US Funds Israel’s Apartheid Roads Plan

Settlers Benefit From Israeli-Only Routes

By Jonathan Cook,
May 16, 2010
Courtesy Of "Anti-War"

The construction of sections of a controversial segregated road network in the West Bank planned by Israel for Palestinians – leaving the main roads for exclusive use by settlers – is being financed by a US government aid agency, a map prepared by Palestinian researchers has revealed.

USAID, which funds development projects in Palestinian areas, is reported to have helped to build 114km of Israeli-proposed roads, despite a pledge from Washington six years ago that it would not assist in implementing what has been widely described as Israel’s "apartheid road" plan.

To date the agency has paid for the construction of nearly a quarter of the segregated road network put forward by Israel in 2004, said the Applied Research Institute of Jerusalem (ARIJ).

The roads are designed to provide alternative routes to connect Palestinian communities, often by upgrading circuitious dirt tracks or by building tunnels under existing routes.

Meanwhile, according to human rights groups, Israel has reserved an increasing number of main roads in the West Bank for Israelis so that Jewish settlers can drive more easily and quickly into Israel, making their illegal communities more attractive places to live.

The US agency’s involvement in building a segregated West Bank road infrastructure would run counter to Washington’s oft-stated goal, including as it launched "proximity talks" last week, to establish a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity.

"The displacement of Palestinians from the West Bank’s main roads improves the appeal of the settlements by better integrating them into Israel," said Suheil Khalilieh, the head of settlement monitoring at ARIJ. "Conversely, creating an inferior, alternative network of local roads makes travel between the main regions of the West Bank difficult and time-consuming for Palestinians."

Israel proposed the creation of two separate road systems in 2004, after many of the West Bank’s main roads had been sealed off to Palestinians following the outbreak of the second intifada.

Ariel Sharon, the then-prime minister, argued that segregated infrastructure would create "contiguity of transportation" for Palestinians and help to alleviate economic hardship resulting from hundreds of roadblocks and checkpoints that restrict Palestinian movement.

The international community was asked to finance 500km of roads for the Palestinians, later termed "fabric of life" roads, including upgrading agricultural tracks and constructing many underpasses and bridges, at a cost of $200 million.

The Palestinian Authority, however, objected, saying the plan would further entrench the illegal settlements in the West Bank and justify confiscating yet more Palestinian land for the new roads.

That position was backed by international donors, including the US, which declared it would not finance any road projects against the PA’s will.

Despite the US promise, however, a map of the West Bank recently published by ARIJ shows that 23 per cent of the "alternative" road network Israel proposed has been built with USAid money.

Many of these roads are located in so-called Areas B and C, more than 80 percent of the West Bank that was assigned to Israeli security control by the Oslo accords. Israel oversees all road projects in these areas.

Mr Khalilieh said the PA was being effectively bullied into conceding the road infrastructure wanted by Israel.

"What happens is that USAid presents a package deal of donations for infrastructure projects in the West Bank and the Palestinians are faced with a choice of take it or leave it. That way the PA is cornered into accepting roads it does not want."

He said some roads were also being approved because of a lack of oversight by the PA. An inter-ministerial committee to vet proposed roads to ensure they did not contribute to the Israeli plan had been inactive since 2006, he said, following the split between Fatah and Hamas in the Palestinian elections.

After PA officials were presented with ARIJ’s map, Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, issued a statement last weekend denying that the PA had contributed to the Israeli-proposed road network.

However, in a sign that such reassurances were unlikely to dampen concerns, he reconvened the inter-ministerial committee to conduct field vists to check on road projects that had been carried out or were in progress.

Ghassan Khatib, a Palestinian government spokesman and a former planning minister, said the PA was taking the issue "very seriously" and was doing everything possible to resist the emergence of an "apartheid system" in the West Bank.

He added that, if roads were being built that served the settlers’ interests, "that is not supposed to happen."

According to USAid’s figures, it has financed 235km of roads in the West Bank in the past decade, and is preparing to add another 120km by the end of this year.

Critics add that in some cases the upgrading by USAid of minor roads, even those not included in the Israeli plan, has worked to the same end of keeping Palestinians off the West Bank’s main highways.

USAID officials were unavailable for comment.

Among roads for Palestinians funded by USAID are several projects south of Bethlehem that appear to be providing an "alternative" to Road 60, a busy highway that has traditionally linked Jerusalem with the Palestinian cities of Bethlehem and Hebron in the southern West Bank.

Israel has increasingly restricted Palestinian access to Road 60 because it also serves as a fast direct route for Jewish settlers in the Gush Etzion bloc driving to and from Jerusalem.

As a result, residents of several nearby Palestinian villages, including Batir, Wadi Fukin, al Walaja and Husan, have been forced off Road 60 and on to USAID-funded side roads and underpasses to connect them to Bethlehem and other neighbouring communities.

Sarit Michaeli, a spokeswoman for B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights group, said 170km of roads in the West Bank were either off-limits to Palestinians or highly restricted, creating what the organisation has called "forbidden roads."

B’Tselem noted that, after the 2004 scheme for complete separation was rejected by donors, Israel adapted the plan, using bridges, tunnels and interchanges to create partial separation, with Israelis "traveling on the fast upper levels, and Palestinians on the lower levels." It concluded: "The plan allows Palestinian vehicles to travel on only 20 per cent of the [West Bank] roads on which Israeli vehicles travel."

Ms. Michaeli added that the growing dependence of Palestinian traffic on underpasses meant that Israel was in a position to control or even sever connections between Palestinian areas with only one military jeep.

Ingrid Jaradat Gassner, the director of Badil, a Bethlehem-based organisation that has lobbied against road segregation in the southern West Bank, said there was considerable domestic and international pressure on the PA to agree to roads dictated by Israel, if only because they often eased the existing restrictions on Palestinian movement.

"Sadly, the PA is helping to build its own Bantustans," she said. "Palestinian towns and villages connected by back roads and tunnels while the settlers control the main highways is what the US appears to mean when it talks about a viable Palestinian state."

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

Washington Holds Key To Peace

By Linda S. Heard
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Apr 30, 2010, 00:19
Courtesy Of "The Online Journal"

Aren’t you sick of reading about solutions to Middle East peace that never seem to go anywhere? Pundits talk about a one-state solution, a two-state solution and a three-state solution. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he’ll accept a temporary solution while Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is calling for a US-imposed solution. Until now, they’re all yackety-yak.

Peacemaking is hardly rocket science yet the Israel-Palestine conflict seems to go on and on without end. It’s been nearly 62 years since Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948, when over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were either forced to flee their homes or were expelled to neighbouring countries. Today, there are millions of Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, the descendents of those who remained are oppressed, humiliated and deprived of basic freedoms.

Mankind has come a long way since 1948, when the Internet wasn’t even a twinkle in its inventor’s eye. We’ve sent men to the moon and discovered how to transplant hearts, lungs and faces but not even the finest minds have been able to end the impasse between Israelis and Palestinians.

During the same timeframe, Egypt kicked out its puppet king, Algeria sent the French packing, Europe was freed from the Nazi jackboot, Eastern Europe was rid of the Soviet stranglehold, Hong Kong waved goodbye to British imperialist rule and South Africa removed the yoke of apartheid. Yet the Palestinians are arguably worse off now than they ever were. A visiting extra-terrestrial other-world historian would no doubt find this situation perplexing, especially as the Palestinians have right on their side with a slew of UN Security Council resolutions to prove it.

Resolution 242 adopted on November 22, 1967, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied during the Six-Day War. Ironically, Israel consistently disrespects the UN, even though it owes the organisation its very existence and promptly sent 242 to the round file. Resolutions passed under Chapter VII permit the Council to take military action against states that act unlawfully, but the UN failed to act and so that was that. There is something very wrong when Iraq was invaded ostensibly for breaching Resolution 1441, while Israel is given carte blanche to flout dozens of them.

If the international community behaved in a lawful manner there would be no need for so-called peace solutions. Resolution 242, which forms the basis of the Arab Peace Initiative that remains on the table until July 2010, should have been implemented long ago. Instead, the US has been pushing a series of peace options heavily biased in Israel’s favour.

Unfair

For example, the 1993 Oslo Accords put Israel in charge of Palestine’s external security and left 55 percent of the West Bank under Israeli control. At the failed 2000 Camp David Summit, brokered by President Bill Clinton, the Palestinians were offered only 73 percent of the West Bank divided by an Israeli highway from occupied Jerusalem to the Dead Sea. Lastly, of course, there was George W. Bush’s Road Map that was dreamt up to bring Iraq War objectors onside and consisted of little in terms of real substance.

Israelis are fond of accusing Palestinian leaders of never failing to miss an opportunity. In reality, they’ve wisely avoided being fobbed off with scraps -- with one exception. If they had filled the empty chairs reserved for them at the 1978 Camp David Summit, they would have been offered full implementation of Resolution 242 under the agreement ‘A Framework for Peace in the Middle East.’

In hindsight, their absence was a mistake. Although it was understandable, given the wars of 1967 and 1973 were still fresh in their minds and Palestinians were in no mood to relinquish one inch of historic Palestine. They still cherished the keys and deeds to their expropriated homes and were unable to come to terms with the fact that, in many cases, their villages had been leveled or that the doorframes of houses built by their grandfathers were now affixed with mezuzot (parchment inscribed with verses from the Torah) placed there by European immigrants.

Let’s put aside intellectual discussion on the various ‘peace solutions’ and get real for a moment. No Israeli leader wants to exchange occupied land for peace. As long as Israel is coddled by the US and its allies and so far as it retains its military power, it has little incentive to give up the Zionist dream of a Greater Israel. Unless the United States is prepared to force Israel’s hand by threatening to withdraw its $3 billion (Dh11 billion) annual grant along with its political and military support, barring all-out regional war, there’ll never be an autonomous sovereign state called Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital.

The key is in Washington’s hands but will there ever be an American president with the courage to silence Congress and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee long enough to open the door? There might be. If the day comes when the US views Israel more as a burden than a strategic asset, there will be a swift policy shift. There are some who believe that President Barack Obama might be veering in that direction. Veering is one thing; reaching quite another. Let’s see.

Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

The Israeli-American-Arab Dance Will Resume

Washington can criticize Israeli settlements and colonies for months and years, but if it does not put bite into its position - by threatening to withhold financial or trade incentives, say - the mediating role of the United States will remain largely docile, symbolic, and ineffective

By Rami G. Khouri
First Published 2010-04-07
Courtesy Of Middle-East-Online

BOSTON -- The open disagreement and tough words exchanged in public by the United States and Israel a few weeks ago on Washington’s demand that Israel freeze all new settlements in occupied Arab East Jerusalem has now entered Phase 2, in which both sides work quietly behind the scenes to harness their political resources, gauge the other side’s intentions, and prepare to continue the battle. The consensus of people I have spoken with in the United States, representing all sides of the issue, seems to see this as a serious clash of positions and perceptions with very little precedent -- but we cannot gauge its full significance until three things happen.

These three things are the full Israeli response to the American demand to freeze all settlement construction; the Palestinian and Arab response to the situation and what they would do under various scenarios; and the American response to both the Israeli and Arab positions. We are in the early stages of a drama whose consequences may be more in the realm of political theater than historic policy shifts.

The depressing common denominator on all three fronts is that domestic conditions are totally inauspicious for any resumption of serious negotiations. The right-wing Israeli government remains firmly committed to expanding its settlements and colonies in Jerusalem and other areas. The Palestinians remain deeply divided between Hamas and Fateh. The United States remains ambiguous and even confused between its role as the ironclad guarantor of Israeli security and military superiority over all its neighbors, on the one hand, and the would-be impartial mediator that seeks to nudge Israelis and Palestinians into a serious peace negotiation, on the other.

The most interesting and dynamic arena for the moment is in domestic American politics, where the traditional heavily pro-Israeli position of a majority of politicians has been nudged by three intriguing developments. These are: the top-level, public and repeated criticisms of Israeli settlement policies by the Obama administration; the continued expansion of the impact of J-Street and other more centrist pro-Israel lobby groups that now provide an alternative to the hardline positions of the much older and stronger American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC); and, a refreshing and rare public debate about whether the impact of pro-Israeli groups like AIPAC on the United States’ pro-Israeli policy should give way to a more even-handed approach that would better serve American national interests in the wider Middle East.

These issues are widely and often intensely debated in private these days, but will soon re-emerge onto the public stage. Several dynamics are pushing all sides to shed their ambiguous positions and clarify what they seek and what they will fight for politically. Potentially, the most significant driver of events these days is the American initiative to start the proximity talks between Israelis and Palestinians. The United States anticipates that if it can launch the talks, it will be in a position to use its intermediating role to push both sides to define their bottom-line positions, and start making “confidence-building gestures” that would shift the momentum in the region from violent confrontation to diplomatic accommodation.

This is an ambitious agenda that also appears slightly fanciful to most knowledgeable people on the Middle East that I have spoken to in recent weeks in the United States and the Middle East. It is fanciful because it repeats the approach that the US tried to use in the past two decades without success, while conditions on the ground have changed radically, notably within Israel and Palestine. This is why the critical element that also still remains unclear is the American position on what constitutes a fair peace deal. If the US does not clarify what it sees as a fair and realistic peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians, all parties will continue to deal with the default US position that prevails now -- which is a heavy tilt towards Israel on the ground, combined with some rhetorical criticisms of Israeli policies that do not transcend the realm of rhetoric.

Washington can criticize Israeli settlements and colonies for months and years, but if it does not put bite into its position -- by threatening to withhold financial or trade incentives, say -- the mediating role of the United States will remain largely docile, symbolic, and ineffective. If the Arab world, for its part, does nothing beyond make statements and issue hollow threats to suspend the 2002 Arab peace plan offer, there will be no incentive for either the US or Israel to change their positions.

It is not realistic to expect the United States alone to pressure Israel to change its policies. Either the US, Israel and the Arabs will all move together diplomatically, or they will remain mired as they are now in a deep stalemate that is enlivened by occasional arm-waving drama but no real change in substance.

Rami G. Khouri is Editor-at-large of The Daily Star, and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, in Beirut, Lebanon.

Copyright © 2010 Rami G. Khouri – distributed by Agence Global.

US and Israel Sign A Massive Arms Deal

By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Associate Editor
Mar 29, 2010, 00:33
Courtesy Of The Online Journal

Here, I thought the U.S. and Israel were ready to go 15 rounds in the Garden (not Eden).

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’ insulted Vice President Biden, Middle East envoy George Mitchell, plus Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Clinton warned Netanyahu that the building of more settlements in the West Bank definitely will slow peace efforts. Netanyahu basically said who cares.

And then I read this HAARETZ headline: Despite row, U.S. and Israel sign massive arms deal. What, so they can use them on us? You gotta be kidding. But no, there it is, in the first paragraph: “As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Washington this week absorbing the full wrath of the Obama administration, the Pentagon and Israel’s defense establishment were in the process of sealing a large arms deal.” Sounds like they’re playing, good cop, bad cop, n’est-ce pas?

“Well, isn’t that special,” Dana Carvey’s “Church Lady” smiles from cyberspace and asks, “Now, who could be behind that? (Beat) Saaatan?” Well, it certainly sounds like the great dissembler. As Haaretz says, “According to the deal, Israel will purchase three new Hercules C-130J airplanes. The deal for the three aircrafts, designed by Lockheed Martin, is worth roughly a quarter of a billion dollars. Each aircraft costs $70 million.” Ugh, I think, worth a quarter of a billion bucks, each plane $70 million? What? Who’s paying for this deal?

Well, the ‘deal,’ it turns out will be covered by American foreign assistance funds. What does that mean? We’re fronting them the money to buy our planes? Kiss my tassels.

And look at this: “The aircrafts were manufactured specifically for Israeli needs, and include a large number of systems produced by Israel’s defense industry.” What? When? Three new planes, $70 million each? They didn’t make these in a minute. Who ever heard? Well who ever said that you need to know what the Pentagon is doing? It is top secret, not for schlimazels like you, you taxpayer, you American senior citizen, useless eater. You’re lucky you’ve got your Social Security and Medicare for another year. Then it all goes to B’nai Brith. Arrrrrgh!

And what are the ‘Israeli’s special needs’ besides bombing Palestinians? Well, how about bombing the Iranians. Bombing the Jordanians, the Syrians, and the whole megillah? The Pentagon has got to be nuts. Or, once again, the Pentagon is letting little Israel play the big stick for them in the Middle East.

Listen to this: “The Pentagon will issue a formal announcement on the matter on Thursday vening.” That’s it, just like that? We don’t vote, we don’t know, we’re handing these vipers more deadly weapons, more money? Are you serious, Haaretz? Well, don’t shoot the messenger.

Right, but it says, “America and Israel have still not reached an agreement regarding the purchase of the Lockheed F-35 war plane. It is still not clear when that deal, which is estimated to be worth more than $3 billion, will finally be sealed and carried out.”

But don’t we give these characters $3 billiion a year to buy war crap? Is this it? And we have to front them even more for the first deal? And we’re supposed to not be angry at these goons for trying to gobble up the West Bank. Is Obama getting head from Monica Lewinski? What’s going on: Three Lockhead F-35’s; three new Hercules C-130J airplanes?

And this for the country that does more spying on us than any nation, friend or enemy? Are we serious? What are those guys smoking at the Pentagon and who’s supplying them?

And here’s the capper. “If that deal is signed in the near future, Israel will likely receive its first F-35 in 2014.”

If that deal is sealed, wait a minute? Ho, hold on, that’s my, that’s our tax money, putz! Seal your lips before I get theFive Dancing Israelis to dance on your heads while we document Israel going up in smoke, not just the World Trade Center. These guys were videotaping one of their buddies dancing on a white moving fan in New Jersey, dancing and flicking his lighter as the towers burned and fell in the background.

And these schlimazels walked away after they were arrested for a couple of months, cold as stone, no remorse, nothing. And the FBI stood there with their hands on their privates, doing, saying nothing, as the boyz were extradited to Israel and claiming on TV there that they were to document the event. How did they know there was going to be an event to document, particularly one of those tragic proportions? How, Secretary Gates, tell me?

See, here’s what I believe. The reason we throw more and more money at Israel is because Israel, the Mossad, does all this dirty business for us, including helping to wipe out the WTC on 9/11. Larry Silverstein and Frank Loewy, his partner, the lessees of the WTC, are now reaching a new deal with the Port Authority for more money to build Towers 2 and 3, after they received $4.5 billion in insurance, and Larry another $500 million in insurance on Tower 7, which he built five stories higher and wider immediately. This is a cash cow for Silverstein and his buddies. That and other little “assignments” the dual Israel/American citizens and Mossad are so good at pulling off.

So by now you think I’m an anti-Semite saying this? No, everything I’ve said is the truth. When you tell the truth, fact, about someone that isn’t a religious or ethnic slur. It’s just the truth. Throw them all in jail. Go ahead. I am an American citizen. This is my country. And I don’t want my country associated with these murderers.

In fact, I’d like to know why so few people picked up on former US Marine Corps grunt Gordon Duff, who writes forVeterans Today, interviewing USMC Vietnam vet, Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former director of studies at the US Army War College, about his military knowledge that Israel Did It, that is 9/11, and has the potential to launch a nuclear strike. The Mossad, he claims, took down the towers with help of the CIA. Sabrosky, who is Jewish, but also a fiercely loyal American, is seething at the Israelis.

So, bottom line, it all comes back to following the money, and asking why we’re bowing to Israel, spotting them for billions for more high-powered, advanced tech planes, especially when they’ve thumbed their noses at our orders to not keep building new settlements in Palestine.

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer and life-long resident of New York City. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net. His new book, “State Of Shock: Poems from 9/11 on” is available at www.jerrymazza.com, Amazon orBarnesandnoble.com.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

The US & Israel

UPDATED ON: WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2009
16:34 MECCA TIME, 13:34 GMT
Courtesy Of Al-Jazeera

Part-1



Part-2



From its beginning - when it took the US only 11 minutes to recognise Israel, through its difficult early years - the blossoming bond between Israel and the US has grown based on shared values and strategic goals.

This relationship has provided Israel with over $150bn in aid and military assistance and, in the process, changed the nature of Israeli society.

However, despite the obligatory expressions of support by politicians playing to their constituencies, the recent elections in both countries have them seemingly heading in opposite directions.

Empire asks who benefits from the special relationship and whether the status quo will prevail.

Israel and the US was shown on Al Jazeera from 25 February 2009.

Arab Unity In The Shadows Of Empire

UPDATED ON: WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2009
16:34 MECCA TIME, 13:34 GMT
Courtesy Of Al-Jazeera

Part-1



Part-2



In the midst of huge strategic and economic upheavals, the leaders of the Arab world appear divided.

Immersed in domestic disputes and bilateral bickering, Arab nations are facing stark choices.

The failure of George Bush's policies to transform the greater Middle East through military force has left new threats and new opportunities for this energy rich, conflict-ridden region.
In the new world order, we examine the possibilities of Arabs engaging with the world's superpowers on an equal footing.

Against the backdrop of the Arab League Summit in Doha, Empire asks the questions that have divided generations.

How can Arabs improve their poor standing in the world and at the same time, deal collectively with the dramatic regional and global challenges engulfing their countries?

Arab Unity in the Shadows of Empire was originally shown on Al Jazeera on 25 March 2009.

How Neutral Is US Neutrality In The Middle East?

By Ershad Abubacker
Source: Palestine Chronicle
Saturday, Mar 27, 2010
Courtesy Of Axis Of Logic

Rather than monitoring the game of power, America is simply part of the game. When it comes to the siege in Gaza, the US government is not part of the solution, but an active part of the problem itself

The recent dueling positions of long time friends and all time allies Israel and America over the construction of 1,600 new apartments in east Jerusalem has obviously hit the headlines worldwide. This has lead to a few high dramatic enactments including the Vice President Joe Biden being reported to be ‘embarrassed;’ Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton calling the Israeli land policy ‘provocative’ and termed it as not in Israel's long-term interests and undermined U.S. credibility as a neutral mediator. At this juncture it is really worthwhile to examine the claims of America as the neutral broker in the long standing Israeli Palestine conflict.

Israel recently announced new housing plans for east Jerusalem, the part of the city Palestinians want for a future capital, drawing unusually sharp criticism from the Obama administration. The drama reached its high-end when President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met at the White House on 23 March behind closed doors in the midst of a serious dispute that spoiled what might have been a ‘celebration’ of a recent agreement for a new round of peace talks with the Palestinians. Both countries are eager to defuse the tensions and Obama administration appears too keen to let the awkwardly timed visit pass with as little public remark as possible.

With the Jerusalem municipality going ahead with the proposed plan and approving 20 new apartments for Jews in an Arab part of East Jerusalem, a new diplomatic crisis is arising between United States and its most trusted Middle East ally, Israel. This project is funded by Jewish American millionaire Irving Moskowitz, a longtime supporter of the Jewish State. Though the Jerusalem municipality authorities tried to play down the project as a zoning issue, the move to grant building permissions to the Shepherd Hotel project in Sheikh Jarrah, the Arab heart of east Jerusalem, could see escalated protests and violence erupting between the Palestinians and Israeli riot police. Though Netanyahu has publicly apologized for the poor timing of the announcement of new apartments in east Jerusalem, he is reluctant to abide by the US call for cancelling the project. Both the White House and its Israeli counterparts are unwilling to disclose the outcome of this week presidential talks hints to a situation where both the leaders have found little breakthrough in their one to one talks.

At a time when the two countries voiced their palpable difference in public, Netanyahu was given a warm welcome in the American Congress. Netanyahu’s whole hearted praise for his congressional hosts for what he called warm, bipartisan support says it all. The Congress, irrespective of being dominated by Democrats or Republicans, stands firmly behind the state of Israel. It’s been no secret that the foreign policies of the Democrats are better implemented by Republicans and vice versa. This being confirmed time and again by top Democrat and Republican leaders and the latest comment came in from the leader of the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi- "In Congress we speak with one voice on the subject of Israel."

A careful analysis will put forth the fact that a credible peace in Middle East will not start just with Israel backing out of its plan to build 1,600 new apartments in east Jerusalem, the largely Arab section of the disputed holy city. It has to start at Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C. This is where the tryst of evils is, this is where the war begins, and this is where the sufferings of Palestinians are given shape and resource. A small peep into the billions of US tax dollars spend on Israel would prove this.

The US has exercised its veto power many times in the UN Security Council, but more devastating than that is, it provides billions of US tax dollars of aid to Israel, a lot of it as military aid and a major chunk of it in the most lethal possible form. The total aid by US to Israel for the period of 1949-2000 comes to over $100 billion making Israel, a country the size of New Jersey, the fourth most powerful military in the world in possession of largest fleet of F-16 fighter planes outside the US. But yet the myth of American neutrality with respect to Middle East conflict is followed throughout the world.

Rather than monitoring the game of power, America is simply part of the game. When it comes to the siege in Gaza, the US government is not part of the solution, but an active part of the problem itself. There is no point denying that the main source of danger to people in Gaza and West Bank is from attacks by Israel using weapons provided by the United States. These are not opinions to be debated, rather, facts to be dealt with.

A sense of historical amnesia has crippled the whole world from remembering the fact that there existed a country named Palestine and a population of 6 million almost 62 years ago that has been systematically wiped out and the land being annexed to what is called Israel in the present day. This is not an issue that should be seen through the narrow mind and fixed views of one’s religion. Palestine is a cry of humanity. Those who claim neutrality amidst this catastrophe must realize that neutrality does not exist at the phase of bulldozed houses, bullet ridden infants and white phosphorus bombs. Doing nothing to prevent it is, in fact, choosing. It’s not being neutral.

Palestine Chronicle

Mitchell Wanted To Quit Over U.S. Bias For Israel

By Jack Khoury,
Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Service
Last update - 11:22 26/02/2010
Courtesy Of Haaretz NewsPaper

An Arab political source said Friday that special U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell has requested to resign due to his frustration with the way the Obama administration has been handling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to a Nazareth-based daily.

Hadith a-Nass reported that Mitchell's request stemmed partly from to his own failure to advance the resumption of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and also from his perception that certain elements within the State Department hold biased favor toward Israel.

The White House turned down Mitchell's request, according to Hadith a-Nass.

No verification of the report was available.

Peace talks were halted more than a year ago over the war in the Gaza Strip and have not resumed, due largely to a Palestinian demand that Israel first impose a complete freeze on building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and Israel's refusal to do so.

A new working paper released by the Palestinian indicates that the Palestinian Authority has warned it may abandon its support of the 1993 Oslo Accords, which outlines a two-state solution to the conflict with Israel.

The Palestinians are instead intending to pursue the creation of a binational state between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea, according to a document drafted by the PA's veteran chief negotiator.

Questioning The "Special Relationship" With Israel

No Wonder Israel is Able to Invest in R&D!

By STEPHANIE WESTBROOK
February 15, 2010
Courtesy Of CounterPunch

A "regional economic power." That's how ANIMA, the Euro-Mediterranean Network of Investment Promotion Agencies encompassing 70 governmental agencies and international networks, described Israel in its January 2010 Mediterranean Investment Map. The report analyzed the economies of the 27 European Union countries as well as 9 "partner countries."

And who can argue. Touting an annual GDP growth rate around 5% for the years 2004 to 2008, Israel was also ranked 27 out of 132 countries in the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report last fall. It ranked 9th for innovative capacity.

In the 2008 World Competitiveness Yearbook by IMD, Israel comes in 2nd for the number of scientists and engineers in the workforce. No other country in the world spends more on research and development as a percentage of GDP than Israel. Since the year 2000 it has hovered around 4.5%, or twice the average of OECD member countries.

I am not an economist, but I have to wonder why US taxpayers are doling out $3 billion a year in direct military aid to a "regional economic power." In August 2007, a Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Israel was signed committing the US to give, not loan, $30 billion to Israel over 10 years. US taxpayers are directly funding close to 20% of Israel's annual defense budget. No wonder Israel is able to invest in R&D!

To help put these figures into perspective, a new web site was launched last week that illustrates how your state is contributing to the Israeli defense budget, and what could have instead been done with the money. Atwww.aidtoisrael.org I learned that my home state of Texas will give more than $2.5 billion over the ten year period. For the same amount, over 2 million people could have been provided with primary health care.

At the 2007 signing ceremony for the $30 billion giveaway, then Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, stated, "We consider this 30 billion dollars in assistance to Israel to be an investment in peace." But peace isn't exactly what we've gotten for our money.

Instead our tax dollars continue to pay for advanced weaponry used to maintain an illegal occupation, culminating a year ago in the Israeli attack on Gaza with US-made F-16 fighter jets, US-made Apache helicopter gunships, US-made naval combat ships, US-made hellfire missiles, US-made tanks and armored personnel carriers, and US-made white phosphorus shells.

Every cent we give Israel is in violation of the Foreign Assistance Act, which specifically prohibits aid to countries that "engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." Sales of US weaponry made to Israel are in violation of the Arms Export Control Act, which restrict their use to legitimate self-defense.

But weapons we do continue to sell, and aid we do continue to give. And if that weren't enough, we also provide Israel with special conditions. Unlike all other countries receiving military aid from the US, Israel receives its entire bundle in a lump sum during the first 30 days of the fiscal year. The money sits in an interest bearing account at the Federal Reserve, the interest going to Israel, of course, until 74% of it is funneled back to US weapons manufacturers in the way of purchases for the Israeli Defense ministry. Israel is free to use the remaining 24% to purchase "in house" weapons systems, an arrangement afforded to no other recipient of US military aid.

While we may here some calls to freeze (or limit or curb) settlement construction, and as of late, for an end to the siege of Gaza, one subject no one on Capitol Hill dares to touch is this massive military aid package given to Israel. The new self-proclaimed "pro-peace pro-Israel" lobby, J-street, has said the subject is not up for discussion.

But some are starting to question our "special relationship" with Israel.

On February 9, Intelligence Squared, the British debate forum, held a debate in New York City - home to the country's largest Jewish community - asking if the "US should step back from its special relationship with Israel." Prior to the start of the debate, audience members cast their votes electronically, with 39% in favor, 42% against and 25% undecided.

Arguing for the motion were British author and New York Times columnist Roger Cohen and Colombia professor and author Rashid Khalidi. Former US ambassador to the EU Stuart Eizenstat and former Israeli ambassador to the US Itamar Rabinovich argued against. Cohen spoke of US aid to Israel:

"What also makes the relationship special is the incredible largess that the United States shows towards Israel, over the past decade, $28.9 billion in economic aid. And on top of that, another $30 billion in military aid, that's almost $60 billion. That's 10 times the GNP of Haiti that is being gifted to a small country. Now, I ask you, to what end is this money being used. Ladies and gentlemen, we would submit that it ends often inimical to the American interest."

Following the debate, the audience once again voted on the resolution, this time with a slight majority in favor, 49% for, 47% against and 4% undecided.

The "special relationship" is hereby up for discussion. Pass the word.

Stephanie Westbrook is a U.S. citizen who has been living in Rome, Italy since 1991. She is active in the peace and social justice movements in Italy. She can be reached at steph@webfabbrica.com

The Lobby Within

Palestinian-Israeli conflict

by Ramzy Baroud
December 18, 2009
Courtesy Of Global Research

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.

A consensus is indeed at hand and has been for decades; it is one that recognizes 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 recognizes 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 recognize 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 recognize 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 colonization 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 realized.

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 recognized 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.

Ramzy Baroud (ramzybaroud.net) is an author of several books and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. He is an internationally-syndicated columnist. His latest book is “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story” (Pluto Press, London), available at Amazon and www.plutobooks.com.

Ramzy Baroud is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Global Research Articles by Ramzy Baroud

U.S. Helps Fund Pro-Settler IDF Troops

By Akiva Eldar and Chaim Levinson
Last update - 15:45 01/12/2009
Courtesy Of Haaretz NewsPaper

The Task Force to Save the Nation and the Land, the organization that offered every soldier refusing to evacuate a settlement, and the Kfir Brigade soldiers who publicly demonstrated their opposition to evacuation, NIS 1,000 for every day they spend in military prison, is a registered non-profit organization and has a license to operate.

The group receives donations from a U.S. based group that are tax exempt. No comment was available from the organization.

The Global Task Force to Save the Nation and the Land, established in 2003 and rising to fame during the disengagement from the Gaza Strip, melds positions of the extreme right wing and the messianic Hassidic Chabad sect. The group is headed by Rabbi Shalom Dov Wolpe, a Chabad Hassid of the messianic stream, who lives in Kiryat Gat. In recent years the group began offering monetary rewards to soldiers and civilians.

Among the rewards it has given was NIS 20,000 to each soldier who lifted a sign of "The Shimshon Battalion does not evict from Homesh" at the Western Wall a month ago, and gave NIS 1,800 to the soldier Tzach Kortz, who shot a terrorist in Kiryat Arba last week.

In response to a question by Haaretz, regarding the role of the registrar of NGOs not taking any action to disband the group for operating illegally, a Justice Ministry spokesman said that "a review of the file [of the organization] does not reveal any documents that support this argument. We will be able to examine this claim if information available to the person making the claim [against the group] is given to us. Moreover, so long as there is suspicion of illegal conduct, the authorized body to examine the matter is the police."

Like many of the extreme right-wing organizations receiving money from U.S. supporters, the funding for the group enjoys tax-free status. Peace groups and Palestinians have complained to U.S. authorities, but there has been no change in the status of the organizations supporting the right wing.

The bureau of Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Haaretz that it had instructed the legal authorities to initiate an immediate investigation into the role of various elements that encourage soldiers to carry out protest actions against orders.

"The Defense Minister places supreme significance in the immediate and quick handling of these elements in order to stress the determination to deal with this unacceptable behavior," the statement read.

A "clean management record" authorization is an administrative document of approval that is granted to every non-profit organization that presents orderly documents to the authorities. This authorization grants the group the right to benefit from public funding through tax breaks, direct funding by the government as well as returns from providing the government with services.

According to Yaron Keidar, former registrar of NGOs, and now a partner in a law firm offering legal services to non-profit organizations, the filing of a substantive complaint against such a group, with the police or at the Registrar's Office, may result in the canceling of the group's license.

"If a complaint is filed I am certain that the registrar of NGOs and the attorney general will examine the matter. The possibility does exist that the attorney general, if he deems it necessary, will not only cancel the license of the group but may consider further sanctions. This may result in sanctions against the heads of the organization, as these are determined by law," Keidar said.

The Knesset will hold a discussion on the subject of transparency of contributions that non-profit organizations receive from abroad. The event, which will be hosted by Improvement of Government Services Minister Michael Eitan, is being organized by the NGO Monitor organization, which is based in Jerusalem.

Related Articles :

You might like:

• Israel looks toward IDF pullout from Lebanon border village
• Rights group: Most Gazans killed in war were civilians
• Israeli Minister to Swedish Jews: Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism

Department Of Meaningless Gestures

Stephen M. Walt
Tue, 11/10/2009 - 11:48am
Courtesy Of Foreign Policy Magazine

Two eminent mainstream journalists -- Tom Friedman and Joe Klein -- recently called for United States to disengage from the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, on the grounds that Palestinians were too divided to make a deal and the Israelis were not interested in one. Friedman couldn't bring himself to draw the logical conclusion -- if the United States truly going to "disengage," that also means cutting off its economic and military assistance -- but Klein did.

I have a certain sympathy for this position (and even wrote similar things myself before I wised up), but there are two problems with this specific idea. The first is that it is a meaningless prescription: There's no way to cut the aid package (or even put a hold on it, which is what Klein recommends) so long as Congress is in hock to AIPAC and the other groups in the status quo lobby. And unless I've missed something, I doubt groups like J Street would support it either.

Friedman and Klein's statements do convey how discourse in the United States is changing, but the specific recommendation they offer here is a non-starter. Remember: we are dealing with a Congress that just voted to condemn the Goldstone Report by a vote of 344-24. The aid package may be indirectly subsidizing the settlements and threatening Israel’s future as a Jewish majority state, but a supine House and Senate will still sign the annual check.

The second problem, I fear, is that it is too little, too late. Having dithered, delayed and dissembled ever since the Oslo Accords -- while the number of settlers more than doubled -- we are about to face an entirely different problem. The sun is now setting on the "two-state solution" -- if it is not already well below the horizon -- and pretty soon everyone will have to admit that they are sitting around in the dark and pretending they see daylight.

Be careful what you wish for. Israel is going to get what it has long sought: permanent control of the West Bank (along with de facto control over Gaza). The Palestinian Authority is increasingly irrelevant and may soon collapse, General Keith Dayton's mission to train reliable and professional Palestinian security forces will end, and Israel will once again have full responsibility for some 5.2 million Palestinian Arabs under its control. And the issue will gradually shift from the creation of a viable Palestinian state -- which was the central idea behind the Oslo process and the subsequent "Road Map" -- to a struggle for civil and political rights within an Israel that controls all of mandate Palestine. And on what basis could the United States oppose such a campaign, without explicitly betraying its own core values?

In this regard, it was telling that Martin Indyk -- a key figure in the lobby and far from a harsh critic of Israeli policy -- is quoted in the Times saying "more than likely, we are entering a new era." I think he's right, and he sounds worried. He should be, because the Obama administration isn't remotely ready for it.

Obama's Mid-East Mess

Broken Pledges

By FRANKLIN LAMB
Weekend Edition
November 6-8, 2009
Courtesy Of CounterPunch

On November 4, 2009, the 30th anniversary of the student takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini gave a speech which is being much discussed in Washington DC.

The source of some of the angst at the While House and the State Department according to Congressional sources was that “the speech suggests that the Iranian government may be doing what it’s done many times over the past seven years. Which is to say that Iran may appear to agree, then hedge, then disagree, then appear to agree again somewhat, then pull back again, then ask for more time to consider details of the proposal, then finally present a counter-proposal, then say it wants cooperation but has serious doubts about the reliability of the other side and then say it will never give up on its rights, and on and on its goes.”

While omitting Iran’s take on recent events, some on Capitol Hill wondered if Iran’s Wali al Fique (supreme leader) was playing to his base or was using the speech to communicate directly and seriously with the Obama administration. Presumably he was doing both.

Aytollalh’s Khameni’s words were pointed and clear. He declared that Tehran may reject any talks backed by Washington because it is not to be trusted. He acknowledged that the US wanted to negotiate with Tehran “but its talks were full of threats … Every time they have a smile on their face, they are hiding a dagger behind their back. … Iran will not be fooled by the superficial conciliatory tone of the United States…This new American president repeatedly sent us oral and written messages to come and change the page -- to come and cooperate in solving the problems of the world. We said we will not pre-judge. We will see their action and see what they do about the change…But in the past eight months what we have seen is contradictory to what they say. They are telling us to negotiate, but alongside the negotiation there is a threat that if the negotiation does not bear the desired results, then we will do this and we will do that…We do not want any negotiations, the result of which is pre-determined by the United States," he said, adding that Tehran will always pursue its "scientific and technological rights and freedom,” and does not want a “sheep and wolf relation” with those with “ill-intentions” against Iran.

“Why don’t the Iranians trust us on the nuclear issue?” asked a staff member the House Foreign Affairs committee, who conceded he had not read the widely reported speech but he added that “ Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced on 11/2/09 in Marrakech that the U.N. nuclear deal could not be altered so it is unclear what is left to negotiate about.”

Some American analysts have argued that Iran is quite right to be suspicious of US intensions and have identified a pattern of recent events that undermine the credibility of the Obama administration since the president’s June “open hand-clenched fist” speech in Cairo. A pattern that Iran’s leadership no doubt analyzes as it recalls, and resolves not to continue the half century of Arab-Muslim gullibility when it comes to American and Western promises and inducements.

Some recent examples come to mind:

• Clinton’s flip-flop on US demands for an Israeli settlement freeze and her throwing in the towel on the Obama administration assertion that Zionist settlement construction must stop. Her “Israel’s has made unprecedented concessions” statement was an obscenity to the ears of Palestinians and to much of the world including Iran. And it led to the 11/05/09 announcement by Mahmoud Abass that he would not seek reelection as President of the Palestinian Authority. All the White House could do was send its spokesman, Robert Gibbs, to the press room to praise Abass as a “true partner for the United States and Israel.”

• The October 21, 2009, “Juniper Cobra 10” launching of the largest ever joint US-Israel military maneuvers employing more than 1000 military personnel and 17 U.S. warships clearly aimed at threatening Iran which is to be targeted by Arrow, Patriot and Aegis missiles in case of conflict. This was coupled by the obtuse comment of a US naval commander that the US navy will defend Israeli occupied Haifa as if it were San Diego.

• The Obama administration has conspicuously refused to put the "Jundallah" (God's soldiers) group on the US State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations while keeping Lebanon’s Waad and Jihad al Binna constructions companies on the T list alongside Lebanon’s senior Shia cleric, Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah.

• In May 2009, “Jundallah” claimed responsibility for the killing of civilians in a mosque in Zahedan, the provincial capital of Iran's Sistan-Baluchistan province. Last month, a Jundallah suicide bomber blew himself up at an Iran-supported gathering which was meant to foster closer community relations between Sunnis and Shi'ites in the area. What confidence can Iran’s leaders have in an Obama administration that continues the Bush-Cheney never-ending war on terror with its wrongheaded logic of "my enemy's enemy is my friend?

• What message does this week’s House Congressional Resolution on the Goldstone Report send to Tehran and the World?

By a margin of 344-36, the US House of Representative quickly passed HR 867, an Israeli lobby resolution, crafted by AIPAC and staff members of Republican Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen that condemned the UN Goldstone report which has now been endorsed by the UN General Assembly with a vote of 114 to 18. The Goldstone Report now moves to the UN Security Council and perhaps the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

But according to the US House of Representatives and the vicious attack by the Anti-Defamation League hate group and its Director, Abe Foxman, the Report on wars crimes committed by Israel and Hamas is “irredeemably biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy.” Many in Congress, who are strong advocates of an American Israel-centric foreign policy, vie with one another to demonstrate obeisance to Israel, not America. They urged President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton "to strongly and unequivocally oppose any discussion of the report or action on its findings in any international setting”, despite the fact that Judge Goldstone exposed many errors in Congressional criticism of the UN Report.

Ignoring Goldstone’s rebuttal to Israeli lobby attacks on the UN Report, Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer proclaimed:"I think the UN Goldstone report is unbalanced, and unfair, and inaccurate," yet he refused to offer any facts to support his broadside attack while adding that “the UN is totally biased against Israel, which is as careful a government as there is in terms of prosecuting its own defense officials.” Hoyer and his colleagues apparently do not credit the work of B’tselem, who the day before the rushed passage of HR 867 documented that as of 11/04/09 not one Israeli government investigation has been opened regarding Israel's policy during “Cast Lead” with respect to the selection of targets, the open-fire orders given to soldiers, the legality of the weapons used, the balance between injury to civilians and military advantage. Additionally, more than half of 23 cases of Palestinians being killed while holding white flags and all the cases where Gazans were used as human shields were exposed by B’tselem not the Israeli military, whose position, like Hoyer and Ros-Lehtinen, is that these crimes did not happen despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Hoyer and Ros-Lehtinen are pillars of the fake US Congressional Human Rights Caucus, founded in l983 which in its quarter century of self congratulatory investigations of Human Rights abuses has yet to find a single human rights abuse by Israel, irrespective of any murders, slaughtering of innocents, home demolitions, political incarcerations, religious bigotry, illegal use of American weapons, illegal siege of Gaza, and serial invasions of Lebanon, and the continuing theft of Syria’s Golan heights. Over the past few years the CHRC has become an Iran-bashing forum for all manner of Zionist zealots and kooks spreading falsehoods and defamations against Islam and the Islamic Republic.

According to Ros-Lehtinen, "The Goldstone Report illustrates the anti-freedom, anti-Israel bias which deeply pervades the UN system, and it does not deserve consideration or legitimacy from responsible nations. Israel took every reasonable measure to minimize the risk of civilian casualties. It is clear that Israel had every right and duty to defend its citizens from the onslaught of rocket and mortar attacks from Hamas and other militants in Gaza,"

Both Hoyer and Ros-Lehtinen could have been deterred by the White House from creating this latest anti-Arab, anti-Islam House Resolution but they were given a green light by the Obama administration to push their screed. Obama joined in condemning the Goldstones Report and not much appears to be left of his pledge to break from the past and open a new chapter of civility with Iran.

Human Rights Watch which had urged lawmakers not to back the resolution, said that "Instead of denouncing the Goldstone report, the US Congress should urge Israel and Hamas to break the cycle of abuse and impunity, which for too long has fueled hatred and hindered efforts at peace.”
One can hardly expect Iran to believe that these US policy makers should be taken seriously or have any interest to advance their country’s interests rather than Israel’s.Questions of credibility rest more at the door of Barack Obama’s White House that at Iran’s Shura and Majlis.

U.S. Mid-East policy clearly in disarray, from Iran to Palestine. Time is running out if Obama’s claimed vision of dialogue on the basis of mutual respect and equality does not collapse into complete derision and caricature.

Franklin Lamb is Director of the Washington DC-Beirut Lebanon based Sabra Shatila Foundation. He can be reached at fplamb@sabrashatila.org.

U.S.A.: The Unfair Negotiator

By Curtis Doebbler
Ma'an News Agency
Sunday, Sep 20, 2009
Courtesy Of Axis Of Logic

To many longtime observers of the question of Palestine it is incredible that the United States continues to insert itself as the interlocutor between Palestinians and Israel. Even more incredible is that some Palestinians appear to accept this and to place their faith in the United States as a mediator that will help realize Palestinians’ dreams of self-determination.

One must wonder if those who place such faith in the United States understand that this self-declared interlocutor is also the main source of finance to Israel through both trade and cash. Israel, a relatively rich country, receives more American money than any needy developing country in the world.

Not only is the US the largest weapons dealer in the world, and it has been for the last sixty years, it is also the main source of the weapons Israel uses to continue to kill and maim Palestinians; it is with those weapons Israel continues to impose an inhumane and illegal occupation on the Palestinian people.

But that is not all. As American Professors Mershiemer and Walt have pointed out with irrefutable argumentation, the United States’ foreign policy is significantly influenced by the pro-Israeli lobby.

In other words, by accepting the United States s an interlocutor Palestine is in fact accepting an entity that is largely beholden to their enemy.

Why else does Israel frequently commend the American efforts? Why do individuals such as American lobbyist and staunch supporter of Israel David Levy repeatedly express his satisfaction with the United States mediation, as he told Al-Jazeera International recently? Or perhaps, most tellingly, why has so little progress been made toward achieving the Palestinians right o self-determination during the past sixty-plus years.

It would be naive to think that this situation is a fluke. But it is perhaps equally naive to put the blame only on external actors.

Surely Israel wants an interlocutor that will enhance its position. Surely the United States, where at one time there were more Israelis living in New York than in Tel Aviv, will want to help a country with such strong influence on it. And surely other observers, who have much more to lose by angering the Americans then they do by confronting Palestine, will turn a blind eye to this patent injustice.

Why, however, do Palestine’s own politicians fail to effectively object to this unjust situation?

One reason might be they just don’t know how. Such ignorance is hard to sustain as Palestinian politicians and diplomats are constantly having the unfairness of this situation brought to their attention. It is done by Palestinian politicians from outside Fatah, for example by Hamas, for whose courage to speak truth to power was duly elected to govern Palestine, but prevented from doing so.

Another reason might be that they are merely scared that if they reject the US as interlocutor they will lose some of their privileges and economic incentives that come with US investment in the area. Both Fatah and Egyptian officials have even admitted that negotiations continue in Egypt—of course, with support from American money—in part just because the delegates want free trips to Cairo, the largest city in the Arab world. While it is clear that Hamas is less swayed by American money, this might merely provide an incentive for Fatah not to reconcile with Hamas based on the fear that they will lose material perks. But should such concerns have any role in determining how hard the representatives of the Palestinian people work for their peoples’ self-determination?

This leads into the third reason Palestinian leaders overlook the American bias: the suspicious alliance between Fatah and the United States. It is often openly acknowledged that individuals like General Keith Dayton, an American Security Advisor based in Palestine, and Mahmoud Dahlan, until recently without any official post but recently elected by Fatah to the PLO Governing Council, have more influence over Palestinian decision making then either the President or the Prime Minister of Palestine. One reason for this is that both receive significant contributions of American money.

Together Dayton and Dahlan, working with other supporters of America’s unusual interlocutory position, have even managed to tame the criticism of the United Nations. They have done this in New York and Brussels, allegedly by letting their respective diplomats know that they will be replaced if they don’t tow the party line. At the UN in Geneva, they did replace an independent voice with their own man.

As a consequence, when other states and the UN’s most senior official, the President of the 63rd General Assembly, sought to speak out against the bias of the United States, it was Palestinian diplomats who contained them, not Americans or Israelis.

Most Palestinians do not even know this. They either believe that the UN decided itself to remain moderate in the face of continuing Israeli injustice, or merely that the weak resolutions that the UN has adopted is all that can be achieved. Perhaps most dangerously of all a growing number of young Palestinians do not seem to care. They have either resigned to their fate of a lifetime under occupation or they flee their country, which is what Israel would prefer.

It is through a mix of ignorance and indifference that the United States has maintained the support of the Palestinian government for using it—a partial interlocutor—to negotiate with an enemy whose very existence is questionable under international law.

This last fact is perhaps the reason why both external actors and Palestinian officials who support the US mediation, also object to the use of international law as the basis of an answer to the question of Palestine.

It took almost a decade to convince the Palestinian government to allow a request for an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice by the UN General Assembly. When the opinion was finally asked, it was not about the settlements as was originally envisioned by the non-governmental proponents of the efforts, but about the wall Israel is building through Palestine.

The Palestinian government based in Ramallah still objects to asking a second opinion about the settlements, despite the fact that in its ‘Wall Advisory Opinion’ the Court has already unambiguously stated that the settlements were illegal.

The allegations of American partiality as an interlocutor are, of course, relevant to the recent American push to provide an answer to the Palestinian problem. It suggests that the only answer that can come through American intervention is an unjust one and that to rely on the United States as the interlocutor with Israel is at best fool-hearted and at worst extremely dangerous evidenced by the motives of Palestinian officials involved in this effort.

Perhaps the saddest aspect of recent events is that there is still at least one alternative to the situation.

We must challenge Obama to allow neutral mediation to arrive at an answer about the question of Palestine. If Obama is up to the integrity of his words, he will rise to this challenge. If he is not, he will likely oppose backing down from the American special relationship; either way the lines will then be clear.

An appropriate neutral forum would be the UN General Assembly where virtually every independent people in the world are represented.

While it is well known that Israel attacks this forum as biased, such arguments are hard to sustain given that it was the UN General Assembly—even in the face of international law forbidding it to do so—that recognized Israel. Thus Israel could be given the choice: either cooperate with the UN in a process of binding arbitration, or, have its recognition as a state withdrawn.

Such an insensitive is greater than any other entity can offer, even the United States. It is also undoubtedly possible for the General Assembly to withdraw recognition of Israel as Israel has violated more UN resolutions than it has been alleged that Iran, Syria, North Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan combined have violated.

The Quartet is not an adequate alternative to the UN because it is a body loaded with states that are partial and largely united in their opposition to Palestinian aspirations of self-determination; it cannot be an interlocutor that can come to a just solution.

The idea of the UN being an appropriate interlocutor is not new. Indeed the UN was the main forum for dealing with the question of Palestine as it became an international issue after World War II. Before that it was the League of Nations, which naively entrusted the British government to look out for Palestinian interests.

There are thus rational historical reasons why Palestine might not want the UN to be the impartial interlocutor between itself and the Israelis, but these reasons are no longer valid today.

As more governments become Member States of the United Nations, the western European and North American strangle-hold on the world body has weakened. Today—as Israel’s criticisms mentioned above indicate—the UN is a body that has been willing to repeatedly condemn Israel’s violations of international law.

It is exactly the past that makes the UN the ideal interlocutor that neither side can claim is biased—Israel and its allies because of the UNGA’s vital contribution to Israel’s very existence and Palestine because of the UNGA’s demonstrated willingness to condemn Israel’s violations of Palestinians human rights.

The main burden for achieving the introduction of the UN as the interlocutor rests on the Palestinians. A decision needs to be made in Ramallah and Gaza City, and our president must find the courage to act. This will not be easy.

After the decision to take the step is made, Palestinian leaders and diplomats will have to convince officials in New York and Geneva; this will take much skill, but it is possible.

It will require that these diplomats are able to explain using the lowest common denominator of international law, the injustice of how Palestine has been treated and to sustain the argument that according to this law Palestinians have the right to exercise the right to self-determination in all of the territory that was mandated to Britain, with the exception of Jordan where the Hashimites were able to exercise their right to self-determination to form their own country.

The arguments establishing the legal basis of Palestine’s claim are not as important for their theoretical expression of the rights of the Palestinian people as they are for setting the negotiating mark. Israel is currently infrequently and never in Quartet or US-led negotiations reminded that their very creation was an unambiguous and express violation of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Regardless of where the negotiations end this should be the starting point.

When it is understood that Palestine is willing to compromise a right bestowed on it by international law, the compromise that Israel might have to make concerning its de facto position of power is put in clearer perspective. Such perspective, however, cannot come from a process in which the interlocutor refuses to even recognize the legitimate starting point.

Palestinian leaders and diplomats who fail to recognize this do their own people a serious disservice. They deny their own people the most fundamental right they have, which is to their own self-determination. When they do this they start the negotiations at a significant disadvantage. It is as if someone begins to bargain over the price of an item worth 100 Dinars, after having already paid the other party 80 Dinars towards the cost of the item. Unfortunately, it looks like this is how the new round of American or Quartet-led negotiations is going to start.

Professor Curtis Doebbler teaches in the Faculty of Law at An-Najah National University in Nablus, Palestine

Ma'an News Agency