Stand Firm Against Israel Until It Complies With International Law and Previous Agreements

... We believe that the necessary confidentiality that Secretary Kerry imposed on the resumed negotiations should not preclude a far more forceful and public expression of certain fundamental U.S. positions:

Settlements: U.S. disapproval of continued settlement enlargement in the Occupied Territories by Israel’s government as “illegitimate” and “unhelpful” does not begin to define the destructiveness of this activity. Nor does it dispel the impression that we have come to accept it despite our rhetorical objections. Halting the diplomatic process on a date certain until Israel complies with international law and previous agreements would help to stop this activity and clearly place the onus for the interruption where it belongs.

Palestinian Incitement: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s charge that various Palestinian claims to all of historic Palestine constitute incitement that stands in the way of Israel’s acceptance of Palestinian statehood reflects a double standard. The Likud and many of Israel’s other political parties and their leaders make similar declarations about the legitimacy of Israel’s claims to all of Palestine, designating the West Bank “disputed” rather than occupied territory. 

Moreover, Israeli governments have acted on those claims by establishing Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and throughout the West Bank. Surely the “incitement” of Palestinian rhetoric hardly compares to the incitement of Israel’s actual confiscations of Palestinian territory. 

If the United States is not prepared to say so openly, there is little hope for the success of these talks, which depends far more on the strength of America’s political leverage and its determination to use it than on the good will of the parties.

The Jewishness Of The State Of Israel: Israel is a Jewish state because its population is overwhelmingly Jewish, Jewish religious and historical holidays are its national holidays, and Hebrew is its national language. But Israeli demands that Palestinians recognize that Israel has been and remains the national homeland of the Jewish people is intended to require the Palestinians to affirm the legitimacy of Israel’s replacement of Palestine’s Arab population with its own. It also raises Arab fears of continuing differential treatment of Israel’s Arab citizens.

Israelis are right to demand that Palestinians recognize the fact of the state of Israel and its legitimacy, which Palestinians in fact did in 1988 and again in 1993. They do not have the right to demand that Palestinians abandon their own national narrative, and the United States should not be party to such a demand. 

Israeli Security: The United States has allowed the impression that it supports a version of Israel’s security that entails Israeli control of all of Palestine’s borders and part of its territory, including the Jordan Valley. Many former heads of Israel’s top intelligence agencies, surely among the best informed in the country about the country’s security needs, have rejected this version of Israel’s security. Meir Dagan, a former head of the Mossad, dismissed it as “nothing more than manipulation.”

Israel’s confiscation of what international law has clearly established as others’ territory diminishes its security. 

Illegal West Bank land grabs only add to the Palestinian and the larger Arab sense of injustice that Israel’s half-century-long occupation has already generated, and fuels a revanchism that sooner or later will trigger renewed violence. 

No Palestinian leader could or would ever agree to a peace accord that entails turning over the Jordan Valley to Israeli control, either permanently or for an extended period of time, thus precluding a peace accord that would end Israel’s occupation. 

The marginal improvement in Israel’s security provided by these expansive Israeli demands can hardly justify the permanent subjugation and disenfranchisement of a people to which Israel refuses to grant citizenship in the Jewish state.

The Terms For A Peace Accord advanced by Netanyahu’s government, whether regarding territory, borders, security, resources, refugees or the location of the Palestinian state’s capital, require compromises of Palestinian territory and sovereignty on the Palestinian side of the June 6, 1967, line. They do not reflect any Israeli compromises, much less the “painful compromises” Netanyahu promised in his May 2011 speech before a joint meeting of Congress. Every one of them is on the Palestinian side of that line. 

Although Palestinians have conceded fully half of the territory assigned to them in the U.N.’s Partition Plan of 1947, a move Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, has hailed as unprecedented, they are not demanding a single square foot of Israeli territory beyond the June 6, 1967, line.

Netanyahu’s unrelenting efforts to establish equivalence between Israeli and Palestinian demands, insisting that the parties split the difference and that Israel be granted much of its expansive territorial agenda beyond the 78 percent of Palestine it already possesses, are politically and morally unacceptable. The United States should not be party to such efforts, not in Crimea nor in the Palestinian territories.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, FRANK CARLUCCI, LEE HAMILTON, CARLA A. HILLS, THOMAS PICKERING and HENRY SIEGMAN

Why Did Israel Fail To Back US-Supported UN Resolution On Crimea?

The United States often stands virtually alone, save for the company of its colonies like Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, as well as other settler-colonial states like Canada, in opposing UN resolutions critical of Israel.

Israel did not return the favor today by backing a resolution the US feels very strongly about.

The UN General Assembly passed resolution A/68/L.39 condemning Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

on Twitter

UN Gen.Assembly Resolution defending #Ukraine's territorial integrity adopted. 100 for, 11 against, 58 abstentions pic.twitter.com/XqqBu5oslY
— Melissa Kent (@KentUNCBC) March 27, 2014

As the final tally shows, 100 countries voted in favor, 11 against and 58 abstained on the resolution, which was sponsored by Canada, Costa Rica, Germany, Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine.

The United States, predictably, voted in favor, Russia against, and China abstained.
But Israel was a no-show, not voting at all. Perhaps it was because Israeli diplomats are on strike.

That would be a convenient excuse. But surely even the Israeli diplomats’ union would make an exception for a vote that Israel’s strongest backer – the Obama administration – feels is absolutely critical, as these fervent tweets by US ambassador Samantha Power indicate:

on Twitter

Today's UN resolution made it clear: the world won't accept #Russia’s illegal annexation of#Crimea. #UnitedforUkraine
— Samantha Power (@AmbassadorPower) March 27, 2014

on Twitter

#Russia’s actions endanger not just the people of #Ukraine, but the international system as a whole. The U.S. stands #UnitedforUkraine.
— Samantha Power (@AmbassadorPower) March 27, 2014

Uncomfortable Precedent

Perhaps Israel was disturbed by the language of today’s resolution, which “Calls upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol” and to “refrain from any action or dealing that might be interpreted as recognizing any such altered status.”

Israel, of course, remains in flagrant violation of dozens of similarly worded UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions including Security Council Resolution 465 of 1980, deeming Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem and its settlements on occupied land to be illegal.

That resolution declared that “all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.”

It also called “upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories.”

Israel Lying Low

Today’s no-show at the UN is only the latest instance of Israel, a serial annexer of other countries’ lands, trying to evade having to give a position on Crimea.

Earlier this month, a Jewish-Ukrainian MP expressed frustration at Israel’s “silence on Crimea.”

The MP, Oleksandr Feldman, said he was disappointed at what The Times of Israel termed “a rather toothless statement the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem released …. 
reportedly after American pressure.”

Israel expressed “great concern” and urged “diplomacy” but said absolutely nothing supporting the Obama administration’s strident denunciations of Russia’s move.

Israel, apparently, has a enough of a sense of irony not to condemn Russia – and perhaps set a precedent for itself.

The US, by constrast, continues to shamelessly impose sanctions and issue threats regarding Russia’s absorption of Crimea, while at the same time financing and shielding Israel’s continued annexation, occupation and colonization of Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian land.

(By Ali Abunimah )

Israel's Self-Defense Doesn’t Legitimize It’s Assault On Gaza

Disregarding Law and Facts

James Marc Leas reports that,

Obama and Netenyahu disregarded law and facts:

* In 2004, the International Court of Justice rejected Israeli Government arguments and found that as an occupying power, Israel’s right to defend itself under a UN Charter provision does not apply against those living under its rule.

* The Court found that the right, and indeed the obligation, to protect citizens does not trump Israeli obligation to conform to international law when doing so.

* Israeli military assaults on Gaza, including “Operation Pillar of Defense,” caused a vast increase in rocket fire from Gaza, so the assaults endangered rather than defended Israeli citizens.

* Israeli political and military leaders have long known how to quickly halt or substantially dial down rocket fire that involves no bombs, no killing, and no destruction: ceasefire agreements. However, Israeli forces have repeatedly ended effective ceasefire agreements with aerial extrajudicial executions of Palestinians in Gaza that dialed up rocket fire.

 International Court Of Justice Rejects Israeli Self-Defense

Rejecting the Israeli government arguments, the Court first found that the Article 51 right to self-defense “has no relevance” when the attacks on Israel, the occupying power, are from people living under Israeli rule rather than coming from a foreign state. The Court found:

Article 51 of the Charter thus recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self-defense in the case of armed attack by one State against another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State. The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory. . .  Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case.

The Court thus concluded that self-defense under Article 51 does not apply to an occupying power with respect to those living under occupation. Although Israel withdrew its illegal settlers from Gaza in 2005, Israel still controls all aspects of life in Gaza, including air, land and sea borders, and therefore Israel continues to be regarded as an occupying power over Gaza.

The decision that an occupying power cannot invoke Article 51 self-defense is complementary to provisions of the UN Charter, UN General Assembly Resolution 2625, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under which self-determination is a principle of international law.

More specifically, the decision is complementary to UN General Assembly Resolution 2649, adopted November 30, 1970, that “affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal.” Resolution 2649 also “considers that the acquisition and retention of territory in contravention of the right of the people of that territory to self-determination is inadmissible and a gross violation of the Charter;” and “condemns those Governments that deny the right to self-determination of peoples recognized as being entitled to it, especially of the peoples of southern Africa and Palestine.”

The rejection of Israel’s Article 51 argument leaves Israeli forces and their US sponsors at risk of prosecution for the crime of aggression, the subject of another article.

Court Rejects Israeli Argument That Self-Defense Trumps International Law

The Court also concluded that construction of the wall on occupied Palestinian land was not in conformance with applicable international law because the route of the wall across Palestinian territory was illegal. “The Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defense or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall.” Thus, the Court established that defending its citizens does not relieve Israeli government officials of their responsibility to observe international law.

International law for an occupying power includes the responsibility to protect civilians living under occupation and their property and to provide for the humanitarian needs of the population living under the occupation. International humanitarian law requires all combatants to protect civilians and civilian property during any armed conflict.

Court recognizes Israeli Right To Protect Citizens If Method Conforms To International law

The Court recognized that “Israel has to face numerous indiscriminate and deadly acts of violence against its civilian population. It has the right, and indeed the duty, to respond in order to protect the life of its citizens. The measures taken are bound nonetheless to remain in conformity with applicable international law.”

Israeli Argument Before The Court Can Be Applied In Reverse

The argument the Israeli permanent representative introduced is remarkable in that it can be applied in reverse in view of the Court’s decision: the Court rejected an occupying power’s right to use a non-forcible measure–the fence–in self-defense because the fence illegally encroached on occupied territory. Therefore, the Court would surely reject forcible measures that violate the law.

The Israeli Assaults On Gaza  

During Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead” from December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009, Israeli military and political leaders failed to take heed of the decision of the International Court, as described in a report issued by a delegation from the National Lawyers Guild, and reports issued by Human Rights Watch, the Palestine Center for Human rights, Amnesty International, the UN Human Rights Council–“the Goldstone Report,” Defence for Children International (Palestine Section), Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights, and the League of Arab States, all available at Universal Jurisdiction. Instead, Israeli political and military leaders–and their US sponsors–wrongfully continued to rely on Israel’s supposed right to protect its own citizens as justifying measures, such as intentionally attacking civilians and civilian property, that violate international law.

Israel’s “Pillar of Defense” November 14-21 failed to heed both the decision of the Court and the law as described in those reports, as described in articles on Counterpunch, “Wrecking Gaza: Civilian Infrastructure Targeted by Israeli Military” and “Shattered Lives in Gaza: How the IDF Targeted Civilians.”

Reports by Human Rights Watch also describe Israeli violations during Operation Pillar of Defense, including “Gaza: Unlawful Israeli Attacks on Palestinian Media” and “Gaza: Israeli Airstrike on Home Unlawful.” An HRW report on November 15 warned both sides, “Gaza: Avoid Harm to Civilians.”

A December 24 report by Human Rights Watch, “Gaza: Palestinian Rockets Unlawfully Targeted Israeli Civilians” sharply criticizes Palestinian resistance groups that fired rockets at Israeli population centers:

Under international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, civilians and civilian structures may not be subject to deliberate attacks or attacks that do not discriminate between civilians and military targets. Anyone who commits serious laws-of-war violations intentionally or recklessly is responsible for war crimes. . .

The November 14 to 21 hostilities between Israel and Hamas and armed groups in Gaza involved unlawful attacks on civilians by both sides.

As will be further described in a forthcoming article, data on the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs web site, on the allied Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) web site, and on the Palestine Center for Human Rights web site shows that Israeli forces have levers of control over rocket fire from Gaza. Data on the web sites shows that Israeli extra-judicial executions in Gaza dialed up rocket attacks on Israel to extremely high levels. The data also shows that Israeli government and military leaders dialed down rocket attacks to zero, or very close to zero, by using a readily available non-violent technique: a cease fire agreement.

Israeli political and military leaders who set the policy, those carrying out the attacks, and US government and corporate sponsors who provided the weapons and political backing are all liable for prosecution for war crimes because of their unlawful attacks on civilians and civilian property. The decision of the International Court of Justice on the wall indicates that liability for war crimes would not be precluded even if Israeli forces could prove they were acting to defend Israeli citizens. Similarly for the crime of aggression: particularly when Israeli forces violated effective ceasefires and initiated the military conflicts with their extra-judicial executions in Gaza. Claims that Israeli forces acted to protect their own citizens will have “no relevance” under Article 51.

Investigation and Prosecution

With its upgrade in status to non-member state at the UN on November 29, Palestine can now bring its case against Israeli and US political and military leaders to the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the Hague. The International Criminal Court has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. If the prosecutor of the ICC refuses the request to investigate, the Palestinian Authority can bring a proposal to the UN General Assembly to establish an International Criminal Tribunal for Israel as a ‘subsidiary organ,’ as provided under U.N. Charter Article 22 to conduct the investigation and prosecution.

The Palestinian Authority has been under intense pressure not to bring the case. Or to use the possibility of bringing a case at the ICC as a bargaining chip for other objectives, such as an agreement to halt illegal Israeli settlement building. However, pressure on Palestine not to bring a case and Palestine holding the possibility of criminal prosecution as a bargaining chip both threaten foundational principles of justice: respect for the rule of law, equal justice under law, and judicial independence. Rather pressure and bargaining are consistent with corruption and a culture of impunity for wrongdoers with powerful friends.

A worldwide campaign for justice is needed. The system of immunity and impunity enjoyed by Israeli political and military leaders and by their US government sponsors must end now. Without accountability for violations of international law, the law will become mere recommendation, the violations will be repeated, hundreds more Palestinians will be killed and wounded, more of their homes will be destroyed, rocket fire will be dialed up, and we will hear again about “Israel’s right to defend itself” while Israeli forces cynically take actions that put Israeli citizens more at risk for political goals. Only if those responsible are brought to justice can we expect that military and political leaders in Israel and the US would be inclined to think seriously before again initiating aggression while pleading self-defense. Public pressure is needed to ensure that the criminal cases are brought at the ICC–or, if the ICC refuses, to an Article 22 Tribunal–and to counter the vast US political influence to undermine an independent, impartial, and unbiased investigation and prosecution.

Via: "CounterPunch"

UN Calls On Israel To Open Nuclear Facilities To Inspection

The Dimona nuclear reactor as viewed from satellite (photo credit: courtesy of United States Government)

Resolution Urges Israel To Sign Non-Proliferation Treaty ‘Without Further Delay’

John Glaser reports:

The UN General Assembly has overwhelmingly approved a resolution calling on Israel to open its nuclear program for inspection “without further delay.”

Israel’s advanced nuclear arsenal has long been understood to exist, although it hasn’t been officially admitted by the Israeli government. 

Many have argued Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons is what drives the accelerated Iranian program and causes other regional instability.

The resolution was approved on Monday by a vote of 174-6 with 6 abstentions and calls on Israel to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty immediately and open its nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

It also offered support for a high-level conference to ban nuclear weapons from the Middle East which was just canceled by the US and Israel, in order to protect Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly.

If Israel agreed to dismantling its vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons and to a deal enforcing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East – a deal Iran and Israel’s Arab neighbors have repeatedly proposed – the supposed threats Israel faces in the region would virtually disappear.

But Israel refuses to give up its nuclear monopoly, insistent on maintaining its excuse to build up its military and distract from the Palestinian issue.

Via: "Anti-War"

The End Of Jewish Power

Gilad Atzmon wirtes:

Israel suffered a humiliating defeat at The UN. The nations of the world stood up and said NO to the Jewish state - NO to Israeli occupation, NO to Israeli human rights abuse, NO to Jewish racism. In effect, they stood up and confessed to serious Zio-fatigue.

Despite Jewish success in constantly reminding Europeans of their tormented past, Europe yesterday delivered itself of its guilt and Israel’s European allies such as Germany, France, Britain and Italy also delivered a clear messages to Israel – they are right out of patience. This is a very good news indeed.

But interestingly, this united opposition to Israel is not in response the Israeli strength. On the contrary, it is actually a reaction to Israeli weakness. In the last few months we have seen the complete and final eradication of the famed Israeli power of deterrence. 

For months, Israel gave the impression that it was ready and willing to attack Iran nuclear facilities, only to have to admit, even to itself, that it lacked both the means and guts to do so. Israel then launched a lethal attack on the people of Gaza. It called up 75.000 IDF reservists, only to find out that it didn’t have the stomach to face Palestinian resistance.

So, just as Israel is learning to admit to its own cowardice, the rest of the world is at last finding the courage to realise that it can well do without a Jewish state that is nothing but trouble and a grave threat to world peace.

In spite of the powerful Jewish lobby, the Zionist-controlled media and Wall Street, the Jewish state and its Zionist backers have proved to be impotent. It may have the desire, the hope and even the pathos, but it just ain’t stiff enough to deliver.

It Wasn't Enough For Israel

In the midst of the scramble for Palestine, while the UN Special Committee on Palestine was still debating over trusteeship and trying to establish a truce between Zionists and Palestinian-Arabs(1), at the stroke of midnight when the British Mandate expired Jewish leaders declared the new state of Israel knowing it would trigger a war and cause immense suffering. Eleven minutes later, the United Statesrecognized Israel's traumatic birth. Meanwhile, unarmed Palestinianvillagers were ordered into a community square, lined up against the wall, and summarily executed by the Irgun, a Jewish terrorist organization. When the trapped villagers attempt to flee, Irgun commanders tracked them down killing them with hand grenades and knives. Almost 300 men, women, and children laid dead in the smoldering village ruins. Word quickly spread to other Palestinians that unless they fled and left their homes, the fate of Deir Yassin would be their fate.(2)

Mr. Netanyahu: Wasn't it enough for Israel's ruling regimes to have occupied the UN's fledgling Zionist/Palestinian-Arab peace process with militarism and acts of terror and...????

But Israel, acting unilaterally, sought security and peace through militarism and hubris. Not only did the 1948 Jewish War of "Independence" force 750,000 Palestinians off their territories while creating massive refugee camps, but future conflicts were used to justify Israeliexpansionism, increased settlement building, religious supremacy, and the military occupations of East Jerusalem, West Bank, and Gaza Strip. Due to Zionist ideology, Jewish victimization, various Jewish lobbying groups, and a romanticized image of Israel, these gross violations were overlooked and in some cases, even indirectly supported. At the same time, numerous UN resolutions denounced Israel's military occupations of Palestinian lands. However, they were either vetoed by the U.S.-a permanent member of the UN Security Council, sabotaged by a host of Jewish lobbying groups, or completely ignored by Israeli political and military leaders.

Mr. Netanyahu: Wasn't it enough for Israel's ruling regimes to have occupied the UN's fledgling Zionist/Palestinian-Arab peace process with militarism and acts of terror, to have occupied Palestinian lands and...???

When an Israeli soldier, one of thousands who refused to serve in Occupied Territory, declared: "The army is a sacred cow in Israel. Our refusal is an act of despair. We believe that the situation now is so desperate that the only way to shake this country, the only way to shake our leaders...is to say, 'We're no playing this game any more. Give us a future!'"(3), he was speaking for many Israelis who realized the ruling regime was acting pre-emptively, unilaterally, and without restraint. He also understood that military power and hubris, when used externally, can easily be projected internally. Decades of preemptive invasions and military occupations of Palestine have had a paradoxical effect. Inequalities of power are now being imposed on Israeli citizens. Austerity measures are now being imposed, causing dozens of protests that have either turned violent or led some to commit self-immolation. New laws, like universal conscription, are being enforced too.

Mr. Netanyahu: Wasn't it enough for Israel's ruling regimes to have occupied the UN's fledgling Zionist/Palestinian-Arab peace process with militarism and acts of terror, to have occupied Palestinian lands, to have occupied Israel and...??

It was no surprise, then, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that he would be making a "big mistake" by attending an international peace summit in Iran. "Mr. Secretary General," declared Netanyahu, "you do not belong in Tehran!" Although the UN has not confirmed if Ban plans to attend the Non-Aligned Meeting, such commanding and imposing utterances reflects how authoritative Netanyahu and his Likud Party has become. Though Israel still occupies Palestinian lands and has enforced dozens of harsh measures against Palestinians, along with being the sole nation in the region that has nuclear weapons, Netanyahu announced Iran's nuclear enrichment program (Iran claims it is for civilian uses) poses an existential threat. And despite Israel's recent assassinations of several Iranian scientists, Netanyahu continues to maintain that Iran is the largest exporter of terrorism in the world.

Mr. Netanyahu: Wasn't it enough for Israel's ruling regimes to have occupied the UN's fledgling Zionist/Palestinian-Arab peace process with militarism and acts of terror, to have occupied Palestinian lands, to have occupied Israel, to have again occupied the UN and...?

In other words, was it not enough that your nation has illegally occupied Palestinian lands for sixty-four years? 

Was it not enough that for decades, your country has ignored UN resolutions and "land for peace" principles by increasing Jewish settlement building on Palestinian territories? 

Was it not enough that your Israeli Defense Forces have on many occasions militarily invaded and razed Palestinian homes, farms, and orchards, and that you have maintained barriers of separation and armed checkpoints? 

Was it not enough for Israeli forces to have fired on peaceful demonstrators, raid homes, and to have falsely imprisoned thousands of Palestinians? 

Was it not enough to have sustained a punitive economic blockade against Palestinians and then prevent humanitarian aid from reaching them? Was it not enough to have occupied both Palestine and the UN?

And now, Mr. Netanyahu: Do you and your ruling regime not only want to occupy the UN's fledgling Zionist/Palestinian-Arab peace process with militarism and acts of terror, occupy Palestinian lands, occupy Israel, occupy the UN again, but to also occupy Iran?

(Dallas Darling is the author of Politics 501: An A-Z Reading on Conscientious Political Thought and Action, Some Nations Above God: 52 Weekly Reflections On Modern-Day Imperialism, Militarism, And Consumerism in the Context of John's Apocalyptic Vision, and The Other SideOf Christianity: Reflections on Faith, Politics, Spirituality, History, and Peace. He is a correspondent for www.worldnews.com. You can read more of Dallas' writings at www.beverlydarling.com andwn.com//dallasdarling.)

(1) Spiegel, Steven L. The Other Arab-Israeli Conflict: Making America's Middle East Policy, From Truman To Reagan. Chicago, Illinois:University of Chicago Press, 1985., p. 37ff.

(2) Smith, Michael K. Portraits of Empire: Unmasking Imperial Illusions from the "American Century" to the "War on Terror". Monroe, Maine:Common Courage Press, 2003., p. 32.

(3) Ibid., p. 350.

Via: "World News Network"

Israel Double Standard Jeopardizing Nuclear Weapons–Free Zone

The UN Envoy For Mideast Nuclear Talks Cannot Secure Needed Attendance For All Countries In The Region

By John Glaser,
May 08, 2012
Courtesy Of "Anti-War"

Talks on establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East appeared to be thrown in doubt on Tuesday as the Western official organizing negotiations said he could not secure the needed attendance of all countries in the region.

The statement by Finnish diplomat Jaakko Laajava at a meeting in Vienna did not specify which countries had so far refused to attend, but Israel has repeatedly objected to giving up its position as the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in the region.

Media reports are suspecting that Iran also has not agreed to attend the talks, but top Iranian officials have repeatedly voiced their support for a NWFZ.

Iran did attend the Vienna talks on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and,along with several Arab states, repeated criticisms of Israel over its covert arsenal of nuclear weapons which it refuses to open up to inspections, or even to officially reveal.

Israel has not signed the voluntary NPT, so was not represented in Vienna at the time. But the U.S. warned that “continued efforts to single out Israel … will make a (Middle East) conference increasingly less likely.” The statement is nonsensical because Israel singles itself out by refusing to sign the NPT and to consider any checks on its nuclear weapons regional monopoly.

The U.S. and Israel have both concluded that Iran has no nuclear weapons program and has demonstrated no intention to start one. Still, each have hurled threats of war in recent months, arguing that a nuclear Iran would endanger the stability of the region. The double standard on Israel is glaring.

If Israel would give up its arsenal and agree to a NWFZ, it could make these persistent tensions moot. It could “be an answer to the Iranian nuclear crisis that threatens to spark regional proliferation and engulf the Middle East in another war” and “remove the sense of double standards over Israel’s nuclear program,” Mark Fitzpatrick, a director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies told Reuters.

Palestine & UN: History Of A Double Standard

The United Nations General Assembly has adopted 690 different resolutions between 1947-1990 on matters dealing with Palestine  [EPA]


The Struggle For Palestinian Nationhood Is Entering Yet Another New Phase In Its Decades Long History.

By Marwan Bishara
Last Modified: 21 Sep 2011 12:16
Courtesy Of "Al-Jazeera"

Failure to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and Israel's 40-year occupation, in the words of UN former Secretary General Kofi Annan, would “continue to hurt the reputation of the United Nations and raise questions about its impartiality”.

No cause has consumed as much UN paper work as the plight of the displaced and occupied Palestinians. But hundreds of its resolutions on Palestine have not been respected let alone applied for over half a century.

Nowhere has the UN ideals and mechanisms been more mired in power politics than in Palestine. The efforts to neutralise UN intervention have been championed mainly by the United States. This week’s efforts by the Obama administration working on behalf of Israel took advocacy into a whole new level.

Washington has vetoed more than 40 UN Security Council resolutions critical of its policies some of which were drafted by its European allies. A quick look at today’s Middle East makes it clear that such obstructions worked for the interest of neither party, nor for peace and security in the region.

Cold-War rivalries have also contributed to UN paralysis in the Israeli Palestinian-Arab conflict, which explains why more than half of the 690 resolutions adopted by the General Assembly from 1947-1990 have been ignored.

But what justifies sidelining the UN ever since, while keeping it at an arm’s length from a two decades of Peace Process?

The Short Answer Is A Double Standard. 

All major post-Cold War conflicts have seen direct UN involvement including, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and of late, Lebanon, South Sudan. Not the Palestine problem. It was deferred to the US sponsored diplomatic process even though Washington’s close relations with Israel rendered it anything but an impartial broker.

Not only was Palestinian Israeli conflict snatched out of the world body, most relevant US resolutions critical of Israel were ignored by the US sponsors.

Only after the peace process failed to yield a solution a decade later, did the Bush administration allow the United Nations to join, and even then, only as a junior partner in a newly formed International Quartet that includes the European Union and Russia, all of whom are members of the UN!

Meanwhile, Israel has disregarded tens of resolutions, “censuring”, “calling”, “urging”, “recommending”, or “condemning” its attacks, settlement, deportations, occupation, etc. 

Likewise, all pleas and demands for humanitarian and political interventions fell on deaf ears. The only time the UN was allowed to act, was in 1997 when it sent few international unarmed observers to the occupied city of Hebron. Alas, they weren’t mandated to speak publicly about the ongoing violations.

For the past four decades, Israel has violated all relevant UNSC council resolutions such as the resolution 465 of 1980 that strongly deplored all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure of status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

It also rejected Resolution 476, which reaffirmed the necessity to end the Israeli occupation of Arab territories ongoing since the 1967 war. The only UN Security Council Resolution that was accepted by the US and Israel as the basis of the diplomatic process, i.e. 242 of 1967, was also systematically violated. Israel has been expanding its settlement activity when the resolution notes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force".

Paradoxically, Israel was created by a UN recommendation for Partitioning Palestine in 1947, and was accepted as a new UN member on the basis of its commitment to respect its resolution, and specifically UNGA 194 regarding the return of the Palestinian refugees.

Now that all other venues have been tried and failed, including 18 years of bilateral negotiations, the UN Security Council must carry its responsibilities by demanding that Israel carry its obligations under UN charter and by recognising the Palestinian right for self-determination in a state of their own. Period.

Marwan Bishara is Al Jazeera's senior political analyst.

He was previously a professor of International Relations at the American University of Paris. An author who writes extensively on global politics, he is widely regarded as a leading authority on the Middle East and international affairs.

Muslim Nations Demand Israel Open Its Nuke Program To IAEA Viewing

By Associated Press,
Published: September 23
Courtesy Of "The Washington Post"


VIENNA — Muslim countries at a 151-nation conference demanded Friday that Israel open its nuclear program to international purview, asserting that its undeclared arsenal is a threat to Mideast peace.

Unlike in recent years, however, Arab states did not push for a resolution directly targeting Israel by name after such an attempt was narrowly voted down at last year’s International Atomic Energy Agency general conference.

And with few exceptions, the tone of the verbal attacks on the Jewish state appeared less confrontational. A planned IAEA meeting in November would bring Arab nations and Israel to the table to explore what can be learned from other regions that have set up zones free of weapons of mass destruction.

As in past years, the conference did pass a resolution calling on all Middle East states to adopt the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in an indirect demand on Israel, the only country in the region not bound by the treaty.

But even Israel did not oppose that document, abstaining instead of voting against it after failing to have a specific paragraph that effectively singled out the Jewish state without naming it struck from the document.

In comments echoed by other Arab states before and after the vote, Syrian nuclear chief Ibrahim Othman said Israel’s refusal to join the nonproliferation treaty and throw open its nuclear facilities to IAEA perusal “is a threat ... to the security and stability of the Middle Eastern states.”

“The international community must bring real and genuine pressure to bear on Israel,” Othman said.

Egyptian chief delegate Khaled Rahman Shamaa, speaking for developing nations — a group traditionally supporting the Islamic bloc — urged the meeting to address the nuclear imbalance allowing “one party to threaten its neighbors and the region.”

Iranian delegate Reza Pourmand, meanwhile, chastised “the Zionist regime,” asserting that Mideast peace and stability will remain out of reach “while the nuclear arsenal of this regime continues to threaten the region and beyond.”

Both Iran and Syria are the focus of IAEA investigations. While Muslim countries view Israel as the greatest nuclear threat, the Jewish state along with the U.S. and other Western nations sees Tehran — and to a lesser extent Damascus — as the main problem.

Both nations deny wrongdoing. But Iran is suspected of secret work on nuclear weapons and is under U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to mothball a program that can produce reactor fuel and fissile warhead material.

Syria has been reported by the agency’s board to the U.N. General Assembly after IAEA chief Yukiya Amano assessed that Syria tried to secretly build a plutonium producing reactor until it was destroyed four years ago by Israeli warplanes.

Alluding to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s calls to destroy Israel, Israeli delegate Ehud Azaulay said his country cannot meet Islamic nations’ demands in “a region where threats to annihilate states still remain.”

He also condemned “Israel bashing” in an allusion to the paragraph in the Middle East resolution that Israel failed to have removed.

Deputy Israeli nuclear chief David Danieli told The Associated Press that the Arab decision not to push for a specific anti-Israeli resolution this year was “a positive signal.” Beyond a repeat at next year’s conference, he said his country wanted to avoid renewed debate on Israel’s nuclear capabilities.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

The West Shields Israel's Nuclear Capabilities

The nuclear reactor at Dimona. Photo by: Reutuers

IAEA Won't Discuss Israel's 'Nuclear Capabilities'

By Yossi Melman
Published 16:08 23.09.11
Latest update 16:08 23.09.11
Courtesy Of "Haaretz Newspaper"

Israel secured a diplomatic achievement at the annual meeting of the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) Friday in Vienna when the Arab states withdrew their proposal to discuss Israel’s “nuclear capabilities.”

With the support of the United States and other Western nations, Israel was active behind the scenes to torpedo the Arab initiative, and were ultimately successful. It would seem that one of the reasons that the Arab bloc withdrew their proposal was last year’s failure, when the conference denied their request to discuss the issue.

Despite this, the conference adopted a decision entitled, “The Implementation of IAEA Supervision in the Middle East.” Israel abstained from voting on this proposal as it did last year, as did the United Nations, Canada and a number of other nations.

Israel also voted against a clause in the proposal that calls on all states in the Middle East to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel is not a signatory to the treaty, and it has no intentions to become one. Most of the world believes that Israel has nuclear weapons.