Tag Archives: Veto

Posted on by

America’s Dangerous Game at the UN

President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, Sept. 29. 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza (Cropped))
President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, Sept. 29. 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza (Cropped))

President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, Sept. 29. 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza (Cropped))

John V. Whitbeck

The number of UN member states extending diplomatic recognition to the State of Palestine has now risen to 131, leaving only 62 UN member states on the wrong side of history and humanity.

If one ignores small island states in the Caribbean and the Pacific, almost all of the non-recognizers are Western states, including all five of the settler-colonial states founded on the ethnic cleansing or genocide of indigenous populations and all eight of the former European colonial powers.

It appears that the current American strategy to defeat the State of Palestine’s UN membership application is to try to deprive Palestine of the required nine affirmative votes in the Security Council by convincing all five European members (including Bosnia & Herzegovina, which has recognized the State of Palestine) and Colombia (the only South American state which has not recognized the State of Palestine) to abstain, leaving only eight affirmative votes and thus making America’s lone negative vote not technically a “veto”.

Even though everyone knows that the Security Council would approve Palestinian membership unanimously if the United States announced its support, the explanation and expectation behind this strategy is, apparently, that, in the absence of a “veto”, no one would notice America’s fingerprints all over this result, no one (notably in the Arab and Muslim worlds) would be outraged by America’s blocking of Palestine’s membership application and Mahmoud Abbas and his colleagues would crawl back into the hamster cage from which they have so recently and dramatically escaped, duly chastened and docile, and resume running mindlessly on the Israeli-American exercise wheel.

This is not simply a breathtakingly naïve strategy but an extraordinarily dangerous one — and not only because the Ramallah leadership, having experienced enlightenment and a spine transplant, has also recovered its self-respect and human dignity and will not be crawling back into its cage.

An American veto would be neither a big deal nor a bad thing. It would unequivocally confirm the sad and humiliating reality, now almost universally recognized, that the United States of America is enslaved to Israel, paying tribute and taking orders. By doing so, an American veto would definitively disqualify the United States from playing any significant role in any genuine Middle East “peace process” which would replace the fraudulent one which the United States has been controlling and manipulating on Israel’s behalf for the past 20 years and, thereby, would finally give peace a chance.

Indeed, since state observer status would confer on the State of Palestine virtually all the same benefits as member state status (most importantly, right of access to the International Criminal Court, where it could sue Israelis for war crimes, including settlement building, and crimes against humanity), an American veto in the Security Council followed by an upgrade to state observer status by the General Assembly might actually be the most constructive possible result for Palestine — even better than full UN membership with American acquiescence but with the United States maintaining its monopoly stranglehold on any “peace process”.

One might then realistically hope that the new emerging international force, the “BRICS” countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — all current members of the Security Council which have recognized the State of Palestine and are on record as planning to vote for Palestinian membership), and the European Union could jointly mobilize the true international community behind a genuine and urgent effort to actually achieve peace with some measure of justice.

On the other hand, America’s unanimous European abstention strategy, if successful, would have catastrophic consequences. While the Arab and Muslim worlds have learned to expect the worst from the United States, they have, at least until now, maintained some hope that Europe is not their enemy. If Palestine’s membership application were to be defeated by a united Western front, the world would be confronted by a fundamental clash of the “West against the Rest”, resurrecting memories of the most arrogant and contemptuous periods of Western imperialism and colonialism and confirming the belief, already widespread in the Arab and Muslim worlds, that the Judeo-Christian world is at war with the Muslim world.

Of course, it is within the power of one man to prevent this ugly scenario from playing out. Are the prospects of a few more votes for himself and less campaign money for his eventual Republican opponent really more important to America’s multi-racial president than preventing a long-running clash of civilizations, cultures, races and religions and permitting — indeed, promoting — progress toward a more peaceful, just and harmonious world?

The world should find out in the coming weeks.

- John V. Whitbeck is an international lawyer who has advised the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=17144

Posted on by

The one-sided US veto

Palestine Flag

The US, arguing that unilateralism is misguided, hypocritically plans to veto Palestinian statehood at the UN.

Neve Gordon and Yinon Cohen

 

US President Barack Obama’s decision to use the US’ veto prerogative if the United Nations votes to recognise a Palestinian state will constitute a blow to those seeking peace in the Middle East.

His administration’s claim that peace can only be achieved through dialogue and consent rather than through unilateral moves ignores the complex power relations that constitute peace-making between Israelis and Palestinians. History teaches that peace is achieved only when the conflicting sides believe that they have too much to lose by sustaining the conflict. And, at this point in history, the price Israel is paying for continuing the occupation is extremely small.

But if, for the sake of argument, one were to accept the view expressed by President Obama – that unilateralism is a flawed political approach – then one should survey the history of unilateral moves within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and examine the US response towards them.

A logical place to begin is 1991, when Israelis and Palestinians met for the first time in Madrid to negotiate a peace agreement. United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338, which call for Israel’s withdrawal from the land it occupied during the 1967 War in exchange for peace, served as the basis for the Madrid Conference.

Ever since that conference, Israel has carried out numerous unilateral moves that have undermined efforts to reach a peace agreement based on land for peace. These include the confiscation of Palestinian land, the construction of settlements and the transfer of Jewish citizenry to occupied territories, actions that every US administration regarded as an obstruction to the peace process.

Settlement expansion

Consider, for example, the Jewish settler population. At the end of 1991, there were 132,000 Jewish settlers in East Jerusalem and 89,800 settlers in the West Bank. Two decades later, the numbers of settlers in East Jerusalem has increased by about 40 per cent, while the settlers in the West Bank, according to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, have increased by over 300 per cent. Currently, there are about half a million Jewish settlers.

If Israel had arrested its unilateral transfer of Jewish citizens to Palestinian land in 1991 once it had embarked upon a peace process based on the return of occupied territory, the number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank would have been less than 50 per cent of what it is today.

Indeed, estimations based on the natural growth rate of the West Bank settler population suggest that this population would have been less than 150,000 people in 2011, while today it is actually over 300,000.

An analysis of settler movement to the West Bank also reveals that settler population growth has not been substantially different when left-of-centre parties have been in power. During periods in which the Labour Party formed the governing coalition, the numbers have been just as high, if not higher, than periods during which Likud or Kadima have been in power. This, in turn, underscores the fact that all Israeli governments have unilaterally populated the contested West Bank with more Jewish settlers while simultaneously carrying out negotiations based on land for peace.

Seeing that the settlers are undermining any future two-state solution, the Palestinians have decided not to wait any longer and are asking the United Nations to recognise a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. This, they intimate, is their last attempt to salvage the two-state route before abandoning it to the dustbin of history.

Their argument is straightforward: If the idea behind a two-state solution is dividing land among the two peoples, how can Israel unilaterally continue to settle the contested land while carrying out negotiations? Israeli unilateralism, in other words, has driven the Palestinians to choose the unilateral path. The only difference is that the latter’s unilateralism is aimed at advancing a peace agreement, while the former’s is aimed at destroying it.

One-sided US veto

The US has never considered using its veto power to stop Israel from carrying out unilateral moves aimed at undermining peace.

Instead, the US has frequently used its veto to prevent the condemnation of Israeli policies that breach international law. Now the Obama Administration wants to use the veto again, with the moral justification that unilateralism is misguided. But the real question is: Why is unilateralism bad when it attempts to advance a solution, yet warrants no response when unilateralism threatens to undermine a solution?

President Obama should keep in mind that the Palestinian appeal to the international community might very well be the last chance for salvaging the two-state solution.

If the Palestinian demand for recognition falls through due to a US veto, then the necessary conditions for a paradigm shift will be in place: The two-state solution will be even less feasible, and the one-state formula will emerge as the only alternative.

First published in Al Jazeera

Neve Gordon is the author of Israel’s Occupation and can be reached through his website www.israelsoccupation.info

Yinon Cohen is Yerushalmi Professor of Israel and Jewish Studies, Department of Sociology, Columbia University, New York.

Posted on by

Mahmoud Abbas; Another U-Turn ?

Palestine Israel Flag
Palestine Israel Flag

Palestine Israel Flag

Sami Jamil Jadallah, 14 June 2011

 

Mahmoud Abbas like his predecessor Arafat and the entire PLO leadership, never held accountable to any one or by any one, will for sure disregard all the advice and the momentum leading to September and announce a U-Turn at the UN in favor of sitting at the table with Bib Netanyahu.

Mahmoud Abbas made his preference of sitting with Bibi Netanyahu over a UN vote for full admission of Palestine in a meeting in Ramallah, this past weekend with a delegation from Socialist International.

According to Haaretz that carried the news “ Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas declared over the weekend in Ramallah that he prefers to returning to negotiations with Israel over demanding that the United Nation vote on recognizing a Palestinian state”. It seems 20 years of wasteful useless negotiations with Israel and the US are not enough; perhaps there will be another 100 years of “peace process”.

Mahmoud Abbas wavering under pressure from the US and Israel, sent his chief negotiator Saeb Erekat (you remember he resigned in disgrace over his roll in the Palestine Paper) together with Nabil Abu Rudeineh to the White House and State to meet with Obama’s team, not to push for the case of going to the UN seeking full recognition of the Palestinian State along the June 4th borders with East Jerusalem, but to find and negotiate a “secret” deal “ fist full of dollars” that will keep the Palestinian Authority and the Ramallah boys in business, in exchange for aborting the plans to go to the UN.

This is not the first, certainly will not be the last time that Mahmoud Abbas and the PLO leadership makes a U-Turn and proceed in manner and on track that is totally against the interests of the people of Palestine and in favor of their own selfish interests.

Abbas, Arafat and Qurai did it when they went to Oslo and negotiated the deal that gave Israel total and unconditional control not only over 58% of the land known as Area C, but they gave Israel a “veto” over any of the key and “final status issues”, such as the borders, the return of the refugees and of course East Jerusalem without having a way out in event of failed or dead end negotiations. Any thing the PLO or the PA undertake without having Israel’s approval is deemed “unilateral action” and in violations of Oslo. That same rule of course does not apply to Israel.

The PLO leadership went even further, it gave Israeli and its partner the US a total and additional “veto” in accordance with the Road Map, devised by non other than the leading American Jewish Zionist Elliot Abrams, which made it impossible for the Palestinian Authority to meet any of the conditions of the Quartet, while allowing Israel to take “unilateral “ actions in Area C including continued and uninterrupted and expanded settlement buildings, ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from East Jerusalem, expanding house demolition and of course maintaining and increasing security checkpoints. Obama and Netanyahu called these “facts on the ground”.

President Obama beholding to his benefactors and looking for a second term threatened the Palestinians with a certain “veto” if they go to the UN, terming the steps toward seeking full recognition as “delegitimizing” the State of Israel, as if admitting Palestine to the UN means expelling Israel from it. Barack Obama is bullying the Palestinian leadership knowing well they will scum to unfulfilled promises as they did in the Goldstone Report.

Professor Francis Boyle, a law professor at the University of Illinois, Champaign, in a widely distributed and circulated article The Case for Palestine’s membership in the United Nation strongly argues for a Palestinian membership in the United Nation. According to Professor Boyle, “the State of Palestine is bilaterally recognized de jure by about 130 states and a de facto diplomatic recognition from most countries” including some European countries.

Professor Boyle further argues the case that “Palestine is already a member of the Arab League and a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference”, mentioning the case of the World Court when conducting its proceedings over the “Apartheid Wall” invited the State of Palestine to participate in the proceedings, concluding “in other words, the International Court of Justice recognized the State of Palestine. With the Palestine having an “Observer State Status” with all the basic rights except the ‘vote” in the General Assembly “effectively Palestine has a de facto UN Membership”.

However the threatened “veto” by President Obama is “clearly illegal because it would violate a solemn and binding pledge given by the United States not to veto States applying for UN membership” argues Francis Boyle. Threatening a veto, President Obama proves one more time; he is not the master of his White House.

Every one, least of all Mahmoud Abbas and his boys in Ramallah should know the US was never a fair and honest broker in the Middle East conflict with decisions and policies formulated in Tel-Aviv and carried out in Washington by the “Israeli Team” with in the State Department and the White House and could not honor any thing it promises.

Going to the UN is also strongly argued by HRH Prince Turki Al-Faisal of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in an Op-Ed published this Sunday June 12, 2011 in the Washington Post Why the Palestinians need the UN. Prince Turki Al-Faisal when he speaks he speaks with authority and power of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Arab and Islamic states.

Prince Turki argued that “ One conclusion can be drawn from recent events: that any peace plans co-authored by the United States and Israel would be untenable and that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will remain intractable as long as UN policy is unduly beholden to Israel”.

So true, but for the fact the US is always siding with Israel “right and wrong”, the entire Middle East conflict would have been solved long, long time ago. Entrusting the US as the “honest broker” proved time and time again, the futility of entrusting any thing or any promise even one coming from the President of the United State. When it comes to the Middle East, and Israel, it is not the words of the US that count; it is the masters in Tel-Aviv and AIPAC that count.

Mahmoud Abbas will be making another fatal mistake if he trust Washington fulfilling any promise and should heed the calls of the people of Palestine, friends of the Palestinian people around the Arab and the world and seek formal recognition of Palestine as a full member of the United Nation and hell with the US “veto”.

Time for Abbas to do something right to mend for all the sins and wrongs he committed since Oslo continuing with 20 years of futile negotiations with the US and Israel while Israel stole and stole, built and built “facts on the ground”. Time to take the US out of the equation and out of the sham called “peace process”. If it is question of money, let Israel take over and pay the PA directly to manage its occupation. When the US and Europe contribute to the Palestinian Authority, they are not doing the Palestinians a favor, they are doing Israel the favor. I hope I am wrong about President Mahmoud Abbas this time around.

Sami Jamil Jadallah

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 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

RICHARD FALK : How Honest is the Honest Broker?

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

The United States Stands Alone with Israel in the UN Security Council
By Richard Falk, 21 Feb 2011

In what appears to be as close to a consensus as the world community can ever hope to achieve, the United States reluctantly stood its ground on behalf of Israel and on February 18, 2011 vetoed a resolution on the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem that was supported by all 14 of the other members of the UN Security Council. The resolution was also sponsored by 130 member countries before being presented to the Council.

In the face of such near unanimity the United States might have been expected to some respect for the views of every leading government in the world, including all of its closest European allies, to have had the good grace to at least abstain from the vote. Indeed, such an obstructive use of the veto builds a case for its elimination, or at least the placement of restrictions on its use.

Why should an overwhelming majority of member countries be held hostage to the geopolitical whims of Washington, or in some other situation, an outlier member trying to shield itself or its ally from a Security Council decision enjoying overwhelming support. Of course this American veto is not some idiosyncratic whim, but is an expression of the sorry pro-Israeli realities of domestic politics, suggesting that it is Israel that is the real holder of the veto in this situation, and the U.S. Congress and the Israeli Lobby are merely designated as the enforcers.

Susan Rice, the American chief representative in the Security Council, appeared to admit as much when she lamely explained that the casting the veto on this text “should not be misunderstood to mean support for settlement construction,” adding that, on the contrary, the United States “rejects in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity.” Why then? The formal answer given is that the United States, agreeing with Israel, believes that only in the context of direct negotiations can the issue of settlements be addressed alongside other unresolved matters such as refugees, borders, and the status of Jerusalem. This seems absurdly arrogant, and geopolitically humiliating.

If the 14 other members of the Security Council believe that Israeli should be censured for continuing to build unlawful settlements, and that no negotiations can proceed until it ceases, then it would seem that a united front would be the most effective posture to resumed negotiations. This is especially so here as it is a no brainer to realize that every additional settlement unit authorized and constructed makes it less likely that a truly independent and viable Palestinian state can ever be brought into being, and that there exists the slightest intention on the Israeli side to do so

In view of this feverish Israeli effort to create still more facts on the ground, for the Israelis to contend that negotiations should resume without preconditions, is to hope that the Palestinian Authority will play the fool forever.

After all for more than 43 years the Israelis have been whittling away at the substance of the two state consensus embodied in unanimous Security Council Resolution 242 (1967), contending at every phase of the faux peace process that an agreement must incorporate ‘subsequent developments,’ that is, unlawful settlements, ethnic cleansing. In the end, the Israelis may turn out to have been more clever by half, creating an irresistible momentum toward the establishment of a single secular democratic state of Palestine that upholds human rights for both peoples and brings to an end the Zionist project of an exclusive ‘Jewish state.’ With great historic irony, such an outcome would seem to complete the circle of fire ignited by Lord Balfour’s secret 1917 promise to the Zionist movement of ‘a Jewish homeland’ in historic Palestine, a process that caused a Palestinian catastrophe along the way and brought war and bloodshed to the region.

The disingenuousness of the Israeli position was confirmed by the recent publication of the Palestine Papers that showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that even when the Palestinian Authorities caved in on such crucial issues as Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees, their Israeli counterparts, including the supposedly more moderate predecessors to the Netanyahu leadership, displayed no interest in reaching even an agreement so heavily weighted in Tel Aviv’s favor. What seems inescapable from any careful reading of these negotiating positions behind closed doors during the prior decade is that the public negotiations are a sham designed to buy time for Israel to complete its illegal dirty work of de facto annexation in the West Bank, a position it has long adopted in the form of Israeli de jure annexation of the entire expanded city of Jerusalem in defiance of the will of the international community and the understanding of international law, objectively considered.

To contend that stopping the unlawful encroachments of continuing settlement activity on occupied Palestinian territory, an assessment that even the United States does not question substantively, is an inappropriate Palestinian demand seems so excessive as to humiliate any Palestinian representatives that stooped so low as to accept it. Equally so, is the Israeli claim that this demand has not been made in the past, which to the extent accurate, is not an argument against freezing further settlement activity, but a disturbing comment on Palestinian complacency in relation to their failure to insist upon respect for their rights under international law.

In the context of this latest incident in the Security Council, the Palestinian Authority deserves praise for holding firm, and not folding under U.S. pressure, which was strongly applied, including reported warnings from President Obama by phone to President Mahmoud Abbas of adverse ‘repercussions’ if the text calling for an end to illegal settlement building was brought before the Security Council for a vote. Obviously, the United States Government realized its predicament. It did not want to be so isolated and embarrassed in this way, finding itself caught between its international exposure as willing to support even the most unreasonable Israeli defiance of the UN and its domestic vulnerability to a pro-Israeli backlash in the event that it failed to do Israel’s bidding in this matter of largely symbolic importance.

We should not forget that had the Security Council resolution been adopted, there is not the slightest prospect that Israel would have curtailed, let alone frozen, its settlement plans. Israel has defied a near unanimous vote (with, hardly a surprise, the U.S. judge casting the lone negative vote among the 15 judges) of the World Court in 2004 on the unlawfulness of the settlement wall.

Here, an American dissent could not bring Israel in from the cold of its refusal to abide by this ruling as thankfully there is no veto power in judicial settings. In that instance of the wall, Israel wasted no time denouncing the advisory opinion of the highest UN judicial body, declaring its refusal to obey this clear finding that the wall built on occupied Palestinian territory should be dismantled forthwith and Palestinians compensated for any harm done. Instead, despite brave nonviolent Palestinian resistance, work continues to this day on finishing the wall.

With respect to the settlements it is no wonder that American diplomacy wanted to avoid blocking an assertion of unlawfulness that it was on record as agreeing to, a fact awkwardly acknowledged by Ambassador Rice in the debate, knowing that the resolution would not have the slightest behavioral impact on Israel in any event. It should be noticed that as much as Israel defies the UN and international law, it still cashes in its most expensive diplomatic chips to avoid censure whenever possible. I believe that this is an important, although unacknowledged, Israeli recognition of the legitimizing role of international law and the UN. It is also connected with an increasing Palestinian reliance on soft power, especially its BDS campaign. (Global BDS Movement webpage)

This partial shift in Palestinian tactics worries Israel. In the last several months Israeli think tanks close to the government refer to as ‘the delegitimation project’ with growing anxiety. This approach of the Palestinian Global Solidarity Movement is what I have been calling a Legitimacy War. For the last several years it is being waged and won by the Palestinians, joining the struggles of those living under occupation and in exile.

On the PA side there was reported anxiety that withdrawing the resolution in this atmosphere would amount to what was derisively referred to as a possible ‘Goldstone 2,’ a reference to the inexcusable effort by the Palestinian Authority back in October 2009 to have consideration of the Goldstone Report deferred for several months by the Human Rights Council as a prelude to its institutional burial, which has now more or less taken place thanks to American pressures behind the scene. It has even been suggested that had the PA withdrawn the resolution Abbas would have been driven from power by an angry popular backlash among the Palestinian populace. In this sense, the PA was, like the United States, squeezed from both sides: by the Americans and by their own people.

Of course, in the background of this incident at the UN are the tumultuous developments taking place throughout the region, which are all adverse to Israel and all promising in relation to the Palestinian struggle even though many uncertainties exist. It is not only the anti-autocrat upheavals in Tunisia and Egypt, the outcome of which is still not clear from the perspective of genuine regime change as distinct from recasting the role of dictatorial leader, but the wider regional developments. These include the political rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Turkish diplomacy that refuses to tow the Washington line, the failure of American interventionary diplomacy in Iraq, and the beleaguered authoritarian governments in the region some of whom are likely to give more active support on behalf of Palestinian goals to shore up their own faltering domestic legitimacy in relation to their own people.

In many ways, the failed Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity is a rather trivial event in the broader setting of the underlying conflict. At the same time it is a significant show of the play of forces that are operative in Washington and Ramallah, and above all, it is an unseemly display of the influence Israel wields with respect to the Obama Administration.

Is it not time that the United States revisited its Declaration of Independence or began to treat the 4th of July as a day of mourning?

Source: Richard Falk’s Blog

Posted on by

Mahmoud Abbas should throw the keys of the “Occupation” at the White House.

Sami Jamil Jadallah

Sami Jamil Jadallah, 21 Feb 2011

The message from President Obama and Secretary Clinton to Mahmoud Abbas and Ramallah leadership is very clear. Mahmoud Abbas message to the US should also be equally clear. Mahmoud Abbas should travel to New York address the UN General Assembly and Security Council and announce the disbanding of the PLO/PA and declaring Oslo Accord as “null and void”, and throw the keys of the Occupation at the White House. The US casting its standard “Veto” at the UN Security Council should not come as a big surprise to the Ramallah leadership and other Arab countries long advocates and supporters of the US sponsored “no-peace” process. There is no peace, there is no process there is only Occupation and the ever present US “Veto”. For God sake disband the PLO/PA as enablers of the Occupation and as the legal and contractual party with the Israeli Occupation.

Oslo as envisioned by both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership has nothing to do with ending the Jewish Occupation that began in 67, let alone the return of the refugees. Oslo in simple and plain language is a security and civil administration contract between the PLO on the one hand and the Israeli Occupation on the other hand and paid for by donor countries. While Israel kept its occupation, in fact expanding it and solidifying it hold on the Occupied Territories through its settlement policies, Oslo enabled Israel to shift the financial burdens, all of it, to the PLO. Of course the PLO leadership was only too happy to do just that as a way to revive the financial fortunes of the leadership and the PLO. As such the PLO/PA became beggars and looters at the same time serving the Jewish Occupation.

The US, Europe and some countries in the Middle East were too happy to cooperate in this mission and were too happy to relieve Israel of its financial and legal obligations as an “occupying power” and fund the operations of the Palestinian Authority. As such funding the Palestinian Authority is enabling the Jewish Occupation and allows it to continue, as Israel’s wants it and the US sees it.

If one is to make a simple calculation of the average annual costs of running the civil affairs of the Occupied Territories including health, education, roads and infrastructures, civil servants etc, the figures should not be less than $1.5 billions a year. As such and since Oslo, donor countries, the PLO/PA all were able to save Israel some $ 27 billion, which Israel put to good use.

Safety and security for Israel, its military and settlers occupation is of paramount importance to the US, the EU and certainly to the PLO/PA as the” civil and security” contractor for the Jewish Occupation. That is why the US with the help of Mubarak/Suleiman were too keen on generously funding the Palestinian Security Forces to the tune of several hundred millions a year and to fund the training of a “presidential security forces” to protect the Ramallah regime not different from Hafiz Assad “Saraya Eddifa’a/ Defense Brigades” and Saddam Husain’s Republican Guards.

Contrary to the marketed belief, that the Palestinian Security Forces as the source of law and order, the main objective and almost exclusive purpose of the Palestinian Security Forces is to act as an “auxiliary” security forces to the Israeli Defense Forces and the armed Jewish settlers running all over the place. That is why whenever the IDF wants to run a major operation of targeted killings or house demolition; it gives notice to the command of the Palestinian Security Forces with command to simply disappear from the scene. Once the IDF complete the operation, the Palestinian Security Forces re-appear just like a rainbow. Over the years, the US pledged billions to the Palestinian Security Forces and to Abbas’s own “Presidential Guards”. Not for the love of the Palestinians who die almost on a daily basis at the hands of the IDF and armed Jewish Settlers but for the love of Israel and its occupation.

The US threats to cut of and withhold funding from the PLO/PA after the US “Veto” is meant as a political and financial blackmail of the Ramallah leadership since funding is its “life line” and without funding the Ramallah leadership loses all its local support as “employer” in support of the Occupation. That is why the Ramallah leadership will do all it can to make sure it continues to get the needed fund to meet its legal and contractual commitments to the Jewish Occupation. I will go further and bet that if the PLO/PA stop security cooperation with Israel funding from the US and Europe will stop immediately including funding for “developmental” projects. Keeping in mind American consultants and contractors are the primary beneficiaries of all USAID funded projects.

Sami Jamil Jadallah

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)

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/