Tag Archives: UNSC

Posted on by

Working around America: a new strategy on Israel/Palestine

Obama_relaxing-2-37618

Jeff Halper, 25 Feb 2011

Last Friday’s vote in the UN in which the US refused to follow the other 14 members of the Security Council in condemning Israel’s ongoing settlement project – including, it should be noted, such traditionally pro-Israel stalwarts as Britain, France and even Germany and India (for whom Israel is the #2 supplier of arms, as it is with China) – revealed what international isolation into which the US has fallen. Without being pollyannish over the human rights records of the other members of the Security Council, human rights does, nevertheless, motivate the foreign policy of many countries of the world, if only because to be seen respecting human rights has become a standard of national legitimacy. Israel’s blatant violations of international law threaten the consensus upon which the international order rests, even if it is upheld in the breech.

The Security Council vote show that this is not true for the United States, whose perceived cultural and legal exceptionalism rests upon a rapidly eroding economic and military hegemony. The very message of the American vote – that we do not see ourselves subject to international law and human rights; we set the policies and rules, not the UN or international courts – sends a chill down the spine of people everywhere, especially those, such as the peoples uprising in the Middle East or those in Burma, the Congo, China and in American prisons, who cannot revolt yet hold out hope that struggles for human rights will eventually each them.

The American vote sent yet another, more concrete message: the United States simply cannot deliver on a just peace in Israel/Palestine. Assuming that Obama, Gates, perhaps Clinton and certainly Petraeus “get it,” that they understand that Israel’s occupation is unsustainable and only isolates the US in the international community, then how does one account for the American vote? The explanation given, that turning to the UN will somehow “undermine” a non-existent “peace process,” is laughable and persuaded no one. The answer, of course, is Congress. Structurally, not because of policy or will (though contempt for international law plays its role), the American Administration cannot resolve the conflict because the overwhelming majority of Congress, in both houses and both parties, feel they must be unwaveringly and uncritically “pro-Israel” if they are to be re-elected (even though this is patently mistaken; only 7 percent of Jews polled after the 2010 elections identified Israel as a decisive issue in their vote).

Unlike other foreign policy issues, Israel has become a domestic American issue. A candidate for office, even in a state such as Nevada, Iowa or Maine with few Jews or Christian fundamentalists, must often stake out a more “pro-Israeli” position than his or her opponent before getting on to even local issues. The strategic funding and political support (or the threat of withdrawing them) of candidates in both parties by AIPAC and the clout of the Christian Right in the Republican Party is matched by the influence of Pentagon defense contractors, who keep members of Congress in line by arguing that any cut in the billions given to Israel and, by extension, to the other countries in the region (totaling some $125 billion over the next decade), will cost jobs in their states and districts. Indeed, Susan Rice’s vote in the Security Council cannot be explained in any way except as a capitulation of vital American interests to “pro-Israel” forces and manufactured perceptions on the part of the Administration and Congress alike.

Faced with the spectacle of an almost totally isolated US, why should any of us cling to the American default strategy of the past 44 years, whereby the United States is seen as the sole and ultimate arbitrator of the conflict? And in particular, why should the Palestinians? If the US cannot actually deliver on a just peace for structural reasons, and yet insists on an absolute monopoly over any “peace process,” the time is long overdue to develop a “working around America” strategy. Let’s look at the world beyond the US:

· At least ten countries in Europe seem to be moving towards unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state within the ‘49/’67 borders; Cyprus did so a couple weeks ago. In fact, public opinion favoring the Palestinians is far in advance of the foot-dragging governments. Efforts to mobilize public opinion there should be redoubled, although much work needs to be done in the extremely conservative pro-American/pro-Israel states of Eastern Europe, which, Slovenia aside, hold the rest of the EU back on this issue.

· Most Latin American countries have already recognized a Palestinian state within recognized borders, although they have also accepted Israel as become the first non-Latin American country to sign a trade agreement with Mercosur, the region’s emerging common market. Given strong sympathies of Latin American peoples towards the Palestinians, vigorous campaigns calling for stronger government actions and BDS are called for.

· Turkey has become a lead player against the Occupation in the Middle East and internationally, while the fundamental changes sweeping the Arab world signal a fundamental shift in relations to Israel and the US – and perhaps a more critical and active role for the Arab League and the possibilities of mobilizing the wider Muslim world. Here, ironically, pressure has to be put on the Palestinian Authority to be more pro-active. It deserves credit for bringing the anti-settlement resolution before the Security Council despite strong US pressures, but Abbas’s refusal to bring a Palestinian declaration of independence within recognized borders before the UN in the end neutralizes the recognition accorded the Palestinians by Latin American and other countries.

· South Africa, recently made a member of the BRIC group of countries, is capable of taking a more active role on this issue given its expressed support for the Palestinian cause, and could play a leading role in mobilizing other African states.

· Russia recently reaffirmed its recognition of a Palestinian state, although it does not seem eager to confront the US in an American “sphere of influence.” China and India have yet to play a major role – in part because Israel is the #2 arms supplier to both countries. But certainly in India and other countries of Asia much more could be done to mobilize both the peoples and their governments.

The UN vote demonstrates the great potential in organizing beyond the US, although it remains to be seen whether the PA is capable of pushing its case beyond the confines of American patronage, or having the courage to do so. Until now it has failed to mobilize and harness its greatest ally – us, the peoples of the world, the international civil society. Still, with or without the PA, the grassroots should pursue the next phase of the struggle: refocusing our efforts on a “working around America” strategy. Eventually the US will have to realize that its growing isolation is simply too great a price to pay for supporting an unsustainable occupation, or it will be left in the dust.

Jeff Halper is the Director of The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD). He can be reached at jeff@icahd.org.

The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions is based in Jerusalem and has chapters in the United Kingdom and the United States. ICAHD campaigns against Israeli occupation and oppression in the Palestinian Territories and to Bedouin communities within Israel

Posted on by

Craven US veto costs Washington its last shred of credibility

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood, 22 Feb 2011

The Nobel award, said Barack Obama at the time, was “an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations” and must be shared with everyone who strives for “justice and dignity”. Where was the justice and dignity in the sad story of America’s UN veto?

Having blocked the United Nations Security Council draft resolution on Friday, which would have condemned Israeli squatter colonies as illegal, Obama has now written America completely out of the script on Middle East peace.

Many will see it as a blessing that the US has so spectacularly disqualified itself from serious discussion, and that Obama has finally lifted the scales from the eyes of all those who unwisely invested high hopes in him.

Netanyahu’s office was cock-a-hoop and said Israel was “deeply grateful” to be let off the hook and as a reward the delinquent promises to be a good boy and “pursue negotiations vigorously” with the Palestinians. The US veto made it clear that “the only path to such a peace will come through direct negotiations and not through the decisions of international bodies”.

Some people will do anything to stop the United Nations getting a grip on the crisis. It would be more than a tad inconvenient to the crazed Greater Israel project. No doubt the champagne corks were popping in the US-Israeli Combined Ops headquarters as the Zionist luvvies danced late into the night to celebrate their victory.

The resolution, besides condemning the continuation of settlement activities and other measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Territory, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions, demanded that Israel ceased forthwith and fully respected all of its legal obligations in that regard.

 

The US argued that although it opposes Israeli settlements, taking the issue to the UN would only complicate efforts to resume stalled negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on a two-state solution. Why that should be the case wasn’t explained. Nor was the reason why negotiations should be re-started in the teeth of Israel’s uncompromising territorial objectives and clear dislike of peace.

It seems, from what US ambassador Susan Rice says, that craven Washington cannot bring itself to call Israel’s settlements on stolen Palestinian land what they really are – illegal – and is only prepared to label them “illegitimate”, presumably in case the correct term ruffles too many Israel lobby feathers.

Falling back onto the administration’s familiar double-speak, Rice explained that the veto “should not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity” but the US thinks it “unwise for this council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians”.

In other words, the United States would much prefer to have the Israel-Palestine question resolved by arm-twisting behind closed doors, in the guise of “direct talks”, than let the Security Council intervene with another binding resolution.

This latest resolution had nearly 120 co-sponsors and the other 14 Security Council members voted in favour. There are reports that Washington earlier threatened to slash aid to the Palestinian Authority if it wasn’t withdrawn, as if to remove any lingering doubt as to the crooked purpose of America’s meddling. When this failed the US, as one of the five permanent council members with blocking power, struck it down.

In doing so, the United States has advertised itself to the whole wide world as the willing tool of Zionist ambition and branded itself an enemy of Palestine and of all other countries threatened by the Israeli regime.

Sucked into the swamp of “direct negotiations”

Right on cue, British foreign secretary William Hague chimed in with some carefully-crafted balderdash:

“I have made clear my serious concern about the current stalemate in the Middle East Peace Process. Today the UK voted with others, including France and Germany, to reinforce this and our longstanding view that settlements, including in East Jerusalem, are illegal under international law, an obstacle to peace and constitute a threat to a two-state solution…”

He started well but quickly showed his eagerness to be sucked down by the US and Israel into the swamp of direct negotiations.

“I call on both parties to return as soon as possible to direct negotiations towards a two-state solution, on the basis of clear parameters…

  • An agreement on the borders of the two states, based on June 4 1967 lines with equivalent land swaps as may be agreed between the parties.
  • Security arrangements that, for Palestinians, respect their sovereignty and show that the occupation is over; and, for Israelis, protect their security, prevent the resurgence of terrorism and deal effectively with new and emerging threats.
  • A just, fair and agreed solution to the refugee question.
  • Fulfillment of the aspirations of both parties for Jerusalem. A way must be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of both states.”

Just pause there, please, Mr Hague. First, if a state is doing something that’s illegal and an obstacle to peace, and won’t stop when asked, it surely becomes the responsibility of international community and its law courts, and especially the United Nations, to sort it out. The victim can hardly be expected to NEGOTIATE an end to it.

Secondly, why are Israel’s accumulated crimes now deemed negotiable when the issues were long ago determined by the UN and by international law and wait to be implemented? Not once do you mention delivering that long-awaited justice. Instead you are obsessed with endless, unequal negotiations that are dishonestly convened and favour a very strong party that literally holds a gun to the weak party’s head.

And always the talk is of security for the Israelis rather than the Palestinians. You mention security arrangements to “prevent the resurgence of terrorism and deal effectively with new and emerging threats” against Israel. I don’t hear you pressing for equivalent arrangements to prevent Israeli terrorism against the Palestinians.

“We therefore look to both parties to return to negotiations as soon as possible on this basis. Our goal remains an agreement on all final status issues and the welcoming of Palestine as a full member by September 2011. We will contribute to achieving this goal in any and every way that we can.”

What has the British government done over the years to pave the way towards Palestinian statehood, Mr Hague? Now you’re in an all-fired hurry to rush it through in six months but still unwilling to act positively to establish any likelihood of a JUST solution.

“We understand Israel’s deep and justified security concerns. As friends of Israel, we share those concerns, and will strive with Israel to preserve her security and the stability of the region around her. It is precisely because of those concerns that we vote today in favour of this resolution.”

And not for the key reason that the settlements are illegal and moving Israeli squatters onto occupied territory seriously breaches the Geneva Convention and amounts to a war crime? Is that not of sufficient concern for you to say so loudly and clearly?

“We regret anything which sets back the prospects for peace because we believe it also sets back Israel’s security.”

There you go again…this slavish attachment to Israel’s security above all else. How can Britain be seen as an honest broker any more than the Zionist lackeys of the US administration?

The fact is, Mr Hague, the country you represent does not regard itself particularly as a friends of Israel and is not interested in preserving Israel’s security at the expense of its neighbors’. It certainly doesn’t wish to be thought of as an enemy of Palestine just to appease your funny friends in Tel Aviv and Washington.

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood is an industrial marketing specialist turned writer-photographer. In 2005 he was invited to write and shoot pictures for a book about the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. ‘Radio Free Palestine’ was published in 2007. For details please see www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk.

  • The Author is a regular contributor to RamallahOnline.com. Find more Articles by Stuart Littlewood on RamallahOnline.

Posted on by

Our Multiple Realities Mess

Dr. Lawrence Davidson

Lawrence Davidson, 20 Feb 2011

Part I – The Security Council Resolution and Veto

The inspiring moments when President Obama appeared before the cameras, and thus the world, to declare that the dictator Hosni Mubarak must step down and the people of Egypt given the inalienable right to self-determination are now in the past. It was a moment when U.S. foreign policy actually appeared to correspond to the foreign reality it addressed. Ironically, it was this very correspondence that made the moment anomalous–something quite out of the ordinary. Therefore, soon after Mubarak went into involuntary retirement at Sharm el-Sheik, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was off to Israel and Jordan to confirm that foreign policy would immediately return to its normal pathway. What is the norm here? Well, it is one where U.S. foreign policy references domestic political reality, like the power of the Zionist lobbies, rather than anything that might serve objective national interests. For all intents and purposes that was Mullen’s message, we are back on the normative track. And, on 18 February 2011, the administration backed up the admiral’s words with deeds.

On that day the American ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, vetoed a Lebanese/Palestinian sponsored resolution in the Security Council that simply stated the truth–that the settlements built and being built on Palestinian occupied territory are illegal and an obstacle to peace. Except for Israel itself, this is admitted by everyone, including the U.S. State Department. The resolution had over120 cosponsors (just about the entire non-Western world) and the support of every other member of the Security Council. The only thing wrong with it was that it singled out the Israelis as the culprits and was thus anathema to the politicians in Washington. For the Obama administration, it was a supremely embarrassing moment.

It was so embarrassing that the administration had invested a lot of energy in trying to make sure the moment never came. Someone in the White House, either Secretary of State Hilary Clinton or President Obama himself, called Mahmoud Abbas to tell him that the U.S. had a compromise in the works that would make the objectionable resolution unnecessary. And what sort of compromise did Washington have in mind? It turned out to be the same old “balanced” position that they U.S. has maintained for years. The compromise statement would express “strong opposition to any unilateral actions by any party which might prejudice the outcome of negotiations…and reaffirm that it does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity….and condemns all forms of violence, including rocket fire from Gaza and stresses the need for calm and security for both peoples.” By surrounding the seminal issue of settlements with all the other references to what the Palestinians might be doing, such a statement would sustain the Israeli position that the Palestinians are also obstacles to peace. That in turn would make this pronouncement marginally acceptable to both those embedded in the domestic reality of Congress and to the men in Jerusalem. Indeed, the Americans had pre-cleared their proffered compromise with Israel prior to offering it to Abbas. The Palestinians, of course, said that such pablum missed the point and they would have none of it.

Part II – Multiple Realities

The concept of multiple realities is the key to understanding American behavior when it comes to Israel/Palestine. Thus, on 17 February 2011, it was reported that Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the Democratic Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, the Republican House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (a rabid anti-Castro Cuban American), that committee’s ranking Democratic member Howard Berman, the Middle East subcommittee Chariman Republican Steve Cabot, the subcommittee’s ranking Democratic member Gary Ackerman, and others as well, were insisting that Obama “pledge to…veto any U.N. Security Council resolution that criticizes Israel regarding final status issues.” After all, as Cantor and Hoyer stated, the fault lies with the Palestinians. It is they who “reject the difficult but vital responsibility of making peace with Israel through direct negotiations and instead advocate for anti-Israel measures by the United Nations Security Council [that are] counterproductive and unacceptable.”

American politicians can only say these things because their audience is first, the Zionist lobbies themselves (from whom they desire political support and fear political opposition) and second, an ignorant American public who can not judge the veracity of their comments. So, while their position does reference the rather shabby political reality in Congress, their characterization of the reality under which Abbas and his fellows operate is all wrong. That other reality has recently been revealed by the leaked Palestine Papers. These show very clearly that the men Cantor and Hoyer accuse of avoiding “direct negotiations” had been in just those sort of talks but a short time ago, and while negotiating had offered the Israelis everything short of their very souls. Whereupon the Israelis had turned up their noses, walked away and recommenced building on stolen land. That left the Palestinian “leadership” in their own domestic political bind. For while the American politicians have to answer to lobbyists, the Palestinians now had to answer to an increasingly angry citizenry. At this point one can ask if, according to the Congressmen, it so necessary for the Palestinian politicians to “take up the difficult but vital responsibility of making peace with Israel,” why should it not be equally required that American politicians take on “the difficult but necessary responsibility” of shaking off their corrupt dependency on Zionist dictates so as to pressure the Israelis to make a just peace? The whole thing makes no sense unless one takes into consideration: multi realities and the politicians’ propensity for hypocrisy and double standards.

The result of all this was that on February 18th the UN representatives of three quarters of nations of the earth went about their business in muted disgust at the cowardice of the world’s greatest power. They probably avoided making eye contact with Ambassador Rice who had played the role of the good and loyal soldier. Hanan Ashrawi, a respected and very smart member of the PLO Executive Committee, had said that an American veto would be “a direct affront to the international community and the requirements of peace.” And so it was. But then, that is the rest of the world’s reality, which has yet to penetrate the Washington DC beltway. Inside that beltway it is the requirements of domestic politics, and not that of peace, that holds sway.

In the meantime, in the far off land of Palestine, the Israelis announced the plans for 120 new settlement units to be built in occupied East Jerusalem. The politicians in Jerusalem play to yet another reality–one shaped by ideology and power. The ideology of Zionism they dreamt up all by themselves. The power, at least in part, is made the USA. It is strange how history sometimes repeats itself. If, in November 1947, the UN had voted against the partition of Palestine it would have made no difference to the Zionists who were then determined to make Israel a reality come what may. And, on February 18th, if the Security Council had voted in favor of the resolution describing settlements as illegal, it would have made no difference to the Israelis who are determined to make greater Israel a reality come what may.

This is our present multiple realities mess. And, it is going to take more than UN resolutions to bring everyone concerned into the same world. The key group here is not the Palestinian politicos nor even the American politicians. The key group is the Israelis. It is their ideologically driven reality that has to reconstructed. When that happens the American politicians will meekly follow along. And how is this to be achieved? Through the slow but sure isolation of the Zionist state and its ideologues. Through a process of isolation that relentlessly raises the cost of Zionist reality until it is too great to bear. That process has already begun and will continue until racism is a dead issue in Israel whatever its ultimate borders. This struggle is now in the hands of a worldwide movement of civil society. And that movement will be the one to decide the ultimate reality in Israel/Palestine.

Dr. Lawrence Davidson

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 by

The veto and the case for impeaching President Obama

President Barack Obama listens to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel during a bilateral meeting in the Oval Office, Sept. 1, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Alan Hart, 20 Feb 2011

Never before has an American President’s fear of offending the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress been so exposed as it was by Obama’s decision to veto the Security Council resolution condemning continued, illegal Israeli settlement activities on the occupied West Bank and demanding that Israel “immediately and completely cease” all such activities. In a different America – an informed America – some might think, I do, that Obama should be impeached. The charge? TREASON.

After she had exercised the Obama administration’s first veto, the plea made by U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice for understanding of America’s position could not have been more absurd. “Our opposition to the resolution before this Council today should not be misunderstood to mean that we support settlement activity. On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity.”

So why the veto? Ambassador Rice said:

“The United States has been deeply committed to pursuing a comprehensive and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, In that context, we have been focused on taking steps that advance the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, rather than complicating it. That includes a commitment to work in good faith with all parties to underscore our opposition to continued settlements.”

What nonsense! If the Obama administration really wanted to underscore its stated opposition to Israel’s on-going colonization of the occupied West Bank including Arab East Jerusalem, there was no better or more effective way of doing so than voting for the resolution or abstaining. In either case the resolution would have passed and that would have opened the door to real global pressure on Israel if it continued to defy international law.

As for advancing the goal of a two-state solution, the Obama administration has done the opposite. By allowing Israel to continue its illegal settlement activities and consolidate its occupation, it, the Obama administration, has helped to guarantee that there can never be a viable Palestinian state living side by side with an Israel inside its borders as they were on the eve of the 1967 war.

In the context of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, the only thing to which the Obama administration has been deeply committed is not provoking the wrath of the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress and the mainstream media. For all practical purposes Obama has surrendered policy making on Israel-Palestine to this lobby. (The veto marked the complete surrender).

The essence of the problem this presents can be simply stated. The Zionist lobby’s agenda – unquestioning support for Israel right or wrong – is not in America’s own best interests. (In reality it is not in anybody’s best interests including those of Israeli Jews and the Jews of the world).

As I pointed out on I February in my post Crunch time coming for America in the Middle East?, what all Arab peoples want is not only an end to corruption and repression and a better life in their own countries. They also want an end to the humiliation caused by Israel’s arrogance of power and American support for it.

It is clear that the manifestations of Arab people power the world is witnessing were not instigated by Islamist extremist groups and are spontaneous protests with demands by citizens from all sections of civil society. So at the present time that is no evidence to suggest that change brought about by people power in Arab states will create more cover, more scope and more popular support for extremist and violent forces which use and abuse Islam in much the same way as Zionists use and abuse Judaism. But this could change, in my view will change, if America goes on supporting Israel right or wrong. In other words, the more the administration in Washington D.C. is perceived by the Arab street as being complicit in the Zionist state’s defiance of international law and crimes, the more American interests and citizens are likely to be targeted and hit.

The American Constitution states that a president can be impeached and removed from office for “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanours.”
In my view a president who allows a lobby group to put the interests of a foreign power above those of the country of which they are citizens, and who by doing so puts his fellow citizens more in harm’s way than they otherwise would be, is guilty of treason. (And all the more so when the American-Jewish lobby in question does not speak for more than about a third, and possibly only a quarter, of America’s mainly silent and deeply troubled Jews)

Footnote:

The admirable and courageous Gideon Levy, the conscience of Israeli journalism, has a brilliant article (which I have tweeted) in today’s Ha’aretz with the headline With settlement veto resolution, Obama has joined Likud.

And this is how Gideon concluded his piece:

“If the U.S. had been a responsible superpower, it would have voted for the resolution on Friday to rouse Israel from its dangerous sleep. Instead, we got a hostile veto from Washington, shouts of joy from Jerusalem and a party that will end very badly for both.”

Alan Hart

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 by

Obama on Palestinian Rights: Nyet

Stephen Lendman

Stephen Lendman, 20 Feb 2011

On February 18, as expected, Washington vetoed a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements as illegal under international law. The vote: 14 yes, America the sole no, isolating the US and Israel on this long festering issue. The measure had nearly 120 co-sponsors.

In a post-vote briefing, ambassador Susan Rice outrageously lied, saying:

“….as the United States has said on many, many occasions for many years, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued settlement activity.”

Unsaid was that America, for many decades, funded Israel generously to build them, a process continuing grievously under Obama, besides outlandish amounts of military aid, support for Israel’s occupation, and partnering in all its aggressive wars.

In a February 18 press release, Americans for Peace Now (APN) expressed “disappointment,” APN’s President and CEO Debra DeLee, saying:

“President Barack Obama missed a key opportunity today to demonstrate US leadership on peace. America’s failure to hold both sides accountable for their actions is a contributing factor to the state of” today’s moribund peace process because Washington and Israel won’t tolerate it.

Nor do they support Palestinian sovereignty, ending occupation, the right of return, and long denied democratic freedoms. Instead they enforce imperial harshness against millions of oppressed Palestinians, exploited and brutalized for decades. February 18 offered more evidence how.

On February 19, Al Jazeera said Washington’s decision “is certain to anger Arab countries and Palestinian supporters around the world. Correspondent Cal Perry said the decision isn’t:

“going down well in the occupied West Bank. People are wondering when some action is going to be taken. People here are tired of a lack of a peace process. They are tired that the two sides are not talking. They are tired that they continue to hear, especially by (Obama) that human dignity cannot be denied” when he does it egregiously and repeatedly.

For decades, Washington used its veto power abusively to prevent any measures hostile to Israel from passing. By doing so, it arrogantly ignores the will of most other nations, at times nearly all of them, except for Israel and a few supporters. As a result, an angry UK observer once used a baseball analogy, saying: “Only the USA could have a World Series and not invite the rest of the world.”

Even worse is Israel’s response to UN resolutions, mostly General Assembly ones. With full US support, it ignored or flaunted dozens of them condemning or censuring its actions, deploring it for committing them, or demanding, calling on or urging Tel Aviv to end them. It continues doing so with impunity, including daily oppression, mass arrests, torture, killings, targeted assassinations, regular incursions into civilian communities, aggressive wars, and relentless settlement expansions.

On February 19, Haaretz Service headlined, “Palestinians plan ‘Day of Rage” to protest US veto on UN settlement resolution,” citing Ma’an News Agency saying:

Palestinian head of general intelligence, Tawfik Tirawi, said it’s planned for Friday, February 25, calling the veto “blackmail,” revealing America’s true face and intent to subvert regional peace and flout Palestinian interests. “(T)hey are liars,” he said, “who pretend to support democracy and peace. Far from it.” Nonetheless, “(t)his will not affect our steadfastness and insistence on our rights.” He also said “there will be no negotiations with settlements.”

Before the vote, Washington tried pressuring Abbas to withdraw the resolution. An anonymous senior Palestinian official said, during an hour-long phone call, Obama made veiled threats of “repercussions” for refusing, saying:

“Obama threatened on Thursday night to take measures against the Palestinian Authority if it insists on going to the Security Council to condemn Israeli settlement activity, and demand that it be stopped. There will be repercussions for Palestinian-American relations if you continue your attempts to go to the Security Council and ignore our requests in this matter, especially as we suggested other alternatives.”

Speaking for Hamas in Gaza, Fawzi Barhoun said:

“This confirms the total support by the American administration for the arbitrary police of the occupation government. It should push the PA to adopt a strategy of unity….and take a national decision to end all forms of negotiations with the (Israel) occupation.” Washington is “completely biased towards the occupation and this confirms the failure of betting on a peace settlement” America doesn’t want, never did, and won’t tolerate as observers following the process know.

Withhold kudos for Abass/Fayyad and other top PA officials, figures serving Israeli/Washington, not Palestinian interests for years. Their resolve comes now as a face-saving measure only after Al Jazeera’s late January Palestine Papers release, exposing PA peace negotiations treachery. A previous article explained, accessed through the following link:

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/01/palestine-papers-revealed_25.html

The documents showed Palestinian negotiators were duplicitous traitors, bargaining away Palestinian rights for their own self-interest. Abass and appointed prime minister Salam Fayyad were principally responsible. Abass’ treachery way predates his presidency. At least from when he was chief Oslo negotiator for agreeing to Israeli demands, effectively capitulating for nothing in return. All major issues were left unresolved, including settlement population growth that more than doubled since 1993 and keeps expanding on stolen Palestinian land.

On February 19, the International Middle East Media Center said 300,000 Israeli settlers occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1993. “Currently, over 500,000 live in settlements constructed on Palestinian land occupied by Israel since 1967. The other 4.5 million Israelis live on land that was confiscated from Palestinians in 1948″ to create the state of Israel.

They lost everything: their homeland, freedom, and chance to live peacefully because Israel and its Washington paymaster won’t tolerate it – not then, not now, not ever unless forced.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/

Posted on by

US veto confirms America’s favor in Israel

Mustafa Barghouthi
Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi MP, 20 February 2011
Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi, Secretary General of the Palestinian National Initiative confirms that the U.S. position in the Security Council through the use of the veto and the disruption of a draft resolution condemning the settlement confirms the American bias in favor of Israel.

Dr. Barghouthi stated that the vote of fourteen countries in favor of the draft resolution and the United States response to oppose it and use the veto is a reaffirmation that the United States is unable to play the role of fair mediator in the negotiation process

He added that the Israeli policy is dragging the American one on the Palestinian issue to a position of international and regional isolation. He also said that what happened in the Security Council confirms the failure of the any negotiation and the fate of Oslo.

Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi calls for immediate actions by the General Assembly of the United Nations to pass a resolution recognizing a Palestinian state on all lands occupied in 1967 with Jerusalem as its capital, and to impose sanctions on Israel.

The severity of these developments confirms the correctness and validity of our national strategy, which is based on the impossibility of a solution with the Israeli extreme government under the imbalance of power that is prevalent. This must be changed through popular nonviolent resistance, the International Solidarity Movement, the imposition of boycott, divestment and sanctions on Israel, an immediate restoration of national unity and an end to the internal division in addition to promoting steadfastness of Palestinians through new economic reform policies.

Dr. Barghouthi concluded by stating that this is a historical moment which confirms the immediate need to end the Palestinian division and restore national unity as soon as possible.

Posted on by

Abbas vs Obama

Freedom Wins (Palestinians Cheer Egypt, Feb 12, 2011, Nick Marouf)

Freedom Wins (Palestinians Cheer Egypt, Feb 12, 2011, Nick Marouf)Mazin Qumsiyeh, 18 Feb 2011

Tomorrow, we were scheduled to go for a demonstration in the Nativity Square. The collective decision was to delay this for a few days to give us time to digest the changes happening (see below) and soon to happen around us and put the best strategy to achieve our collective goals.

Today/Friday (18 Feb 2011), a critical vote may or may not happen at the UN Security Council but in either case, it will create a shift in the political landscape. If there is a vote, the US will veto it (against the wishes of 14 other UNSC members). In vetoing a resolution that uses the same language as the US always says (settlements are illegitimate and an obstacle to peace), the US will have solidified its reputation for hypocrisy in the Arab world and more people will rise against the dictators beholden to US-Israeli policies. Two down, 20 to go. The Israeli-occupied US administration is thus pushing hard to get the proposed resolution withdrawn. If the US has succeeded in its threats to make Mahmoud Abbas and company cave and withdraw the resolution without a vote, then we have Goldstone II and it could be fatal to the Oslo “process.” I say Goldstone II, because the Abbas administration made the mistake of succumbing to US pressure and asked for a delay in the UN HRC consideration of the Goldstone report about Israeli war crimes in Gaza. Whatever happens today, people will come out ahead.

I just revisited a speech I wrote for President Obama and shared with those on my email lists on 11 Oct 2009. I think it is still valid and worth reading especially for US citizens in light of rapid changes around us. Notice item 7 (still pertinent for the many other dictators the US continues to support): “7- We will no longer support dictators and corrupt leaders. We will demand removal of dictators like Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak who has been in office for three decades with Western support. We will support democratic elections even when parties that get elected are not supportive of Israel or the previous US policy shaped in Tel Aviv. We will instead engage in immediate talks with groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and with countries like Venezuela and Iran to build a better future for all of us inequality and we will push for democracy and support of the will of the people even when this means resistance to Israeli hegemony. As John Kennedy stated once “If we make peaceful revolution impossible, we make violent revolution inevitable.“ http://www.qumsiyeh.org/presidentobama/

I had read the two books of Barak Obama three years ago and was very skeptical of the rhetoric of “change” that he espoused especially when the first thing he did when deciding to run for US Senate is ditch his Arab friends and make friends with the Israel lobby. But many of my friends not only voted for him but worked hard to get him elected. I left the US three years ago because I felt change there is indeed inevitable but not because of Obama. It is coming if nothing else than the total destruction of the US economy that the Zionist lobby is inflicting on America by leading politicians to endless wars against Muslim and Arab countries. Twelve trillion in US government debt and more than that in corporate and personal debts are catching up with the U.S.

If we study history we can learn something from it. IN 1953, the CIA toppled a democratic government in Iran that was led by a western-educated Prime Minister Mousaddak and shamefully, the US and British governments brought back a despicable regime (the Shah). His brutality led to the growth of fundamentalism which is now decried. It later also transpired that much of the fundamentalism here whether Mujahedeen in Afghanistan or many acts attributed to Al-Qaeda were supported or carried out by US backed elements (e.g. the bombing of the Church in Alexandria is now shown to have been carried out by the Egyptian interior ministry). So instead of creating and using the boogeyman of Islamic fundamentalism, it would be wiser for the US administration to actually support democracy and human rights. Stop blindly supporting the Apartheid state of Israel would go a long way to redeeming some credibility. Anything else the US does (pressuring or bribing Abbas, empty rhetoric and phone calls to aging dictators etc) will be counterproductive.

At a minimum, the US government should remove all those Zionists in its midst with loyalty to Israel (people like Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, Rahm Emanuel, and Larry Summers) and gather real independent experts of various religious backgrounds (like professors Mearsheimer and Walt, Professor Richard Falk, Professor Francis Boyle etc) who can truly give a road map to change in policy. Congress and the State Department can also start immediately to investigate its “allies” in all Arab countries for human rights violations as is required by US laws before disbursing weapons and money to brutal regimes.

I wrote last year that “there are also signs of the beginnings of a new and now perhaps global intifada (uprising) against repression characterized by spread of information virally though the internet (bypassing the controlled “mainstream media”) and by the spread of the boycotts, divestments, and sanctions movement (BDS, see bdsmovement.net).

 

People are liberating themselves from fear. Governments and the military-industrial complex of repression are panicking. Yesterday many people were killed in Libya, Bahrain, and Yemen. Repression is increasing in Algeria, Morocco, Iraq, Jordan, and Syria. But all this will do is accelerate the demise of repressive regimes. If only one Arab ruler would volunteer to take the lead in ending his own repression and save himself the humiliating fate of Mubarak and Bin Ali!

ACTION: You can contact embassies and consulates of different countries here http://embassy.goabroad.com/

A review of my new book on Popular Resistance in Palestine (which is now being reprinted). Book Review: Millions of Heroes by Sally Bland, Jordan Times, 14 February 2011.

Professor Mazin Qumsiyeh teaches and does research at Bethlehem and Birzeit Universities in occupied Palestine. He serves as chairman of the board of the Palestinian Center for Rapprochement Between People and coordinator of the Popular Committee Against the Wall and Settlements in Beit Sahour He is author of “Sharing the Land of Canaan: Human rights and the Israeli/Palestinian Struggle” and the forthcoming book Popular Resistance in Palestine: A history of Hope and Empowerment.

A Bedouin in Cyberspace, a villager at home
http://www.qumsiyeh.org
http://www.pcr.ps

Articles by Dr. Qumsiyeh on RamallahOnline.com.

Posted on by

UNSC: An organization for injustice

The United Nations Security Council Chamber in New York, also known as the Norwegian Room (Wikipedia Commons)
The United Nations Security Council Chamber in New York, also known as the Norwegian Room (Wikipedia Commons)

The United Nations Security Council Chamber in New York, also known as the Norwegian Room (Wikipedia Commons)

Kourosh Ziabari, 21 Jan 2011

Since its very inception in 1946, the United Nations Security Council demonstrated that it cannot be trusted as a podium of justice for the world countries, specially the oppressed and defenseless nations which eye the assistance and patronage of the powerful and economically influential nations for tackling their political predicaments and crises, and showed that it merely pursues the interests of its small bloc of five permanent members and undemocratically discriminates against a multitude of countries who don’t have a say in the policies which directly affects them.

United Nations Security Council is said to be one of the principal organs within the operative system of the United Nations and is “allegedly” charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. The authorities possessed by UNSC are the establishment of peacekeeping missions, imposition of international sanctions and authorization of military actions whenever necessary.

UNSC has five permanent members: China, Russia, Britain, France and the United States. What’s the reason? Why should the UNSC have permanent members which cannot be removed from power and must wield an unyielding and resolute authority to make decision over the international affairs? The answer is simple: these five countries are the victorious powers of the Second World War. Their victory in a war which took place and was concluded more than half a century ago minimally accounts for the eternality and endlessness of the power which they possess.

UNSC has also 10 non-permanent members which are elected on a rotating basis and through the vote of the members of United Nations General Assembly.

According to the Article 27 of the UN Charter, a draft resolution on non-procedural matters is adopted if nine or more of the fifteen members of the UNSC vote for the resolution, provided that none of the permanent members veto it.

What is the veto power? The answer is simple. It’s a discriminatory and biased privilege given to five countries to dictate their own will to some 200 countries as they wish. If a draft resolution, put forward by one of the fifteen members of the UNSC, is vetoed by any of the five permanent members, its adoption will be precluded. Veto power, seen by many as the most unfair and inequitable law of the world which enables a powerful and authoritative minority to determine the fate of an indispensable and subjugated majority, is unquestionably an insult to the insight and perception of the international community.

The permanent members of the UNSC are free to exercise their right of veto whenever they wish to, and nobody can question the legitimacy or justifiability of this approach. Several international organizations, lawyers and lawmakers, journalists, politicians and even statesmen have put forward alternatives to the right of veto wielded by the Big 5, but all of their efforts have been in vain, as the United Nations Security Council has showed the least flexibility with regards to the reformation of its autocratic and undemocratic structure.

Interestingly, all of the permanent members of the UNSC are the countries which we’ve long got used to hearing their claims of being the pioneers of democracy and freedom; nevertheless, in the very approach which they’ve implemented over the past fifty years and the manner of their interaction with the other countries of the world, one can hardly trace the footsteps of democratic and civilized behavior.

Unfortunately, the United Nations Security Council has become an instrument for the five superpowers to further their political will in the arena of international politics and alter the political equations according to their interests. They put forward a draft resolution whenever their interests are jeopardized and pressure the rest of members to vote for it, and veto the resolutions in which the interests of their allies are endangered.

Since its establishment up to now, the UNSC has adopted 1966 resolutions. Now the question lies: how many of these resolutions have become operative and come into effect? How many of these resolutions have been fair, lawful and defendable? Whose interests are met through these resolutions? Is the will of five nations more valuable or worthy than the will of 200 countries who don’t have access to UNSC?

Let’s bring up some examples. UNSC’s treatment with Iran is a notable and clear example of discrimination and prejudice exercised by the Security Council against an independent nation which wants to stride on its own path towards self-sufficiency and progress, free from the pressure of bullying powers. Since 2006 UNSC has adopted seven resolutions against Iran’s civilian nuclear activity and imposed four rounds of sanctions against the country for what it claims to be “Iran’s failure to halt its uranium enrichment program”. The imposition of four rounds of sanctions against an independent country which tries to achieve a scientific breakthrough is an ironic drama. All of the reports published by the International Atomic Energy Agency attest to the legality and rightfulness of Iran’s nuclear program. There has been not a single paper of evidence signifying that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons. All the international community knows about Iran’s nuclear program is that Iran enriches uranium, and enriched uranium, to some certain extents, might be used to fuel a nuclear bomb! At the same time, the international community is well aware of the fact that the regime of Israel possesses 170 to 200 nuclear warheads, and this is a figure which is confirmed by the Federation of American Scientists, an organization within the country which is the staunchest ally of Israel. So why did the UNSC, being headed by the Big 5, impose four rounds of crippling sanctions and pass seven resolutions against Iran instead of condemning Israel and imposing sanctions on it?

Ironically, 118 members of the Non-Aligned Movement and 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Conference unconditionally backed Iran’s peaceful nuclear program; however, the country should face financial sanctions because 5 countries like this way. Is it fair, not? Five is bigger than 118!

World superpowers don’t tolerate the emergence of a new political and scientific power. Iran is an inspiring example for the developing world and should be obstructed at any rate, so the UNSC can effectively function as an impediment on the way of Iran and any country such as Iran which looks for improvement and progress.

However, UNSC’s treatment with Iran was a simple example of the discriminatory approach of this unfair and unjust organization with the world nations. Hundreds of unfair and unjust resolutions have been passed against the oppressed nations of the world, from the Latin America to Africa, adding to the pains and problems of these impoverished nations.

UNSC needs a drastic reformation. The veto power should be dissolved as soon as possible. There should be a permanent seat for the representative of the Islamic world with more than 1.5 billion population. The power to authorize sanctions or military expeditions should be handed over to the UN General Assembly rather than the Security Council. The members of UNSC should be held accountable for the decisions which they make. Their responsiveness to the international community should be built up. The impunity of UNSC members should be abolished. They should not be able to make any decision which they want and get away with it. It’s only with the implementation of such reforms that we can be hopeful for a successful future for the UNSC; otherwise, this organization will forever remain an organization of injustice and bias.

Kourosh Ziabari

Kourosh Ziabari

Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian freelance journalist, and regular contributor to RamallahOnline.com. More articles by Kourosh Ziabari can be found here.