Showing posts with label occupation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label occupation. Show all posts

Sunday, April 25, 2010

I am Palestine

Last Sunday, we attended an evening commemorating Palestinian Land Day. I went someone hesitantly since the event was co-sponsored by the PLO mission in Washington. But Yassine convinced it was worth the trip since we were really going to see Ahmed Tibi-the keynote speaker; and a fantastic Dabke troupe; and a oud player.

The evening started out with the usual declarations and rhetoric by the PLO Mission. Sensing the crowd’s impatience, the Palestinian ambassador pleaded that as Palestinians we should not import our differences from back home. As though a perfectly timed punchline, a picture of Mahmoud Abbas who looked like he was gagging appeared on the screen behind him.

One of the Mission staff then introduced Tibi as a “proponent of Palestinian rights in the Israeli Knesset” as though it were some secondary issue he is passionate about. The introduction sounded aloof, like an outsider who was introducing Tibi to a foreign crowd, not a Palestinian (the crowd was overwhelmingly Arabic speaking Palestinians, and the speech itself was in Arabic).

Tibi then took the stage: “I just want to say something here. I was introduced as a mere ‘proponent’ of Palestinian rights. I don’t think you understand, so let me explain. I am not simply a proponent. I dont’ defend or talk about Palestinian rights because I feel like it. I AM Palestinian rights; I EMBODY Palestine. I AM the Palestinian struggle. So please do not insult me.”

Ouch.

Tibi went on to talk about what he called the “Triangle” of the Palestinian struggle: The Palestinians inside the Armistice line (OPT/WB, Gaza and East Jerusalem), the Palestinians on the outside in the diaspora and refugee camps; and the 1948 Palestinians.

In fact, the entire evening the Mission engaged in a pathetic to promote the Fayyad government, to demonstrate how they are making the occupied, divided, strangulated territories bloom with their new economic and institution building initiatives in the West Bank. I nearly gagged when they talked about how impressive the economic growth he has led has been.

Curiously, Gaza was not mentioned once the entire evening. But then, this is the point. To isolate Gaza; to disappear it from the discourse, subtract it form the equation, out of sight and mind. It was a depressing little facade, where, as in reality, the sideshow attempts to distract from the rottenness lurking beneath and the bitterness simmering just below that. The squashing of any and all dissent and use of torture by CIA-trained Abbas forces in the name of keeping “order” (a friend of mine here in Maryland shares with me daily stories of the torture her brother is enduring at the hands of such forces, who are attempting to “convince” him which way to vote in July’s municipal elections and discourage opposition rallies). Really, a small-scale do-over of Oslo.

For more on the perils of the so-called Netanyahu-Fayyad Initiative (“West Bank first” and “Economic Peace”) see this excellent article by Ziyaad Lunat on EI.

“Economic peace,” coupled with the “West Bank First” policy of economic development serves too as warning to Palestinians. They either conform to a political program approved by Israel and Western donors or risk sharing the dire fate of Gaza, under a crippling siege since June 2007.

Each ribbon cutting ceremony Fayyad attends reinforces the normalcy discourse propagated by the PA and Fatah-affiliated media that contrast it to the destruction and despair of Israeli-blockaded, Hamas-controlled Gaza.

A year on, the cost of the Netanyahu-Fayyad plan is becoming clear. Low-income Palestinian families and small business are being encouraged to borrow to fuel a high-risk economy. Israel has proven time again that it won’t hesitate to strike a blow against Palestinian infrastructure should they dissent from the current consensus in its favor.

The economic peace model comes with a dose of cultural imperialism. Palestinians do not have basic freedoms but they are being told that they can enjoy the mundane and superfluous in cinemas and shopping centers.
http://www.gazamom.com/2010/04/i-am-palestine/

Thursday, February 25, 2010

LIVING UNDER ISRAEL’S JEWISH LAW

Rabbi Abraham Kook, the religious mentor of the settler movement, taught that “the difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews — all of them in all different levels — is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.” (Reuters Photo)


Remarks by the Israeli Minister of Interior Yaakov Neeman suggesting that the Jewish religious law (Halacha) should be adopted as the “law of the land” in the Jewish state has drawn strong reactions from both Jews and non-Jews.

“Step by step, we will bestow upon the citizens of Israel the laws of the Torah and we will turn Halacha into the binding law of the nation,” Neeman told Rabbis at a Jewish law convention in occupied Jerusalem in December 2009.

“We must bring back the heritage of our fathers to the nation of Israel,” he said. “The torah has the complete solution to all of the questions we are dealing with.”

Neeman’s statements were met applauds from participants who included high-ranking Rabbis, as well as representatives of religious parties.

However, for non-Jews, who now constitute nearly 50 percent of the total population in occupied Palestine, Neeman’s remarks are a serious cause for concern since Halacha, at least according to the Orthodox Jewish interpretation, does not recognize the full humanity of non-Jews.

Hence, non-Jews living under Halacha must accept to live under a perpetual state of inferiority, if not persecution.

Lesser in Every Aspect

According to Orthodox Judaism, a non-Jew (goy) is inferior to a Jew in every conceivable aspect. This inferiority is absolute, inherent, intrinsic, and not subject to any related or unrelated factors.

Rabbi Abraham Kook, the religious mentor of the settler movement, taught that “the difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews — all of them in all different levels — is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.”

The teachings of Kook are based on the Lurianic Cabala (Jewish mysticism), which teaches the absolute superiority of the Jewish soul and body over the non-Jewish soul and body. This means, according to one Rabbi who is member of the Chabadi Lubovitcher sect, that “every simple cell in a Jewish body entails divinity and is part of God.”

In 2003, Rabbi Saadya Grama of the Beth Medrash Govoha, the renowned Talmudic school of Lakewood, NJ, published a book in which he claimed that Gentiles were completely evil and that Jews constituted a separate, genetically superior species.

The book published under the Hebrew Title “Romemut Yisrael Ufarsahat Hagalut” quoted numerous classical Jewish sources to prove Jewish superiority over the rest of humankind.

The difference between Jews and gentiles, he argued, is not religious, historical, cultural, or political. It is rather racial, genetic, and scientifically unalterable. The one groups is at its very root and by natural constitution “totally evil” while the other is “totally good”

“Jewish successes in the world are completely contingent upon the failure of all other peoples. Only when the gentiles face total catastrophe, Jews do experience good fortune.”

“The Jews themselves brought about their own destruction during the Holocaust, since they arrogantly endeavored to overcome their very essence, dictated by divine law.”

While castigated by many Jewish figures, religious and secular, for its brazen racism, Grama’s thesis is not really in conflict with the Rabbis of Gush Emunim (the settler camp) and the rest of the National religious movement in Israel today.

He readily applies Torah passages against idolaters, other pagans to Christianity and Islam, and other monotheists who worship the God of Abraham, the very God proclaimed by the Torah.

He also ignores extensive Rabbinic deliberations during the medieval period, which concluded that both Islam and Christianity as “licit, monotheistic faiths.”

Hence, Muslims and Christians could not be lumped in one category with the idol-worshipers of earlier times.

Sub-human Slaves

If gentiles (goyem) are inherently inferior to Jews, and if their very humanity is presumed to be denied, it is axiomatically inferred from this that these gentiles have inherently lesser rights than Jews do.

Indeed, some Talmudic references do refer to gentiles as “animals walking on two feet instead of four”.

Even today, some Rabbis, such as David Batsri, invoke the “bestiality” of non-Jews, claiming that the Creator created them with two legs instead of four in deference to Jews, because it is not appropriate that Jews be served with four-legged animals.

It is true that this view is not shared by all Rabbis, especially the enlightened ones. However, it is also true that some prominent sages holding both Halachic and historical weight are among the main advocates of this pure racism.

For example, according to the code of Maimonides (Rambam): “A Jew who killed a non-Jew is exempt from human judgment, and has not violated the prohibition of murder.”

This code is implicitly practiced by Jewish settler judges when dealing with Jews convicted of killing Palestinians, which explains the extremely light punishments meted out to the perpetrators, especially in comparison to Arabs convicted of the same felony.

It also explains why Israelis in general and religious settlers in particularly dwell so much upon “shedding Jewish blood” while never showing the slightest concern about Arabs killed by Jews.

Following the 1994 massacre of dozens of Arab worshipers at the Ibrahimi Mosque at the hands of an American-born Jewish terrorists, Moshe Levinger, a settler leader in the City of Al-Khalil (Hebron) was quoted as saying : “I am not only sorry for dead Arabs, but also for dead flies.”

The application of Jewish law in occupied Palestine (Israel plus the West Bank and Al-Quds) would mean that Palestinians who do not convert to Judaism (at the hands of an Orthodox Rabbi) would have to be treated as “residents alien”.

According to Maimonides, a gentile permitted to reside in the land of Israel, “must accept to pay taxes and to suffer the humiliation of servitude.”

Such gentiles, some modern Rabbis insist, “must be held down and not raise their heads against Jews. Non-Jews must not be appointed to any office or position of power over Jews. If they refuse to live a life of inferiority, then this will signify rebellion and the unavoidable necessity of Jewish warfare against their very presence in the land of Israel.”

Chutzpah

This inferiority accorded to non-Jews, which is summarized by the phrase “water carriers and wood-hewers”, is actually an award for the submissiveness of the pacified and subjugated gentiles.

As to “restive” gentiles in the land of Israel, like those demanding equal human and civil rights as citizens, their punishment is usually expulsion or outright extermination.

According to Shulhan Aruch, widely viewed as the most authoritative legalistic source of Jewish religious law, the murder of a Jew is a capital offence and one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being idolatry and adultery).

Jewish religious courts are commanded to mercilessly punish anyone guilty of killing a Jew. However, a Jew who murders a gentile, even deliberately, is guilty of committing a sin against the “laws of heaven” and ought to be published by God rather than man.

However, a gentile murderer living under Jewish jurisdiction must be executed, regardless of whether the victim is Jewish or gentile.

However, if the victim is gentile and the murderer is a Jew who had converted to Judaism, he is not to be punished.

Maimonides also rules that while Jews are forbidden to save the lives of non-Jews in peacetime, they are also forbidden to murder them outright.

“As for gentiles with whom we are not at war, their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued, for it is written. Neither shall thou stand against the blood of thy fellow, but a gentile is not your fellow.”

Bluntly, anti-gentile codes are also proscribed against non-Jews living under Jewish (religious) rule. This covers the entire penal code. For example, there is an obvious discrimination against non-Jewish citizens in applying punishment for rape and adultery.

According to Israel Shahak’s classical book “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years,” Halacha presumes that all gentiles are promiscuous and presumed not to have paternity.”

For an example, a sexual intercourse between a gentile and a married Jewish woman is a capital offense for both parties, which is punishable by death for both.

However, a sexual intercourse between a Jewish male and a gentile woman — it does not matter if she is married or not since the concept of marriage doesn’t apply to gentiles — is not viewed as gravely as the Talmud equates such intercourse with an intercourse with animals.

A Biblical verse states: “For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.” [King James Bible, the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel 23:20]. That verse is presumably applied to non-Jews”

In this case, death is proscribed for the gentile woman, while the Jew, even if it is a case of rape, is given a much lighter punishment, like flogging.
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/living-under-israels-jewish-law/

Thursday, February 4, 2010

‘CHRISTIAN’ ZIONISTS KEEPING ‘THE DREAM’ ALIVE

Hagee’s Gifts to Pro-Settler Groups

Recently, Max Blumenthal uncovered that Elie Wiesel accepted a $500,000 gift from John Hagee, the anti-Semitic pro-settler televangelist. Wiesel appears to have resisted Hagee’s blandishments to come to San Antonio to speak to his congregation as he admits in a video available at the Hagee website. But once Hagee waved that $500,000 check in his face, and after Bernie Madoff had already cleaned him out, Wiesel saw the benefit of making common cause with the Christian Zionist zealot. Wiesel is also a useful tool for Hagee, as the former provides the latter that veneer of Jewish respectability he needs in the face of massive criticism of his motives and his record of strange statements about Jews and the Holocaust.
Thanks to Didi Remez, I’ve been doing some digging among Hagee’s other gifts to Israeli organizations. In fairness, he does give gifts to hospitals and absorption centers, which are perfectly reasonable. But it is notable how much money and how extensively he gives to pro-settler and extreme rightist Israeli groups.

Besides Im Tirtzu ($200,000 over two years), the radical right smearmeisters who put a horn on Naomi Chazan in a disgusting ad in the Jerusalem Post and Hebrew language press, there are these others (some of which are listed here on page 12):

Gush Katif, $200,000

Young Israel, $150,000

Shurat Ha-Din, $100,000

Nefesh B’Nefesh, $1,000,000

Ariel (settlement), $500,000

Gush Etzion, $150,000

Gush Katif funds support the settler malcontents who resisted the Gaza withdrawal. It offers them financial support to continue their resistance to territorial compromise and defiance of the directives of Israel’s democratically elected government.
Young Israel is one of the most virulent U.S. Orthodox groups supporting the most extreme of the settlers and settlements.

Shurat Ha-Din is an Israeli-American group using “lawfare” to wage war against the Arab world. It sues Arab banks alleging that they accept deposits from militant groups in violation of U.S. law. The group also hosts “Intellitours” to Israel which include meetings with Shin Bet assassins who’ve perpetrated targeted assassinations.

Nefesh B’Nefesh resettles new immigrants who make aliya. It makes a special point of directing these immigrants to West Bank settlements and subsidizes their lives there. In effect, this is yet another means of providing ideological and financial support to the settler movement.

Ariel and Gush Etzion are two of the larger settlements in the West Bank. Hagee’s Ariel gift supported a new conference center. Again, providing critical infrastructure support strengthens the settler enterprise.

I should add that these are only the publicly announced gifts. Neither Christians United for Israel nor John Hagee Ministries file 990 IRS forms, claiming they are exempt due to being a church. As far as CUFI is concerned, this appears to be an abuse of the system as it is certainly not a church. Rather it is a pro-Israel political-theological group advocating on behalf of the settler movement and Israel’s far right. Of course, the IRS does nothing to police such abuse as I’ve noted here in similar cases regarding other pro-settler U.S. non-profits.

Since Hagee’s giving is not transparent he could be giving much, much more and to even more radical groups than the ones he publicly acknowledges. Only he knows and he’s not telling.

Maybe we should ask Elie Wiesel how he feels being among such a hit parade of Israeli Jewish extremists, not to mention taking tzedakah from the bizarro Hagee himself.

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/

Saturday, December 19, 2009

It’s the occupation, stupid!

Ari Shavit of Ha’aretz writes:

The cat is out of the bag: Palestine, all of Palestine. Standing before 100,000 people in the center of Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh this week declared the objective of the Hamas movement. The moderate prime minister of the moderate faction of the Palestinian religious movement publicly announced the peace solution for which his government is aiming.

The ultimate solution is not the total liberation of the Gaza Strip or a Palestinian state. It is the liberation of all of Palestine.


Shavit here refers to the following comments made by Haniyeh at Monday’s rally in Gaza City:

This movement, with the help of the militant factions liberated the Gaza Strip, and we say, brothers and sisters, we will not be satisfied with Gaza. Hamas looks toward the whole of Palestine, the liberation of the strip is just a step to liberating all of Palestine.


Shavit continues:

In recent years, quite a number of experts have promised us that Hamas does not really mean it. Hamas is only playing tough, but its intentions are lofty: cease-fire, Green Line, coexistence. Live and let live. But no message conveyed by any senior Hamas member to any diplomat behind closed doors is equal in status to the message conveyed by Haniyeh to the masses. What counts is only the direct and open statement made by the Palestinian leader to his people. Palestine, all of Palestine. Every piece of Israeli land on which any Israeli citizen lives. His home, your home, our home. The land beneath our feet.

Now there are several points I’d like to make here.

First, it’s important to be clear about what exactly Haniyeh did and did not say. He very clearly said that Hamas intends to liberate all of Palestine. But he did not say that Hamas intends to achieve this end through force. Over the years, numerous Hamas leaders have made it clear that, once Gaza and the West Bank are liberated, they intend to gain control of Israel Proper through nonviolent means. For example, “Abd-al Aziz Rantisi, a prominent radical [and the group’s cofounder], said: ‘The intifada is about forcing Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 boundaries’, while adding this ‘doesn’t mean the Arab-Israeli conflict will be over’, but rather that its armed character would end.”

Now don’t misunderstand me here. I’m not trying to create the impression that Haniyeh is some misunderstood peacenik. And I’m certainly not saying I can read his mind. It’s possible that he intends to use force to achieve his end goal. I’m merely suggesting that we should focus on what he actually said and put his words in their proper historical and cultural context.

But let’s assume the worst. Let’s assume that Shavit is right and that Haniyeh and Hamas leaders will not stop fighting until they rule all of Historic Palestine. For several years now, most Israeli leaders have held this belief. And consequently, they have contended that, for the protection of their own people, they’ve been obligated to continue the occupation. For, the argument goes, it would be suicidal to give the Palestinians a state that they would just use as a base for more terrorist operations.

The problem with this argument is that, far from keeping Israelis safe, the occupation is the very reason why Israelis are not safe. The occupation is what fuels hatred among many Palestinians; it’s what motivates some to blow themselves up on Tel Aviv buses and others to fire rockets into Sderot. The occupation, now in its forty-second year, is why in 2006 the majority of Palestinians turned to Hamas, which, along with rejecting a two-state solution, had long claimed that Israel could only be persuaded through violence. Poll after poll reveals that most Palestinians support an end to conflict and a two state settlement. But as the hopes of Oslo started to slip away, many lost faith in negotiations and turned to Hamas. After all, desperate times call for desperate measures.

Shavit understands that the occupation is harmful to Israelis. “The occupation,” he writes, “is destroying Israel. It is undermining Israel’s ethical, democratic and diplomatic foundations.” But he believes that Hamas isn’t really interested in a two-state solution and is therefore essentially preventing Israel from ending the occupation. But again, the only reason that Israel has to contend with Hamas is because it has persisted in violating international law and has deprived millions of Palestinians of their basic human rights. If Israel really wants its own citizens to live in safety, then it should end its war against the Palestinian people. It should end the blockade on Gaza; it should stop hoarding water resources in the West Bank; it should stop building settlements in East Jerusalem.

Such actions certainly wouldn’t appease everyone. Some would continue in their determination to destroy Israel. But only a small minority fall within this category; most Palestinians just want to live in freedom and security. So if Israel took these actions, if it proved that it’s truly committed to international law, then I’m convinced that the radicals in Palestinian society would soon find themselves marginalized, and Israel would find itself closer to true peace.
http://donemmerich.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

The Lobby Within


By:Ramzy Baroud

A just and peaceful solution to the protracted Palestinian-Israeli conflict is only possible when the US ceases to block every attempt made towards it.

This assertion might raise many questions, for example, just how is one to define a just and peaceful resolution? And for what reasons would the US obstruct such a possibility, considering that stability in the Middle East is, or at least should be a top American priority?

A just and peaceful resolution is difficult to define, considering that the conception of justice varies both in definition and interpretation. In the case of this conflict, the long-held assumption is that a just resolution is one that would be consistent with international and humanitarian laws, and which would enjoy the largest possible consensus worldwide.
http://intifada-palestine.com/

A consensus is indeed at hand and has been for decades; it is one that recognises the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territories as illegal and immoral, that unconditionally acknowledges the illegality of all Jewish settlements in occupied Palestine and the illegal transfer of Israeli settlers to inhabit unlawfully acquired Palestinian land. Strangely enough, despite its very cautious phraseology, the US, especially under the current administration of President Barack Obama recognises these very facts. But then why is the man who leads the world’s only superpower proving not only incapable of achieving what should be a practicable feat, but also going so far as to hinder the efforts of other parties to simply recognise Palestinian rights or pinpoint Israeli injustices?

This is precisely what has just taken place, a repeat of the same infuriating episode for the thousandth time.

A recent proposal presented by Sweden — the current holder of the rotating European Union presidency — called on EU members to recognise an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. The proposal was watered down to a mere communiqué, issued by EU foreign ministers on December 8, which calls for the division of Jerusalem to serve as “the future capital of the two states.” Naturally, Israel, as the occupying power rejected the statement. But so did the United States. “We are aware of the EU statement, but our position on Jerusalem is clear. We believe that is a final-status issue,” declared Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P.J. Crowley. He further declared that “this is best addressed inside a formal negotiation among the parties directly.”

Crowley, like all of his bosses, Obama included, knows well that Israel is neither keen on ‘direct’ nor indirect negotiations, and is deliberately prejudicing any possible just solution with its continuing colonisation of occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank. Israel’s rightwing extremist government is not bashful about its true intentions, and the smart and savvy Obama is not ignorant of the prospects of a ‘direct’ negotiation between those with the bulldozers, the tanks and big guns (based in Tel Aviv) and those with dismal press releases (based in Ramallah). But it’s not just the rare initiatives of the EU that are being summarily dismissed by the US.

All initiatives, whether by individual states or regional groups, for example by the Arab League, or through international forums such as the United Nations are rejected, derided and at times suspected of anti-Semitism.

This is a continuation of a terrible legacy that goes back decades. The reason such a redundant policy is being highlighted now — as it should be — is because Obama promised change and pledged to lead a new decisive course, led by a gentler, kinder and more sensible America. In the Middle East, this is hardly being realised.

Why? Shouldn’t the US, in desperately trying to maintain its role as a world leader, and to preserve its economic and strategic interests in the Middle East, embark on the frequently promised new course — not for the sake of Palestine and the Arabs, but its own?

Israeli newspaper Haaretz suggests an answer, one that many of us have already recognised long prior to Obama’s presidency, or even his involvement in politics altogether. “In the case of Obama’s government in particular, every criticism against Israel made by a potential government appointee has become a catalyst for debate about whether appointing ‘another leftist’ offers proof that Obama does not truly support Israel,” wrote Natasha Mozgovaya on December 4.

Haaretz highlighted several cases in point, amongst them the intense war lead by the pro-Israel lobby in Washington against Chas Freeman, a widely respected US official nominated by the Obama administration months ago to chair the National Intelligence Council. He dared voice guarded critique of US foreign policy in the Middle East and became a victim of the worst possible vilification campaign, forcing him to concede the nomination.

Other examples include Robert Malley, a daring American political adviser who wished to believe that his country’s national interests took priority over Israel’s. He was let go even before the Obama presidency commenced.

More, a ‘controversy’ is currently ‘raging’ — as in, the Israeli lobby is not happy — over the appointment of former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel as an intelligence aide. According to Haaretz, “Republican Jews have…protested Hagel’s appointment, citing an incident in 2004 when Hagel refused to sign a letter calling on then-president George Bush to speak about Iran’s nuclear program at the G8 summit that year.”

Stephen M. Walt, a Harvard University professor and co-author of the widely-read The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, recently wrote that “groups in the lobby target public servants like Freeman, Hagel…because they want to make sure that no one with even a mildly independent view on Middle East affairs gets appointed. By making an example of them, they seek to discourage independent-minded people from expressing their views openly, lest doing so derail their own career prospects later on.”

Luckily, neither Walt nor numerous other independent-minded Americans like him are afraid to speak their mind, to safeguard the independence and integrity of their country. This should always be the case.

For the time being, don’t be surprised when you hear that the US continues to block the path for peace in the Middle East. At least now you know why.

Obama’s block to Middle East peace

{Bush: We agree to everything that “Israel” agrees to!-Obama: We DON’T agree except what “Israel” agree to!!!} by Jalal Al Rifa’i
by Ramzy Baroud, source

A just and peaceful solution to the protracted Palestinian-Israeli conflict is only possible when the US ceases to block every attempt made towards it.

The long-held assumption is that a just resolution is one that would be consistent with international and humanitarian laws and which would enjoy the largest possible consensus worldwide.

A consensus is indeed at hand and has been for decades – it is one that recognises the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territories as illegal and immoral, that unconditionally acknowledges the illegality of all Jewish settlements in occupied Palestine and the transfer of Israeli settlers to inhabit unlawfully acquired Palestinian land.

Strangely enough, despite its very cautious phraseology, the US recognises these facts.

But then why is Barack Obama proving not only incapable of achieving what should be a practicable feat but also going so far as to hinder the efforts of other parties to simply recognise Palestinian rights or pinpoint Israeli injustices?

A recent proposal presented by Sweden, the current holder of the rotating European Union presidency, called on EU members to recognise an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.

The proposal was watered down to a mere communiqué, issued by EU foreign ministers on December 8, which calls for the division of Jerusalem to serve as “the future capital of the two states.”

Naturally, Israel rejected the statement. But so did the United States.

“We are aware of the EU statement, but our position on Jerusalem is clear,” declared Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs PJ Crowley. “We believe that is a final-status issue. This is best addressed inside a formal negotiation among the parties directly.”

The US knows well that Israel is neither keen on “direct” nor indirect negotiations and is deliberately prejudicing any possible just solution with its continuing colonisation of occupied east Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank.

Israel’s right-wing extremist government is not bashful about its true intentions and Obama is not ignorant of the prospects of a “direct” negotiation between those with the bulldozers, the tanks and big guns based in Tel Aviv and those with dismal press releases based in Ramallah.

But it’s not just the rare EU initiatives that are being summarily dismissed by the US.

All initiatives, whether by individual states, regional groups or through international forums such as the United Nations are rejected, derided and at times suspected of anti-semitism.

This is a continuation of a terrible legacy that goes back decades. The reason such a redundant policy is being highlighted now is because Obama promised change and pledged to lead a new decisive course, led by a gentler and more sensible US.

But shouldn’t the US, in desperately trying to maintain its role as a world leader and to preserve its economic and strategic interests in the Middle East, embark on the frequently promised new course – not for the sake of Palestine and the Arabs but its own?

Israeli newspaper Haaretz suggests an answer, one that many of us have already recognised long prior to Obama’s presidency.

“In the case of Obama’s government in particular, every criticism against Israel made by a potential government appointee has become a catalyst for debate about whether appointing ‘another leftist’ offers proof that Obama does not truly support Israel,” wrote Natasha Mozgovaya on December 4.

Haaretz highlighted several cases in point, among them the intense war led by the pro-Israel lobby in Washington against Chas Freeman, a widely respected US official nominated by the Obama administration months ago to chair the National Intelligence Council.

He dared to voice a guarded critique of US foreign policy in the Middle East and became a victim of the worst possible vilification campaign, forcing him to concede the nomination.

Other examples include Robert Malley, a US political adviser who wished to believe that his country’s national interests took priority over Israel’s.

He was let go even before the Obama presidency began.

More, the Israeli lobby is not happy over the appointment of former Republican senator Chuck Hagel as an intelligence aide.

According to Haaretz, “Republican Jews have … protested Hagel’s appointment, citing an incident in 2004 when Hagel refused to sign a letter calling on then president George Bush to speak about Iran’s nuclear programme at the G8 summit that year.”

Stephen M Walt, a Harvard University professor and co-author of the widely read The Israel Lobby And US Foreign Policy, recently wrote that “groups in the lobby target public servants like Freeman, Hagel … because they want to make sure that no-one with even a mildly independent view on Middle East affairs gets appointed.

“By making an example of them, they seek to discourage independent-minded people from expressing their views openly, lest doing so derail their own career prospects later on.”

Luckily, neither Walt nor numerous other independent-minded US citizens like him are afraid to speak their mind to safeguard the independence and integrity of their country.

This should always be the case.

For the time being, don’t be surprised when you hear that the US continues to block the path to peace in the Middle East. At least now you know why.
http://realisticbird.wordpress.com/