in September of this year. In a perverse formulation of this reasonable, even belated, Palestinian effort to enlist international support for their claims of self-determination and statehood, Obama resorts to deflating and condescending language: “..efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state.” This language is perverse because the Palestinian diplomatic initiative is meant to legitimize itself, not delegitimize Israel. And the BDS campaign and other international civil society initiatives carrying on the ‘legitimacy war’ being waged against Israel by way of the Palestinian solidarity movement are not aimed at delegitimizing Israel, but rather seek to overcome the illegitimacy of such Israeli unlawful policies and practices as the Gaza blockade, ethnic cleansing, wall building in defiance of the World Court, settlement expansion and settler violence, excessive violence in the name of security.

In many respects, Obama’s speech, aside from the soaring rhetoric, might have been crafted in Tel Aviv rather than the White House. It is a tribute to Israel’s extraordinary influence upon the American media that has been able to shift the focus of assessment to the supposed Israeli anger about affirming Palestinian statehood within 1967 borders. It is hardly a secret that the Netanyahu leadership, aside from its shrewd propaganda, is opposed to the establishment of any Palestinian state, whether symbolic or substantive. This was much was confirmed by the release of the Palestinian Papers that showed that behind closed doors even when the Palestinian Authority made concession after concession in response to Israeli demands, the Israeli negotiating partners seemed totally unresponsive, and appeared disinterested in negotiating a genuine solution to the conflict.

Underneath the Israeli demand for recognition of it character as a Jewish state is the hidden reality of a Palestinian minority of more than 1.5 million living as second class citizens within Israel. The Obama conception of “a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace” seems completely oblivious to the rights of minority peoples and religions. Such ethnic and religious states seem incompatible with the promise of human dignity for all persons living within a political community. Homeland for peoples is fine, and the Jewish claim in this regard has the force of history behind it, but to consign the Palestinians to a homeland behind the 1967 borders is a covert way to invalidate the claims of refugees expelled in 1948 from historic Palestine, as well as the Palestinian minority living within Israel at present.

American Irrelevance and Palestinian Populism

In a profound sense, whatever Obama says at this point is just more words, beside the point. He has neither the will nor the capacity to exert any material leverage on Israel that might make it more amenable to respecting Palestinian rights under international law or to strike a genuine compromise based on mutuality of claims. Palestinians should not look to sovereign states, or even the United Nations, and certainly not the United States, in their long and tormented journey to realize a just and sustainable destiny for themselves. Their future will depend on the outcome of their struggle, abetted and supported by people of good will around the world, and increasingly assuming the character of a nonviolent legitimacy war that mobilizes moral and political pressures that assert Palestinian rights from below. In this regard, it remains politically significant to make use of the UN and friendly governments to gain visibility and legitimacy for their claims of right. It is Palestinian populism not great power diplomacy that offers the best current hope of achieving a sustainable and just peace on behalf of the Palestinian people. Obama’s State Department speech should be understood as merely the latest in a long series of disguised confessions of geopolitical impotence, but of one thing we can be sure, it will not be the last.

Richard Falk

Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years. Since 2002 he has lived in Santa Barbara, California, and taught at the local campus of the University of California in Global and International Studies and since 2005 chaired the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Visit his blog at https://richardfalk.wordpress.com/ for more articles. This article was posted with permission from the author.

Posted on 05/21/2011 by RamallahOnline

Obama’s Middle East Speech

President Barack Obama talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel as they walk from the Oval Office to the South Lawn Drive of the White House, following their meetings, May 20, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Lawrence Davidson, 21 May 2011

President Obama’s Middle East Speech – New Year’s Resolutions in May (An Analysis 21 May 2011)

Part I

I watched President Obama’s May 19^th speech on the Middle East (most quotes from the speech are taken from the full text) while working out at the gym. I have always found it easier to listen to politicians while I’m busy doing something else. That way, if they say something silly or ignorant, I can distract myself. This mellows out some of the anger or amazement that I would feel if I was paying full attention to them. It’s a healthier way of dealing with this sort of situation. So there I was riding the stationary bike with half of me concentrating on keeping a steady speed and the other half concentrating on the president. That latter half of me soon felt that their was something familiar about Obama’s talk. Not just the words but the character of the talk. I decided to give it 80% of my attention to figure out what all those words reminded me of. At mile four I had it. They reminded me of new year’s resolutions.

Like most new year’s resolutions, the president’s set, despite coming in May, are full of good intentions. First of all, life in the prior months have pointed out one’s problems in ways that are now hard to ignore. That is how the President approached the facts of the Arab Spring. “The people of the Middle East and North Africa [have] taken their future into their own hands.” And that reality is the context for the general new year’s resolution which is–to “mark a new chapter in American diplomacy.” What should the “new chapter”consist of? The President told us: “the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves. Now, we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights….” Our new year’s resolution is to live up to our principles, to be true to our values.

[ An Aside: Anyone who knows the history of American foreign policy (and I have written a book on the subject entitled Foreign Policy Inc.) can tell you that there is no connection between actual policy and the promotion of democracy. Quite the contrary. That is why all our "friends" in the Middle East are autocrats. But, just for argument sake, let’s assume along with Ralph Waldo Emerson, that a "first rate intelligence," and the president certainly is that, can "hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." Then we can imagine that this speech gives precedence to the idealized notion of foreign policy goals–which are ones that contradict the actual goals pursued to date.]

Part II

Ok. We now know in what direction the “new chapter in American diplomacy” is suppose to go. It is time to move from the general resolution, to some specific behaviors. Typically full of determination, we start off strong.

A) This is not difficult because we begin with the easy things, the things we are already doing. We don’t like the Iranian government. We will continue to be obstructive and negative toward it. We don’t like the Syrian government. We will continue to sanction it. And we especially don’t like the Libyan government. We will continue to try to destroy it. This isn’t really part of the “new chapter in American Diplomacy” but we figure there should be some continuity as we transition into the future.

B) Then we move on to the stuff we are pretty sure we can accomplish. We like the Tunisians now and so the President tells us “we are working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt.” No word on what strings might be attached to this. We like the Egyptians now and so “we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt…” Simultaneously, “we will help Egypt…by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing….” A bit of a mixed message here, but we can’t always be totally original.

C) Then we move to what can only be described as our “wish list” of resolutions. The things we would like to see done but don’t know if we really have the will power to do it. This is really the moment of truth because all the easy stuff doesn’t really constitute anything new at all. If we are going to actually create a “new chapter in American diplomacy” it is the tough changes that need to be actualized. So here we go:

1. “We acknowledge that our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for change consistent with the principles that I [President Obama] have outlined today.” Well, actually none of them have done so. This acknowledgment begs the question, just how are we going to change American policy so as to change the behavior of these dictators?

2. “Bahrain is a long-standing partner, and we are committed to its security. We recognize that Iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the Bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law. Nevertheless, we have insisted publically and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain’s citizens….the government must create the conditions for dialogue….” Judging from its behavior, the Bahraini monarchy would not know “the rule of law” if it tripped over it. How are we going to change American policy so as to encourage change in Bahraini policy?

3. “Yemen, where President Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power.” It is pretty clear that President Saleh has no intention of doing this. How are we going to change American policy so as to encourage change in Saleh’s attitude?

4. And then there is the perennial destroyer of America’s perennially declared good intentions – Israel. “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed [land] swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.” On the other hand, “Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat.” In addition, “ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them.” What does all this mean? It means that President Obama might personally feel that the Israelis should stop stalling and give the Palestinians a fair and just peace, but as a politician he does not have the strength to make them do it. I guess we should give the president credit for having the courage to state his mind here. However, the administration as a whole hasn’t got the will power to carry through on this resolution.

That leaves the Israelis off the hook. Prime Minister Netanyahu wasted no time calling the bluff. There will be no Palestinian state at the “expense of Israeli existence.” And, the Israelis can’t go back to the 1967 lines because those lines are “indefensible.” That is “the reality” of things. This, of course, is nonsense. Those borders have been repeatedly defended in more than successful fashion. If the 1967 borders were not defensible, Israeli settlements would not be sitting east of those lines, in the West Bank and Golan Heights. If those borders were not defensible, the Gaza Strip could not be suffocated by an illegal blockade as it now is, and Lebanon would be moving Palestinian refugees back into the Galilee. Netanyahu is making up his own “reality” here and it is the U.S. who has given him the power to insist that everyone else, even his patron, play by his rules. That is the sort of monster we have helped create.

Part III

So there we have it. Real new year’s resolutions, those that really do establish “new chapters” in our lives, are all about will power. And, when it comes to “our friends in the region” we have damn little will power. It isn’t that there aren’t behavioral/policy changes we could make to create that “new chapter in American diplomacy.” It is just a question of carrying through. Here are a few of the steps the U.S. government could take, if it had the will power to do so, to transform resolutions into realty:

1. Stop the arms sales. While we tell the Bahraini Monarchy that they “must” dialogue with their opposition, we are giving them $19.5 million dollars worth of weapons in 2011. With that kind of aid they can simply carry on arresting or murdering all the people they are suppose to talk to. Also, when it comes to Bahrain, threaten to close down our naval base there. A similar situation exists with Yemen. While we tell the Yemeni president that he “needs to” transfer power, we are giving his security forces $116 million in weapons in 2011. What sort of mixed message is this? If we want to create that wonderful new chapter in diplomacy, cancel the weapons deals. Actually there is some indication that Congress is taking a second look at these sales, but not because of any desire to help along those seeking “self-determination-the chance to make of life what we will.” No, what is worrying the Congress is that, if our friends the dictators fall, American weapons will end up in the hands of the Iranians, or maybe even Al Qaida. Here is that disconnect between U.S. diplomacy and the promotion of democracy. Maybe the House and Senate Foreign Relations Committees don’t have the same new year’s resolutions as the president.

2. Act on what authority the president has to distance the U.S. from Israel. Israel is due to get $3.075 billion for weapons from the U.S. in 2012. Unfortunately, Congress will make sure the Zionists get that bonanza whatever President Obama’s wishes. But there are other things Obama can do to send a message to the Israelis that it is not just business as usual. For instance, as Commander and Chief he can call a halt to all U.S.-Israeli joint military activities. He can shut the Israelis out of any intelligence sharing. He can certainly stop protecting the Middle East’s most consistent and long standing violator of human rights when it comes to the UN Security Council. But he won’t. Hell will freeze over before the U.S. “stands squarely on the side of [the Palestinians who] are reaching for their rights.” There is no will power for this one. It is doomed.

3. The president and his staff can push a citizens’ awareness campaign about the importance of foreign policy. About why the public should pay attention to it, how it is formulated (particularly the role of lobbies), what “blowback” comes from present policy positions and why it does so. We can throw in the defining of national interest as against the parochial interests of particular groups, as well.

Part IV

One wonders just who a speech like this is for? Is it the people of the Middle East? Their historical experience of Western foreign policy, including that of the United States, is one of repeated disappointment. They have been lied to too many times to count. They have been lied to even when the liar does not know he is lying (one thinks of the experience of T.E. Lawrence in this regard and this may or may not be the case with Obama as well). So, my guess is that most of the people in the region who listened to the May 19^th speech will come away filled with skepticism. Their response will almost certainly be, “prove it Mr. President.” Show us the will power to bring that “new chapter” from idealized theory into practice.

Or, is the speech largely for the American people? If so, most will be somewhat taken aback. What is this talk of a “new chapter in American diplomacy” all about? We thought that supporting democracy has always been the policy! Confusion. The Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, won’t let the discussion go in the direction of clearing the confusion up. Rather they will nit pick the speech to death, concentrating on that bit about Israel and the 1967 border. Prime Minister Netanyahu is in town to help them do just that. Pretty soon the American people will lose interest. After all, they as most people everywhere, are not too interested in far away places. Unless it is explained to them, they don’t see how it impacts their lives (all more so now that bin Laden is dead). My guess is that Obama’s speech, except for references to Israel’s borders, is old news in a week’s time.

The last word goes to one of the fathers of classical conservatism, Edmund Burke, who pointed out that “a state without the means to change is without the means of its conservation.” Need one say more?

Dr. Lawrence Davidson

Dr. Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.

The author is a regular contributor to RamallahOnline.com.More articles can be found on RamallahOnline.com, Logos Journal, and Dr. Davidson also maintains an online blog, you can find it at http://www.tothepointanalyses.com

Posted on 02/20/2011 by Sami Jadallah

Take the US out of the “no peace” process.

Sami Jamil Jadallah, 20 Feb 2011

“ We had some success, at least for the moment, in not having that (resolution) arise there. And we will continue to employ the tools we have to make sure that continues to not happen” with these words Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg assured Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, perhaps the most anti-Arab, anti-Muslim and staunchest supporter of Israel and Zionist causes in Congress. Steinberg was referring to the Ramallah leadership efforts to bring the issue of Jewish settlements before the UN Security Council.

For weeks Mahmoud Abbas and his entourage been traveling the world (Oh too bad they lost Mubarak-Suleiman and Sharm el-Sheik) in private jets enjoying 5 stars hotels and lavish expense accounts, seeking support for their plans to bring such a resolution before the UN Security Council knowing well that any resolution that addresses Israel, it occupation or its activities in the Occupied Territories whether it is East Jerusalem, settlements, house demolition, targeted killings, land theft, ethnic cleansing or continuation of the Apartheid Wall will meet with a certain US veto. Never understood why the waste of time and money.

It seems Saeb Eurekat before he was shamed to resign forgot to tell his boss that the US has always supported Israel from day one of the 67 War with the likes of Walter W. Rostow and Arthur Goldberg to Henry Kissinger all of whom played key role in the formulation of US policy and in favor of Israel and its continued armed and settlers occupation of the Palestinian territories. The same pro-Israeli policy continued with Dennis Ross under the Bush 1 and Clinton and now as key member of the Obama-Clinton team and of course not to mention Jeffery Feldman Assistant Secretary of State and James Steinberg Deputy Assistant of State. Whether it is Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton or their team all will not do any thing to offend their friends and mentors at AIPAC and within the American Jewish leadership or community and specially now that Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Somehow Abbas and his Ramallah team forgot that it was the US State and White House team that shifted the classifications of Jewish Settlements from “illegal” to “obstacle” to “not helpful” to lets go around it and leave it as is and see what can be done with what is left of the “territories”. The US was never serious about solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict since the US is a party and a partner to the Israeli Occupation, it funds it, it arms it, it gives legal and political protection and covers for it and it even defend it. Not to mention it also grant American Jewish/Zionist organizations tax exemption status to arms and support Jewish Settlers and it allows not only individuals to fund the illegal settlements and fund the forced and armed take over of Palestinian homes through fraud, it even allow Jewish synagogues to engage in selling and marketing Jewish settlement houses built on stolen properties and it allows special status for products and services of these illegal settlements to be sold within the US even contract with key sensitive US governments such as Home Land Security among other agencies and departments.

Only fools and there are so many of them around specially in Ramallah and its allies in Washington continue to believe the US can deliver peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The US will do all it can with the support of its allies in Europe and Middle East to continue funding the Jewish Occupation by funding the Palestinian Authority as manager of the Jewish Occupation. The Palestinian leadership sitting in Ramallah is only too happy to seek funding for its continued operation and of course will not be too disappointed if this “no-peace” process continues for ever.

What is needed now is to disband the PLO as the “legal and contractual” party with the Israeli Occupation since the continued legal existence of the PLO is a key impediment to ending the Jewish Occupation. Keeping in mind it is the PLO that gave full recognition to Israel with its open borders, East Jerusalem and its Jewish Settlements without getting full recognition of a “Palestinian State” on land Israel occupied in 67. The Palestinian Trio of Arafat, Abbas and Qurai were all too happy to simply get Israel to recognize the PLO as “representative of the Palestinian people” and to fund the PLO, a key provision that puts the PLO in the driver seat as far as Israel and its ally the United States. Keeping in mind the PLO will also continue to be cash cow for civil claims by American Jews and Israelis for wrongful deaths just like Germany is the cash cow for the Holocaust. The only way forward is to take the US out of the game, disband the PLO and PA and let the people under Occupation and in the Diaspora take on Israel and the Jewish Occupation face to face. It can be done.

Sami Jamil Jadallah

Born in the Palestinian city of El-Bireh ( presently under Israeli Military Occupation, Armed Jewish thugs and settlers). Immigrated to the US in 62. After graduating from high school in Gary, Indiana was drafted into the US Army ( 66-68) received the Leadership Award from the US 6th Army NCO Academy in Ft. Lewis, Washington. Five of us brothers where in US military service about the same time. Graduated from Indiana University with BA-72, Master of Public Affairs-74 and Juris Doctor-77, and in senior year at IU,was elected Chairman of the Indiana Student Association. Sami Jamil Jadallah is an international legal and business consultant and is the founder and director of Palestine Agency and Palestine Documentation Center www.palestineagency.com and founder and owner of several business in technology and services. Sami also runs an online website (Jefferson Corner)

Articles on RamallahOnline by Sami Jamil Jadallah

Posted on 12/08/2010 by RamallahOnline

Obama to Netanyahu – “You win”

President Barack Obama welcomes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel in the Oval Office, Sept. 1, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Alan Hart, 8 Dec 2010

Those of us who are associated with the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, and who call for justice for the Palestinians, now have reason to say “Thank you” to President Obama. With his decision to abandon efforts to persuade Israel to renew a freeze on illegal settlement building on the occupied West Bank, he has proved that the makers of American policy for resolving the conflict are Israel’s leaders and their lobby in the U.S. (including its many stooges in Congress and the mainstream media), not the man who occupies the Oval Office in the White House.

Of course I know this has always been the case (actually since the departure from the Oval Office of General Eisenhower who was the first and the last American President to oblige Israel to act in accordance with international law), but for a sitting president to provide by default the absolute proof is quite something.

The implications are truly terrifying, obviously for the occupied and oppressed Palestinians but also for Americans; and why is not difficult to explain.

As all seriously well informed people know (sadly the very few, not the very many), unconditional American support for the criminal state of Israel is not in America’s own interests. It is the best recruiting sergeant for violent Arab and other Muslim extremism and the prime cause of the gathering, global storm of anti-Americanism at street if not yet government level.

The first responsibility of any American president is to protect the security of his own people. With his latest surrender to Netanyahu and the Zionist lobby, Obama is effectively saying to his fellow Americans, “I’m sorry, I’m not allowed to do that.”

As things are, the name of the game from here on in my view is not the pursuit of peace, that’s a mission impossible.

Priority number one is preventing the final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Priority number two is preventing the rising tide of anti-Israelism from being transformed into violent anti-Semitism.

Alan Hart

Alan Hart has been engaged with events in the Middle East and their global consequences and terrifying implications – the possibility of a Clash of Civilisations, Judeo-Christian v Islamic, and, along the way, another great turning against the Jews – for nearly 40 years…

Alan maintains an online blog with a wealth of articles that can be found here http://www.alanhart.net/

More Articles on RamallahOnline can be found here

Posted on 11/19/2010 by RamallahOnline

Liar, Liar

Obama is acting like desperate salesmen before a conceited tourist.

Philip Giraldi, November 18, 2010

President Barack Obama’s speech in Indonesia in which he conceded that the United States must do more to establish a good working relationship with many Muslim nations would have ranked as one of the more pathetic performances by an American president in recent years but for the fact that there have been so many awful performances to choose from. The president’s grammar and syntax were perfect and the speech was cleverly crafted, exactly what we have come to expect. It was replete with carefully designed pauses, Indonesian words and phrases, and some self deprecating humor, but it was characteristically bloodless and completely tone deaf. One almost longed to see Bill Clinton choking up and shedding a tear or two.

Obama’s spin team made a heroic effort to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse. They likened the Indonesia speech to his Cairo offering seventeen months ago, in which he likewise committed his administration to establishing a new, more convivial modality for dealing with Islamic nations. That speech was received respectfully and even positively in many quarters, but this time no one was fooled. It’s funny how a year and a half of inaction and even retreat can reshape how someone thinks. One Indonesian commented afterwards “What will Obama do in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? If we don’t see any progress, what he says is just a speech.”

Obama’s offering was full of the usual bromides, about how respectful he is of Islam and its traditions. He even touched on Israel-Palestine, not surprisingly blaming both sides for not taking the necessary courageous steps to find peace. It is a familiar argument for American audiences who are used to hearing that the conflict is bilateral, but did not go down well in Indonesia where the listeners are all too aware of the details of the brutal Israeli occupation.

What Obama should have said was that it has now become clear that Israel’s Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has no desire for any peace agreement that does not provide for perpetual and absolute Israeli dominance over the Palestinians. He should have added that he knows that Netanyahu has nothing but contempt for him personally in the wake of the midterm election debacle and he might also observe that his ability to act independently is conditioned by the Israel Lobby so he can do nothing to help the Palestinians achieve statehood or even to recover a measure of dignity under Israeli occupation. He might admit that he has now been reduced to offering multi-billion dollar bribes of military equipment to Israel just to tempt it to suspend some settlement activity for ninety day. Obama’s words would not have changed reality on the ground, but at least he would have told the truth for a change and the candor would have been refreshing.

If Obama wants to establish some kind of modus vivendi with the Islamic world he must speak to it in language that it understands and not lie about things that all Muslims know to be true. And it is also past time that he begin to speak the truth to the American people also. His administration’s retreat from any confrontation with Israel in an attempt to make a recalcitrant Netanyahu conform even to minimal standards of behavior confirms what all the world already knows: Israel will act and the United States will follow, even if those actions will inflict grave damage on the American people and on the US national interest.

And what will that mean for the United States? It means that the decision about going to war for the US is essentially controlled by Israel because Tel Aviv can start a conflict with Iran at any time that will quickly draw Washington in. Those who think that the White House still is managing the situation are completely naïve. There is no indication that the Obama administration has warned Israel against bombing Iran because the US has no cards to play, having ruled out exerting any sort of economic or military pressure on Netanyahu. And there should be no doubt that an attack by Israel on an Iranian nuclear facility would trigger Iranian retaliation and immediate calls in Congress and the media to support Tel Aviv, leaving the president no option but to enter the conflict. A third war in the region would mean goodbye to any American ability to disengage from the other conflicts that are bleeding the US white and would possibly lead to even more dire consequences if neighbors like nuclear armed Pakistan and India somehow enter the fray.

Bibi Netanyahu surely understands that the cost to the United States in lives and treasure from war with Iran could potentially be catastrophic but it is a price he is willing to pay as his own people and economy would largely be spared, at least initially. No American leader should tolerate such a situation but, deplorably, those who have spoken out at all on the Middle East have lined up behind the Israelis as if they were part of the United States, or even more esteemed than any of the fifty states. Vice President Joe Biden told the Jewish Federations of North America annual gathering in New Orleans last week that “the ties between our two countries are literally unbreakable” and described how he is “absolutely certain that our support for Israel must continue … forever,” echoing similar statements made by both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama. Biden knows full well that Israeli and US interests do not coincide and his comments amount to political pandering of the worst sort. It is even more disconcerting to think that he might actually mean what he says.

Meanwhile Steny Hoyer, who calls himself a Zionist and frequently expresses his love for Israel, and has spoken of “our responsibility to stand by Israel and the Jewish people,” is poised to take over as Minority Whip in the House of Representatives. On the other side of the aisle, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Eric Cantor are unrelenting advocates of Israel who are about to step into senior positions in the Republican dominated congress. Cantor recently met privately with Bibi Netanyahu and said the Republican Party would serve “as a check on” the Obama Administration over its policies in the Middle East. Then “He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other.” In other words, Cantor was meeting with the leader of a foreign country and promising to do whatever he could to influence and even subvert the foreign policy of his own country. Think about that one for a minute or two.

And while Cantor, Hoyer, Biden and company are ceding US national security to the Israelis, who actually is calling the shots on shaping American policy? None other than the redoubtable Dennis Ross, perched in the National Security Council as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for the Central Region. Ross, who has been described as Israel’s lawyer, is poison in the very heart of the policy making apparatus. He recently spoke at an AIPAC Conference in Hollywood Florida where he said “Just last week, I participated in the US-Strategic Dialogue, a biannual event that includes a comprehensive exchange of views on regional issues crucial to both the United State and Israel. But more importantly, the Strategic Dialogue is just one of many, ongoing, and high-level exchanges that occur regularly between the United States in Israel. I’m not aware of another country that we engage more regularly on such a wide range of issues. These types of exchanges not only provide opportunities for discussion of ideas on policy, but they also help solidify connections between our two governments. Over the last two years, I have seen four-star generals, intelligence officers, and high-ranking diplomats all develop personal relationships with their Israeli counterparts. Frankly, this degree of coordination is unprecedented. I have participated in these types of discussions for the last 30 years, and they have never been as intense or focused, reflecting the serious cooperation that we have today with Israel. But our commitment to Israel’s security is defined not by talk. It is defined by the kinds of actions and deeds that help make both of our countries safer and stronger in the face of common threats.”

So if you doubt that the United States is tied hand and foot to Israel in terms of its ability to take independent action in the Middle East, just listen to what Dennis Ross, Joe Biden, and Eric Cantor are saying. Does it sound like they are articulating policies beneficial to the US? They are insisting that Americans have to support Israel unquestioningly no matter what it does and are little more than advocates for monsters like Bibi Netanyahu, pure and simple. The word Quisling comes to mind when one thinks of them and also Hoyer and Ros-Lehtinen. If their failure to be truly loyal to the country that has nurtured them brings about a new war in which many of their fellow citizens will die, their actions and posturing should be defined by one and all as treason. If America is to be taken back in a new revolution that will lead to a restoration of the vision of the Founding Fathers it will only take place after the betrayers of our constitution are removed from government, every single one of them. When American politicians and senior government officials speak of their love of a foreign government that pursues policies inimical to US values and interests they should be disowned by every true patriot and also by every respectable media outlet. It should be grounds for their immediate removal.

This article first appeared in Antiwar.com. Republished with the author’s permission

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is a contributing editor to The American Conservative and executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

Posted on 11/17/2010 by RamallahOnline

Obama’s bribe

Palestinians will be the losers – again

By Jonathan Cook in Nazareth, 17 Nov 2010

Watching the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians drag on year after year without conclusion, it is easy to overlook the enormous changes that have taken place on the ground since the Oslo Accords were signed 17 years ago.

Each has undermined the Palestinians’ primary goal of achieving viable statehood, whether it is the near-trebling of Jewish settlers on Palestinian land to the current numbers of half a million, Israel’s increasing stranglehold on East Jerusalem, the wall that has effectively annexed large slices of the West Bank to Israel, or the splitting of the Palestinian national movement into rival camps following Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005.

Another setback of similar magnitude may be unfolding as Barack Obama dangles a lavish package of incentives in the face of Benjamin Netanyahu in an attempt to lure the Israeli prime minister into renewing a three-month, partial freeze on Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank.

The generosity of the US president’s package, which includes 20 combat aircraft worth $3 billion and backing for Israel’s continued military presence in the Jordan Valley after the declaration of a Palestinian state, has prompted even Thomas Friedman of The New York Times to compare it to a “bribe”.

Israeli officials said yesterday they were still waiting to see a text of the deal worked out between Netanyahu and the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, in seven hours of negotiations.

In addition to the concession in the Jordan Valley and the offer of combat jets that would effectively double the annual aid from the US, the deal is said to include a promise by Washington to veto for the next year any UN resolutions Israel opposes and to refrain, after borders have been agreed, from demanding any future limits on settlement growth.

The signs are that Netanyahu will be able to secure the backing of his right-wing cabinet for a brief settlement freeze that this time, the US has indicated, will not include East Jerusalem.

So far, in attempting to resolve the conflict, Obama has nearly exhausted his political capital. There were intimations this week that the White House could not afford further humiliation and was going for broke.

The timetable for negotiations now calls for reaching an agreement on borders within three months — the duration of the settlement construction freeze — followed by a final resolution of the conflict within a year or so.

Washington’s hopeful logic is that a renewal of the freeze will be unnecessary in three months because an agreement on borders will already have established whether a settlement is to be considered included in Israel’s territory and therefore permitted to expand or inside Palestine and therefore slated for destruction.

In a similarly optimistic vein, the US apparently expects the problem of refugees simply to dissolve through the creation of a special international fund to compensate them. The right of return appears to be off the table.

If these obstacles can be surmounted this way – a very big “if” – only one significant point of contention, the future of East Jerusalem, remains to be resolved.

This is where things get more awkward. The US is not proposing that the three-month freeze apply to East Jerusalem, after settlement-building there caused friction between Israel and the US during the last moratorium.

This concession and the outlines of a previous US peace proposal under president Bill Clinton hint at Washington’s most likely strategy. East Jerusalem will be divided, with the large settlement blocs, home to at least 200,000 Jews, handed over to Israel while the Old City and its holy places fall under a complicated shared sovereignty.

In the face of this intense US-Israeli diplomacy, Palestinians are dismayed. They have described the agreement between the US and Netanyahu as “deeply disappointing” and are demanding from the White House similarly generous inducements to ease their path back to negotiations. The Arab League, which has taken a prominent role in overseeing the Palestinian negotiations, has also objected to the deal.

The Palestinians fear they will be left with a patchwork of disconnected areas – what Israel has previously termed “bubbles” – as their capital.

If the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, can be made to swallow all this, which seems highly improbable, he will then have to contend with Hamas, the rival Palestinian faction, which can be expected to do everything in its power to disrupt such an agreement.

And then there is Netanyahu. Few Israeli analysts think he has suddenly become more amenable to the US plans.

Neve Gordon, a politics professor at Ben Gurion University in the Negev and author of an important study of the occupation, believes the Israeli prime minister is simply playing the part demanded by Obama.

“He is taking the US ‘merchandise’ on offer, but will hold firm on key issues that guarantee the talks’ failure. That way he gets the credit for keeping the negotiations on track and lets the Palestinians take the blame for walking out.”

This sounds suspiciously like a re-run of the last proper peace talks, at Camp David in 2000. Then, Israeli intransigence stalled the negotiations, but Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, was blamed by the US and Israel for their collapse.

The Camp David failure led to the outbreak of Palestinian violence, the second intifada, and the demise of the Israeli peace camp. Mr Netanyahu may be prepared to risk a repeat of both such outcomes from these talks if it means he can avoid making any real concessions on Palestinian statehood.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.

A version of this article originally appeared in The National (www.thenational.ae), published in Abu Dhabi.

Page 1 of 312 3

Ramallah Online

Commentary, Analysis and Reference material about the Israeli Palestinian conflict

Tag Archives: barack obama