When you hear Australia's shambolic Christian Zionist prime minister Scott Morrison prating that "[t]he UN General Assembly is now the place where Israel is bullied and where anti-Semitism is cloaked in the language of human rights... This year the Human Rights Council passed 6 motions condemning Israel compared to a total of 14 across the rest of the world" (70th Anniversary of Australia's formal diplomatic relationship with the State of Israel, aph.gov.au, 19/2/19), consider it a salutary reminder of just how vital and necessary is the work of the UNGA in general, and the HRC in particular, in documenting and calling out the serial crimes of the apartheid state. Crimes such as those outlined in this press release from The UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2018 Gaza protests, for example:
"The United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry on the protests in the Occupied Palestinian Territory today presented its findings. The report focuses on the demonstrations in the Gaza Strip, referred to as the 'Great March of Return and the Breaking of the Siege'.
"The Commission has reasonable grounds to believe that during the Great March of Return, Israeli soldiers committed violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Some of those violations may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity, and must be immediately investigated by Israel,' said the Chair of the Commission, Santiago Canton of Argentina.
"The Commission was mandated by the Human Rights Council in May 2018 to investigate all alleged violations and abuses of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in the context of the large-scale protests that began in Gaza on 30 March 2018. The Commission comprises Santiago Canton of Argentina (Chair), Sara Hossain of Bangladesh and Betty Murungi of Kenya.
"More than 6,000 unarmed demonstrators were shot by military snipers, week after week at the protest sites by the separation fence.
"The Commission investigated every killing at the designated demonstration sites by the Gaza separation fence on official protest days. The investigation covered the period from the start of the protests until 31 December 2018. 189 Palestinians were killed during the demonstrations inside this period. The Commission found that Israeli Security Forces killed 183 of these protesters with live ammunition. Thirty-five of these fatalities were children, while three were clearly marked paramedics, and two were clearly marked journalists.
"According to the the Commission's data analysis, the Israeli Security Forces injured 6,106 with live ammunition at the protest sites during the period. Another 3,098 Palestinians were injured by bullet fragmentation, rubber-coated metal bullets or by hits from tear gas canisters. Four Israeli soldiers were injured at the demonstrations. One Israeli soldier was killed on a protest day but outside the protest sites.
"'There can be no justification for killing and injuring journalists, medics, and persons who pose no imminent threat of death or serious injury to those around them. Particularly alarming is the targeting of children and persons with disabilities,' said Sarah Hossain. 'Many young persons' lives have been altered forever. 122 people have had a limb amputated since 30 March last year. Twenty of these amputees are children.'
"The Commission found reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli snipers shot at journalists, health workers, children and persons with disabilities knowing they were clearly recognizable as such.
"Unless undertaken lawfully in self-defence, intentionally shooting a civilian not directly participating in hostilities is a war crime. The Commission found reasonable grounds to believe that individual members of the Israeli Security Forces, in the course of their response to the demonstrations, killed and injured civilians who were neither directly participating in hostilities, nor posing an imminent threat. These serious human rights and humanitarian law violations may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity.
"The Commission took note of the Israeli claim that the protests by the separation fence masked 'terror activities' by Palestinian armed groups. The Commission found however that the demonstrations were civilian in nature, with clearly stated political aims. Despite some acts of significant violence, the Commission found that the demonstrations did not constitute combat or military campaigns.
"The applicable legal framework was thus based in international human rights law. This assessment did not change even though the Commission's investigation revealed that some demonstrators were members of organized armed groups. Others were members of political parties. International human rights law prohibits the use of force based solely on a person's actual or alleged affiliation to any group, rather than their conduct.
"The Commission found that some members of the Higher National Committee organising the protests, which includes Hamas representatives, encouraged or defended demonstators' use of indiscriminate incendiary kites and balloons, causing fear among civilians and significant damage to property in southern Israel. The Commission concluded that Hamas, as the de facto authority in Gaza, failed to prevent these acts.
"The Commission conducted 325 interviews with victims, witnesses and sources, and gathered more than 8,000 documents. An integral part of the investigation was comprehensive analysis of social media, and of vast amounts of audio-visual material showing incidents, including drone footage.
"The Commission was mandated by the UN Human Rights Council to focus on accountability and identify those responsible for violations and alleged international crimes.
"'The Commission will place the relevant information in a confidential file to be handed over to the High Commissioner of Human Rights, to provide access to this information to national and international justice mechanisms. The International Criminal Court is already concerned with this situation,' said Betty Murungi. [...]
"'The onus is now on Israel to investigate every protest-related killing and injury, promptly, impartially and independently in accordance with international standards, to determine whether war crimes or crimes against humanity were committed, with a view to holding accountable those found responsible,' said Santiago Canton... 'The Commission finds that these protests were a call for help from a population in despair', Santiago Canton reminded. 'Not only Israel but also the de facto authorities led by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have responsibilities towards them. The Commission calls on Israel to lift the blockade of Gaza, and on all three duty bearers to comply with their responsibilities and improve the living situation in Gaza.'
"The Israeli authorities did not respond to repeated requests by the Commission for information and access to Israel and to the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
"A fuller report, containing detailed factual and contextual information and legal analysis will be published and presented to the Human Rights Council on 18 March 2019 in Geneva." (No justification for Israel to shoot protesters with live ammunition, 28/2/19)
Showing posts with label Palestinian Authority. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestinian Authority. Show all posts
Sunday, March 3, 2019
Friday, July 27, 2018
A Far Too Charitable Assessment
"The Foreign Minister's July 2 decision on the [direct] aid sparked an angry response from Palestinian Authority senior adviser Nabil Shaath, who described Australia as 'worthy of being spat on' and 'servants of the US'." (Aid cut despite pledge on terror, Andrew Burrell, The Australian, 25/7/18)
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
On Planet Trumble...
On Planet Trumble, where up is down and right is wrong, the more Palestinians Israel murders and maims, the more the Palestinians must be punished:
"Australia has ceased providing direct aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA), with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop saying the donations could increase the self-governing body's capacity to pay Palestinians convicted of politically motivated violence. Ms Bishop said funding was cut to the World Bank's Multi-Donor Trust Fund for the Palestinian Recovery and Development Program after writing to the Palestinian Authority in late May seeking assurance that Australian funding was not going to Palestinian criminals. Australia sends about $10 million in aid to Palestine territories [?]. It will now direct its funds through the United Nations." (Australia ends direct aid to Palestinian Authority, abc.net.au/news, 3/7/18)
On Planet Trumble, Israel pulls its parliamentary strings:
"Concerns have been raised by some Coalition politicians, including backbencher Eric Abetz,* that the money sent through the World Bank had gone towards funding violence in the region."
On Planet Trumble, foreign minister Bishop can see no valid reason for not funding the PA directly, but cuts it anyway:
"Ms Bishop said she was confident no Australian funds had been used inappropriately. 'I am confident that previous Australian funding to the PA through the World Bank has been used as intended,' she said in a statement. 'However, I am concerned that in providing funds for this aspect of the PA's operations, there is an opportunity for it to use its own budget to [fund] activities that Australia would never support. Any assistance provided by the Palestine Liberation Organisation to those convicted of politically motivated violence is an affront to Australian values and undermines the prospect of a meaningful peace between Israel and the Palestinians'."
On Planet Trumble, Australia takes its cues from the US, which takes its cues from Israel:
"In March, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the US Government for passing a law that suspended some financial aid to the Palestinians over the stipends paid to families of Palestinians killed or jailed in fighting with Israel. Mr Netanyahu said the Taylor Force Act, named after an American killed in Israel by a Palestinian in 2016, a 'powerful signal by the US that changes the rules' by cutting 'hundreds of millions of dollars for the Palestinian Authority that they invest in encouraging terrorism'."
On Planet Trumble, USraeli perpetrators are the victims and Palestinian victims are the perpetrators:
"The Palestinians say the families are victims of violence."
Strange place, Planet Trumble.
[*See my 2/6/18 post Australia's Senate Hard at Work.]
"Australia has ceased providing direct aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA), with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop saying the donations could increase the self-governing body's capacity to pay Palestinians convicted of politically motivated violence. Ms Bishop said funding was cut to the World Bank's Multi-Donor Trust Fund for the Palestinian Recovery and Development Program after writing to the Palestinian Authority in late May seeking assurance that Australian funding was not going to Palestinian criminals. Australia sends about $10 million in aid to Palestine territories [?]. It will now direct its funds through the United Nations." (Australia ends direct aid to Palestinian Authority, abc.net.au/news, 3/7/18)
On Planet Trumble, Israel pulls its parliamentary strings:
"Concerns have been raised by some Coalition politicians, including backbencher Eric Abetz,* that the money sent through the World Bank had gone towards funding violence in the region."
On Planet Trumble, foreign minister Bishop can see no valid reason for not funding the PA directly, but cuts it anyway:
"Ms Bishop said she was confident no Australian funds had been used inappropriately. 'I am confident that previous Australian funding to the PA through the World Bank has been used as intended,' she said in a statement. 'However, I am concerned that in providing funds for this aspect of the PA's operations, there is an opportunity for it to use its own budget to [fund] activities that Australia would never support. Any assistance provided by the Palestine Liberation Organisation to those convicted of politically motivated violence is an affront to Australian values and undermines the prospect of a meaningful peace between Israel and the Palestinians'."
On Planet Trumble, Australia takes its cues from the US, which takes its cues from Israel:
"In March, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the US Government for passing a law that suspended some financial aid to the Palestinians over the stipends paid to families of Palestinians killed or jailed in fighting with Israel. Mr Netanyahu said the Taylor Force Act, named after an American killed in Israel by a Palestinian in 2016, a 'powerful signal by the US that changes the rules' by cutting 'hundreds of millions of dollars for the Palestinian Authority that they invest in encouraging terrorism'."
On Planet Trumble, USraeli perpetrators are the victims and Palestinian victims are the perpetrators:
"The Palestinians say the families are victims of violence."
Strange place, Planet Trumble.
[*See my 2/6/18 post Australia's Senate Hard at Work.]
Sunday, July 1, 2018
Don't Give Me that 'Two States' Shit...
Extracts from an interview with Jamal Juma', coordinator of the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign, about the popular resistance in Gaza, the Trump administration's policy toward the question of Palestine, and Palestinian options to chart a new course ('A watershed moment in Palestinian history': interview with Jamal Juma', mondoweiss.net, 29/6/18):
"It is clear that the Wall was designed to isolate and lay siege to Palestinians... It closed off all the dynamic areas that Israel considered necessary to isolate various areas. 80% of the Wall is within the West Bank.
"The second part of the siege is reinforcement of the settlements. Each settlement has what Israel calls a buffer zone - a security apparatus consisting of barbed wire and roads that Palestinians are not allowed to use...Today, there are two road networks. One is for Israeli settlers, about 1,400 kms long, and its purpose is to connect all settlements to one another and to Israel in a kind of network... The other network, the alternative roads, is for Palestinians to use... The two road systems are separate. This is the basis of the racist, discriminatory system we talk about: isolating Palestinians and confining them in limited spaces, and controlling their resources through settlements, the road network, military installations, and the Wall, [all of] which takes up about 62% of the West Bank.
"With the extension of the settlements, we no longer talk about the Palestinians ghettoized in the north, south, and central region. There is more fragmentation of Palestinian residential areas. New settlement outposts are not being discussed in terms of whether they should be removed or not. They are being transformed into settlements. When you see 150 outposts, you are really talking about 150 new settlements. This project is intensifying, especially since Trump took office... This is a watershed moment in Palestinian history. Since Trump took office, US policy has fully adopted the Zionist project and embarked on a process of liquidating the Palestinian cause... It is a clear program. It began with the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the Zionist entity, the transfer of the embassy, and the targeting of the refugees by cutting aid to UNRWA... In addition, there is the use of Arab countries that are ready for normalization with Israel and eager to be aligned with the American project - Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE and Egypt [are] pressuring the Palestinians to accept the US liquidation project.
"This has complicated things and taken [the Palestine cause] out of the sphere of international law and the UN... the US has dealt a blow to international law...
"On the formal political level, the Palestinian Authority is in crisis. It had placed its faith in the US, but the US is now clearly determined to liquidate the Palestinian cause. The only real option remaining to the PA is to cast its lot with the Palestinian people and on free people around the world, international solidarity and movements that support us...
"On the popular level, we see serious activity in search of an alternative to the status quo, the largest and most important of which is taking place now in Gaza with the Great March of Return... This has changed stereotypes about Gaza as a launchpad for rockets, a place of terrorism, hijacked by Hamas... Just as the first intifada emerged from Jabaliya in the Gaza Strip, today we have the beginnings of a mass civil disobedience movement. Gaza has a population that is resisting, and Hamas does not control this resistance... The Great March has returned focus on the refugee issue... despite all efforts to ignore and erase it. More than 70% of Gazans are refugees, and they are demanding the right to return to their homes...
"It is clear that the Wall was designed to isolate and lay siege to Palestinians... It closed off all the dynamic areas that Israel considered necessary to isolate various areas. 80% of the Wall is within the West Bank.
"The second part of the siege is reinforcement of the settlements. Each settlement has what Israel calls a buffer zone - a security apparatus consisting of barbed wire and roads that Palestinians are not allowed to use...Today, there are two road networks. One is for Israeli settlers, about 1,400 kms long, and its purpose is to connect all settlements to one another and to Israel in a kind of network... The other network, the alternative roads, is for Palestinians to use... The two road systems are separate. This is the basis of the racist, discriminatory system we talk about: isolating Palestinians and confining them in limited spaces, and controlling their resources through settlements, the road network, military installations, and the Wall, [all of] which takes up about 62% of the West Bank.
"With the extension of the settlements, we no longer talk about the Palestinians ghettoized in the north, south, and central region. There is more fragmentation of Palestinian residential areas. New settlement outposts are not being discussed in terms of whether they should be removed or not. They are being transformed into settlements. When you see 150 outposts, you are really talking about 150 new settlements. This project is intensifying, especially since Trump took office... This is a watershed moment in Palestinian history. Since Trump took office, US policy has fully adopted the Zionist project and embarked on a process of liquidating the Palestinian cause... It is a clear program. It began with the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the Zionist entity, the transfer of the embassy, and the targeting of the refugees by cutting aid to UNRWA... In addition, there is the use of Arab countries that are ready for normalization with Israel and eager to be aligned with the American project - Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE and Egypt [are] pressuring the Palestinians to accept the US liquidation project.
"This has complicated things and taken [the Palestine cause] out of the sphere of international law and the UN... the US has dealt a blow to international law...
"On the formal political level, the Palestinian Authority is in crisis. It had placed its faith in the US, but the US is now clearly determined to liquidate the Palestinian cause. The only real option remaining to the PA is to cast its lot with the Palestinian people and on free people around the world, international solidarity and movements that support us...
"On the popular level, we see serious activity in search of an alternative to the status quo, the largest and most important of which is taking place now in Gaza with the Great March of Return... This has changed stereotypes about Gaza as a launchpad for rockets, a place of terrorism, hijacked by Hamas... Just as the first intifada emerged from Jabaliya in the Gaza Strip, today we have the beginnings of a mass civil disobedience movement. Gaza has a population that is resisting, and Hamas does not control this resistance... The Great March has returned focus on the refugee issue... despite all efforts to ignore and erase it. More than 70% of Gazans are refugees, and they are demanding the right to return to their homes...
Saturday, June 2, 2018
Australia's Senate Hard at Work
So good to see our talent in the Senate hard at work serving Australia the state of Israel, and earning every cent of their near $200,000 p.a. salary.
Senator Leyonjelm, you'll remember, recently returned from the apartheid state, determined to put pressure on the Australian government to end our funding for the United Nations Relief & Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which, quite coincidentally of course, just happens to be on Israel's to-do list. (Parenthetically, given Evatt's role in the partition of Palestine in 1947, which gave the Zionists all the excuse they needed to go on the warpath and create the very problem UNRWA was set up to deal with, I'd say helping fund it is the least we can do for our part in this ongoing crime against humanity.)
But Leyonjelm's just an unproven, raw recruit in the ranks of those Australian senators who've got the hots for Israel. If you really want to see a master at work, check out Tasmanian Liberal senator Eric Abetz's latest (31/5) media release:
"Liberal Senator Eric Abetz has welcomed Foreign Minister Julie Bishop's letter to the Palestinian Authority asking them to explain whether Australian aid funding is creating space within their budget to fund the so-called Martyr's [sic] Fund. Senator Abetz, a Member of the Australian Senate's Foreign Affairs Committee, has long advocated for the Australian Government to use its influence in an effort to end the Martyr's [sic] Fund which rewards the families of Palestinian terrorists who kill or harm Israeli citizens, including civilians. In 2017-18, Australia is providing more than $43 million in aid to the Palestinian territories. 'The Palestinian Martyr Fund [?] not only encourages murder and terror attacks, it is a major barrier to peace in the Middle East. The 'please explain' issued by the Foreign Minister is a strong and very welcome action that will hopefully apply pressure to the Palestinian Authority to end this murderous programme,' Senator Abetz said. 'Australia's strong defence of Israel in the United Nations shows a clear determination by the Government to back Israel as the only free and democratic nation in the Middle East. I am very pleased that the Foreign Minister has taken on board the representations made by myself and colleagues on this important issue which goes to the heart of our Australian values. Should the Palestinian Authority continue to fund murder and attacks through this or other PA funds, I am hopeful that the Australian Government will take the further step of pausing all Aid until the programme is eliminated,' Senator Abetz concluded." (Government issues 'please explain' to Palestinian Authority, abetz.com.au)
Senator Leyonjelm, you'll remember, recently returned from the apartheid state, determined to put pressure on the Australian government to end our funding for the United Nations Relief & Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which, quite coincidentally of course, just happens to be on Israel's to-do list. (Parenthetically, given Evatt's role in the partition of Palestine in 1947, which gave the Zionists all the excuse they needed to go on the warpath and create the very problem UNRWA was set up to deal with, I'd say helping fund it is the least we can do for our part in this ongoing crime against humanity.)
But Leyonjelm's just an unproven, raw recruit in the ranks of those Australian senators who've got the hots for Israel. If you really want to see a master at work, check out Tasmanian Liberal senator Eric Abetz's latest (31/5) media release:
"Liberal Senator Eric Abetz has welcomed Foreign Minister Julie Bishop's letter to the Palestinian Authority asking them to explain whether Australian aid funding is creating space within their budget to fund the so-called Martyr's [sic] Fund. Senator Abetz, a Member of the Australian Senate's Foreign Affairs Committee, has long advocated for the Australian Government to use its influence in an effort to end the Martyr's [sic] Fund which rewards the families of Palestinian terrorists who kill or harm Israeli citizens, including civilians. In 2017-18, Australia is providing more than $43 million in aid to the Palestinian territories. 'The Palestinian Martyr Fund [?] not only encourages murder and terror attacks, it is a major barrier to peace in the Middle East. The 'please explain' issued by the Foreign Minister is a strong and very welcome action that will hopefully apply pressure to the Palestinian Authority to end this murderous programme,' Senator Abetz said. 'Australia's strong defence of Israel in the United Nations shows a clear determination by the Government to back Israel as the only free and democratic nation in the Middle East. I am very pleased that the Foreign Minister has taken on board the representations made by myself and colleagues on this important issue which goes to the heart of our Australian values. Should the Palestinian Authority continue to fund murder and attacks through this or other PA funds, I am hopeful that the Australian Government will take the further step of pausing all Aid until the programme is eliminated,' Senator Abetz concluded." (Government issues 'please explain' to Palestinian Authority, abetz.com.au)
Sunday, June 18, 2017
Mahmoud Vidkun Abbas
Try getting your head around this. I can't:
"Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' effort to cut electricity to the Gaza Strip as a means of 'pressuring' Hamas to hand over control of the region to him is finally getting support from Israel's security cabinet, which today signed off on a plan to cut exports to the Gaza Strip by 40%, meaning about 45 minutes less of electricity per day in a strip that already is in a state of blackout more than three-quarters of the time.
"Abbas had originally sought a 100% cut in Gaza's electricity, but Israel refused, citing humanitarian concerns. Even with this smaller cut, Israeli military advisers are warning a mounting humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip will likely escalate the level of violence along the Israeli border.
"Most in Israel's current far-right government are quite comfortable with that, as wars against the Gaza Strip are pretty popular among their parties, and it has been awhile since they got to spend a few weeks battering the civilian population in the name of national security." (Israel cuts Gaza electricity at Abbas' request, Jason Ditz, antiwar.com, 12/6/17)
"Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' effort to cut electricity to the Gaza Strip as a means of 'pressuring' Hamas to hand over control of the region to him is finally getting support from Israel's security cabinet, which today signed off on a plan to cut exports to the Gaza Strip by 40%, meaning about 45 minutes less of electricity per day in a strip that already is in a state of blackout more than three-quarters of the time.
"Abbas had originally sought a 100% cut in Gaza's electricity, but Israel refused, citing humanitarian concerns. Even with this smaller cut, Israeli military advisers are warning a mounting humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip will likely escalate the level of violence along the Israeli border.
"Most in Israel's current far-right government are quite comfortable with that, as wars against the Gaza Strip are pretty popular among their parties, and it has been awhile since they got to spend a few weeks battering the civilian population in the name of national security." (Israel cuts Gaza electricity at Abbas' request, Jason Ditz, antiwar.com, 12/6/17)
Monday, August 8, 2016
Foreign Aid: Fantasy vs Reality
Murdoch's lurid foreign aid fantasy:
"If true the charges would have grave implications for Australian and western aid to the Palestinian territories where agencies have struggled in the past to ensure aid funds were not misused by groups with links to extremists." (Palestine aid cut over 'Hamas link', Cameron Stewart*/ Sarah Vogler, The Australian, 6/8/16)
The reality:
"Since the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip and the Israeli blockade over Gaza which followed, aid policies in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip have been heavily influenced by politics. The decision by the international community and the Quartet to boycott the Hamas government acted as the mainframe for aid interventions in the Gaza Strip. In the aftermath of the Israeli attack on Gaza in 2008-9, the members of the Quartet, who represent the main international political players in the peace process and the donor community at large, have been accused of steadily supporting the Israeli occupation and turning a blind eye to what John Holmes, the UN undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs, referred to as the 'collective punishment' of Gaza's civilian population.
"In 2007, UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and Special Envoy to the PLO and the Palestinian Authority Alvaro de Soto resigned from his position. In his resignation, he submitted an end-of-mission report meant for the use of senior UN officials. In the report, while criticizing Fatah and Hamas for their role in the internal Palestinian split, de Soto condemned the Israeli and international boycott of Hamas as short-sighted and a source of devastating consequences for the Palestinian people. He also accused the Quartet of losing track of its role as a negotiating body by imposing sanctions and preconditions for negotiations on a democratically elected government under occupation.
"Overall, donor policies in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip have been shaped by the political stand of the international community and bodies such as the Quartet toward Hamas. These policies have not been neutral and have not played a constructive role in resolving the Palestine-Israel conflict and enabling Palestinians to achieve their political, social, and economic aspirations. Instead, these policies have played a role in sustaining the Israel-Palestine conflict and the Israeli occupation while fueling the Palestinian internal split by taking sides.
"In the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, the conduct of aid policies under the Israeli blockade has exacerbated the political, social, and economic problems and challenges facing Palestinians. First, aid assistance has been used to undermine Hamas's role in the Strip by supporting and sustaining the Palestinian president's decision to prevent PA public servants from reporting for duty. Such decisions have had very negative consequences, including the deterioration of public services and the expansion of Hamas's ideological influence through its control of such key public sectors as education. Second, donor policies have politicized the presumably neutral role of international aid agencies in the Gaza Strip through imposing many restrictions on their operations, including the no-contact policy. By encouraging Hamas to target them, this policy has also created difficult working conditions for many local organizations partnering with international actors. Third, to a large extent, donor policies have failed to respond to the recovery and development needs of the Gaza residents in the aftermath of the 2008 Israeli war and in the new context created by the tunnel economy.
"Finally, donor policies have failed to challenge the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip. The Israeli blockade is sustained because of the international community's decision to deliver, through its donor groups, assistance aid in a highly constrained environment. This debilitating economic environment has made Gazans increasingly dependent on humanitarian assistance. Furthermore, Hamas has managed to survive the economic sanctions and to entrench its control of the Gaza Strip. Finally, Gaza Strip residents continue to suffer under the Israeli blockade while relying on aid assistance for survival. Meanwhile, international political and donor organizations continue their own policies of denial while implicitly continuing to pay the humanitarian costs of the Israeli occupation." (The Politics of International Aid to the Gaza Strip, Tamer Qarmout & Daniel Beland, Journal of Palestine Studies, Summer 2012)
[*Rambammed: 2005]
"If true the charges would have grave implications for Australian and western aid to the Palestinian territories where agencies have struggled in the past to ensure aid funds were not misused by groups with links to extremists." (Palestine aid cut over 'Hamas link', Cameron Stewart*/ Sarah Vogler, The Australian, 6/8/16)
The reality:
"Since the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip and the Israeli blockade over Gaza which followed, aid policies in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip have been heavily influenced by politics. The decision by the international community and the Quartet to boycott the Hamas government acted as the mainframe for aid interventions in the Gaza Strip. In the aftermath of the Israeli attack on Gaza in 2008-9, the members of the Quartet, who represent the main international political players in the peace process and the donor community at large, have been accused of steadily supporting the Israeli occupation and turning a blind eye to what John Holmes, the UN undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs, referred to as the 'collective punishment' of Gaza's civilian population.
"In 2007, UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and Special Envoy to the PLO and the Palestinian Authority Alvaro de Soto resigned from his position. In his resignation, he submitted an end-of-mission report meant for the use of senior UN officials. In the report, while criticizing Fatah and Hamas for their role in the internal Palestinian split, de Soto condemned the Israeli and international boycott of Hamas as short-sighted and a source of devastating consequences for the Palestinian people. He also accused the Quartet of losing track of its role as a negotiating body by imposing sanctions and preconditions for negotiations on a democratically elected government under occupation.
"Overall, donor policies in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip have been shaped by the political stand of the international community and bodies such as the Quartet toward Hamas. These policies have not been neutral and have not played a constructive role in resolving the Palestine-Israel conflict and enabling Palestinians to achieve their political, social, and economic aspirations. Instead, these policies have played a role in sustaining the Israel-Palestine conflict and the Israeli occupation while fueling the Palestinian internal split by taking sides.
"In the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, the conduct of aid policies under the Israeli blockade has exacerbated the political, social, and economic problems and challenges facing Palestinians. First, aid assistance has been used to undermine Hamas's role in the Strip by supporting and sustaining the Palestinian president's decision to prevent PA public servants from reporting for duty. Such decisions have had very negative consequences, including the deterioration of public services and the expansion of Hamas's ideological influence through its control of such key public sectors as education. Second, donor policies have politicized the presumably neutral role of international aid agencies in the Gaza Strip through imposing many restrictions on their operations, including the no-contact policy. By encouraging Hamas to target them, this policy has also created difficult working conditions for many local organizations partnering with international actors. Third, to a large extent, donor policies have failed to respond to the recovery and development needs of the Gaza residents in the aftermath of the 2008 Israeli war and in the new context created by the tunnel economy.
"Finally, donor policies have failed to challenge the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip. The Israeli blockade is sustained because of the international community's decision to deliver, through its donor groups, assistance aid in a highly constrained environment. This debilitating economic environment has made Gazans increasingly dependent on humanitarian assistance. Furthermore, Hamas has managed to survive the economic sanctions and to entrench its control of the Gaza Strip. Finally, Gaza Strip residents continue to suffer under the Israeli blockade while relying on aid assistance for survival. Meanwhile, international political and donor organizations continue their own policies of denial while implicitly continuing to pay the humanitarian costs of the Israeli occupation." (The Politics of International Aid to the Gaza Strip, Tamer Qarmout & Daniel Beland, Journal of Palestine Studies, Summer 2012)
[*Rambammed: 2005]
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Some of Our Best Friends Are Palestinian...
"NSW Jewish Board of Deputies chief executive Vic Alhadeff stressed the broad nature of the visits to the region his group coordinates. 'All our programs include the West Bank, where participants are briefed by senior Palestinian officials,' he said. 'This gives Australian delegations an opportunity to see the situation first-hand and form their own conclusions." (Bishop calls for Shorten to stop ALP ban on Israel visits, Christian Kerr/Tessa Ackerman, The Australian, 28/1/16)
Hm... senior Palestinian officials?
Vic means these guys:
"The Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority works closely with the Israeli occupation. Earlier this month, for instance, Israeli officials praised the PA for 'cracking down' on opposition and resistance to Israel's occupation in the West Bank. The PA's leader, Mahmoud Abbass, has previously called this so-called security coordination a 'sacred' duty... The PA's intelligence chief Majid Faraj boasted to Defense News recently that his forces had arrested 100 Palestinians in recent months and were working closely with Israeli occupation forces to prevent the unpopular PA from collapsing. 'We, together with our counterparts in the Israeli security establishment, with the Americans and others, are all trying to prevent that collapse,' Faraj said." (Infographic: 7 ways the Palestinian Authority helps Israeli occupation, Ali Abunimah, electronicintifada.net, 26/1/16)
Hm... senior Palestinian officials?
Vic means these guys:
"The Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority works closely with the Israeli occupation. Earlier this month, for instance, Israeli officials praised the PA for 'cracking down' on opposition and resistance to Israel's occupation in the West Bank. The PA's leader, Mahmoud Abbass, has previously called this so-called security coordination a 'sacred' duty... The PA's intelligence chief Majid Faraj boasted to Defense News recently that his forces had arrested 100 Palestinians in recent months and were working closely with Israeli occupation forces to prevent the unpopular PA from collapsing. 'We, together with our counterparts in the Israeli security establishment, with the Americans and others, are all trying to prevent that collapse,' Faraj said." (Infographic: 7 ways the Palestinian Authority helps Israeli occupation, Ali Abunimah, electronicintifada.net, 26/1/16)
Thursday, January 28, 2016
The Twilight Zone
The next time you hear any pious chatter about a two-state solution from the usual suspects consider this:
"Under current circumstances, advancing down the road of a virtual Palestinian state may actually end up benefitting Israeli policies. It suits Israelis to have a Palestinian Authority able to effectively manage (and international community willing to pay for) the occupation on its behalf. But most of all, obtaining purely symbolic acknowledgments of Palestinian statehood aspirations keeps alive the idea of a two-state solution without actually bringing it closer to fruition, thereby helping reinforce a reality that is beneficial to Israel. Israel's silent annexation of large swathes of Palestinian territory can only be sustained so long as the vision of two states remains alive. Maintaining even a wafer thin belief in such an outcome (based on a non-peace process) is a holding strategy that allows Israel to deflect the bulk of international pressure even as it prolongs and deepens a largely cost-free occupation. This legal 'twilight zone' between temporary occupation and full-blown annexation allows Israel to control those parts of the West Bank on which the bulk of Israeli settlers are located, without having to shoulder any financial, legal or moral responsibilities. Removing this illusion would reveal the current one-state reality that already exists. Namely, a system that has created two distinct legal regimes for those living under Israeli jurisdiction in the occupied territories and effectively disenfranchises millions of non-Jewish residents from having a say in a government that is the ultimate arbiter of their fate." (Excerpt from The Ramallah paradox, Hugh Lovatt, middleeasteye.net, 26/1/16)
Hugh Lovatt is the Israel/Palestine Project Coordinator for the Middle East & North Africa Programme of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
"Under current circumstances, advancing down the road of a virtual Palestinian state may actually end up benefitting Israeli policies. It suits Israelis to have a Palestinian Authority able to effectively manage (and international community willing to pay for) the occupation on its behalf. But most of all, obtaining purely symbolic acknowledgments of Palestinian statehood aspirations keeps alive the idea of a two-state solution without actually bringing it closer to fruition, thereby helping reinforce a reality that is beneficial to Israel. Israel's silent annexation of large swathes of Palestinian territory can only be sustained so long as the vision of two states remains alive. Maintaining even a wafer thin belief in such an outcome (based on a non-peace process) is a holding strategy that allows Israel to deflect the bulk of international pressure even as it prolongs and deepens a largely cost-free occupation. This legal 'twilight zone' between temporary occupation and full-blown annexation allows Israel to control those parts of the West Bank on which the bulk of Israeli settlers are located, without having to shoulder any financial, legal or moral responsibilities. Removing this illusion would reveal the current one-state reality that already exists. Namely, a system that has created two distinct legal regimes for those living under Israeli jurisdiction in the occupied territories and effectively disenfranchises millions of non-Jewish residents from having a say in a government that is the ultimate arbiter of their fate." (Excerpt from The Ramallah paradox, Hugh Lovatt, middleeasteye.net, 26/1/16)
Hugh Lovatt is the Israel/Palestine Project Coordinator for the Middle East & North Africa Programme of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Saturday, December 19, 2015
Memo to Dr Sabri Saidam
"Dr Saidam said the group repeatedly asked questions about Palestinians naming schools and venues after people who had killed Israeli civilians. I said that one man's hero is another man's terrorist." (Delegation to West Bank led by Christopher Pyne 'not well educated', local minister says, Sophie McNeill, abc.net.au/news, 17/12/15)
Memo to Dr Saidam:
'One man's hero is another man's terrorist' is way too subtle for most Australian politicians on the Rambam, OK?
Next time some cocksure, know-nothing, Zionist dupes like this show up and hit you with this particular Zionist talking point, simply hand them the following - far from complete - list of Israeli terrorist commemoration sites, quizz the buggers on the glorious careers of those commemorated, and sit back in amazement at the 'Jeez, I dunnos':
David Ben-Gurion Airport
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Ben-Gurion planned and oversaw the ethnic cleansing of 1 million Palestinians and the destruction of hundreds of Palestinian villages from 1948 to 1949.
Menachem Begin Heritage Centre, Jerusalem
Menachem Begin St, Tel Aviv
Begin commanded the murderous Irgun terrorists who massacred Palestinians (and Britons) in the 30s and 40s. Einstein referred to him as a "fascist."
Ariel Sharon Park, Tel Aviv
Sharon was responsible for the massacres of Qibya (1953) and Sabra & Shatila (1982).
Moshe Dayan Boulevard, Occupied East Jerusalem/ Rishon LeZion/ Ashdod
Rishon LeZion Moshe Dayan Railway Station; Moshe Dayan Interchange
Dayan was involved in the Qibya (1953) and Rafah (1956) massacres, and was the architect, as Defence [sic] Minister, of Israel's 1967 East Jerusalem, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai and Golan Heights land grabs and subsequent colonization thereof.
The Yitzhak Rabin Center, Tel Aviv
Rabin was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Lydda in 1948 and the 'break their bones' policy during the first intifada (1987-93).
The following comment by the indefatigable Vacy Vlazna on Guardian Australia's website, posted in response to Australian delegation asked 'rude' questions during 'explosive' West Bank meeting (Daniel Hurst, 16/12/15), could also be of use in creating cognitive dissonance in those bogans who insist on banging on about the matter:
"The bloody hide of a bunch of Liberals who flout international law, torture and detain innocent asylum seekers on offshore Guantanamos, quizzing the Palestinians for naming schools and venues after terrorists! What the ?????
"How about Macquarie University, Macquarie Park, Macquarie Bank etc, etc: Governor Lachlan Macquarie was a terrorist, not a freedom fighter like Palestinians defending their land and people: 'Governor Macquarie's response to the growing troubles was to set strict rules by proclamation as to how which Aborigines could interact with the colonial settlers. The Governor also launched 3 military excursions to punish the Aborigines. The soldiers were given directions that all Aborigines met with from Sydney onwards were to be made prisoners of war and that if they resisted they were to be shot and their bodies hung from trees in the most conspicuous places near where they fell, so as to strike terror into the hearts of the surviving natives. Many aboriginal women and children who had not been associated with any hostilities were killed.'
"Don't get me started on Governors Phillip, King, Stirling, Bourke, Gipps and so on."
Cheers.
Memo to Dr Saidam:
'One man's hero is another man's terrorist' is way too subtle for most Australian politicians on the Rambam, OK?
Next time some cocksure, know-nothing, Zionist dupes like this show up and hit you with this particular Zionist talking point, simply hand them the following - far from complete - list of Israeli terrorist commemoration sites, quizz the buggers on the glorious careers of those commemorated, and sit back in amazement at the 'Jeez, I dunnos':
David Ben-Gurion Airport
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Ben-Gurion planned and oversaw the ethnic cleansing of 1 million Palestinians and the destruction of hundreds of Palestinian villages from 1948 to 1949.
Menachem Begin Heritage Centre, Jerusalem
Menachem Begin St, Tel Aviv
Begin commanded the murderous Irgun terrorists who massacred Palestinians (and Britons) in the 30s and 40s. Einstein referred to him as a "fascist."
Ariel Sharon Park, Tel Aviv
Sharon was responsible for the massacres of Qibya (1953) and Sabra & Shatila (1982).
Moshe Dayan Boulevard, Occupied East Jerusalem/ Rishon LeZion/ Ashdod
Rishon LeZion Moshe Dayan Railway Station; Moshe Dayan Interchange
Dayan was involved in the Qibya (1953) and Rafah (1956) massacres, and was the architect, as Defence [sic] Minister, of Israel's 1967 East Jerusalem, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai and Golan Heights land grabs and subsequent colonization thereof.
The Yitzhak Rabin Center, Tel Aviv
Rabin was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Lydda in 1948 and the 'break their bones' policy during the first intifada (1987-93).
The following comment by the indefatigable Vacy Vlazna on Guardian Australia's website, posted in response to Australian delegation asked 'rude' questions during 'explosive' West Bank meeting (Daniel Hurst, 16/12/15), could also be of use in creating cognitive dissonance in those bogans who insist on banging on about the matter:
"The bloody hide of a bunch of Liberals who flout international law, torture and detain innocent asylum seekers on offshore Guantanamos, quizzing the Palestinians for naming schools and venues after terrorists! What the ?????
"How about Macquarie University, Macquarie Park, Macquarie Bank etc, etc: Governor Lachlan Macquarie was a terrorist, not a freedom fighter like Palestinians defending their land and people: 'Governor Macquarie's response to the growing troubles was to set strict rules by proclamation as to how which Aborigines could interact with the colonial settlers. The Governor also launched 3 military excursions to punish the Aborigines. The soldiers were given directions that all Aborigines met with from Sydney onwards were to be made prisoners of war and that if they resisted they were to be shot and their bodies hung from trees in the most conspicuous places near where they fell, so as to strike terror into the hearts of the surviving natives. Many aboriginal women and children who had not been associated with any hostilities were killed.'
"Don't get me started on Governors Phillip, King, Stirling, Bourke, Gipps and so on."
Cheers.
Friday, December 18, 2015
Pyne & Bishop Do Ramallah
Oh dear:
"A Palestinian minister has accused an Australian-led political delegation of asking rude questions during a meeting in the West Bank. The Australian industry minister Christopher Pyne, the former parliamentary speaker, Bronwyn Bishop, and Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson, were among Australian and British delegates to attend the meeting in Ramallah on Sunday.
"The Palestinian education minister, Sabri Saidam, told the ABC the meeting was 'very explosive and very challenging.' He said the group had asked 'rude and blunt' questions and Pyne had raised 'a list of complaints.' The group visited Israel as part of the Australia-Israel-United Kingdom Leadership Dialogue. Saidam suggested the delegation had 'wrong impressions accumulated after the visit to Israel.' 'The delegation had false information and twisted facts,' he told the ABC. 'It was clear the delegation was not well educated.'" (Australian delegation asked 'rude' questions during 'explosive' West Bank meeting, Daniel Hurst, theguardian.com, 16/12/15)
Frankly, I blame the Palestinian Authority here.
As in, what did they expect?
Face it, what are we dealing with here?
A mob of obnoxious and revolting Australian politicians who think the sun shines out of Israel's arse, on an Israeli-sponsored freebie to Israel, primed with Israeli talking points, stuffed with Israeli tucker, and only in Ramallah so that they can claim they 'talked to both sides.'
Saidam said the group had asked "rude and blunt questions."
Well, hello? You are dealing with Poodles Pyne, Chopper Bishop and Freedom Boy here.
He said Pyne "had a list of complaints."
Well, hello? Autographed by Benjamin Netanyahu himself.
He said, the delegation had "wrong impressions accumulated after the visit to Israel," and "false information and twisted facts."
Well, hello? Only after their visit to Israel? They've been reading the Murdoch press, like, for centuries, mate!
He said, "It was clear the delegation was not well educated."
Well, hello? What did Poodles Pyne have in his back pocket? Senor & Singer's Start-Up Nation.*
I mean, if you're going to let this lot into your office, you deserve what you get, right?
End of story.
[*"Despite another year of political upheaval, it is encouraging that many of our politicians still found time to reach for a book... Releasing his 'inner revolutionary', Industry Minister Christopher Pyne devoured Start-Up Nation by Dan Senor and Saul Singer..." (The next pages in the lives of our pollies: What our representatives will be reading over the Christmas break, Troy Bramston, The Australian, 14/12/15) On this vile little propaganda tome, see my 23/4/10 post Creative Destruction.]
"A Palestinian minister has accused an Australian-led political delegation of asking rude questions during a meeting in the West Bank. The Australian industry minister Christopher Pyne, the former parliamentary speaker, Bronwyn Bishop, and Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson, were among Australian and British delegates to attend the meeting in Ramallah on Sunday.
"The Palestinian education minister, Sabri Saidam, told the ABC the meeting was 'very explosive and very challenging.' He said the group had asked 'rude and blunt' questions and Pyne had raised 'a list of complaints.' The group visited Israel as part of the Australia-Israel-United Kingdom Leadership Dialogue. Saidam suggested the delegation had 'wrong impressions accumulated after the visit to Israel.' 'The delegation had false information and twisted facts,' he told the ABC. 'It was clear the delegation was not well educated.'" (Australian delegation asked 'rude' questions during 'explosive' West Bank meeting, Daniel Hurst, theguardian.com, 16/12/15)
Frankly, I blame the Palestinian Authority here.
As in, what did they expect?
Face it, what are we dealing with here?
A mob of obnoxious and revolting Australian politicians who think the sun shines out of Israel's arse, on an Israeli-sponsored freebie to Israel, primed with Israeli talking points, stuffed with Israeli tucker, and only in Ramallah so that they can claim they 'talked to both sides.'
Saidam said the group had asked "rude and blunt questions."
Well, hello? You are dealing with Poodles Pyne, Chopper Bishop and Freedom Boy here.
He said Pyne "had a list of complaints."
Well, hello? Autographed by Benjamin Netanyahu himself.
He said, the delegation had "wrong impressions accumulated after the visit to Israel," and "false information and twisted facts."
Well, hello? Only after their visit to Israel? They've been reading the Murdoch press, like, for centuries, mate!
He said, "It was clear the delegation was not well educated."
Well, hello? What did Poodles Pyne have in his back pocket? Senor & Singer's Start-Up Nation.*
I mean, if you're going to let this lot into your office, you deserve what you get, right?
End of story.
[*"Despite another year of political upheaval, it is encouraging that many of our politicians still found time to reach for a book... Releasing his 'inner revolutionary', Industry Minister Christopher Pyne devoured Start-Up Nation by Dan Senor and Saul Singer..." (The next pages in the lives of our pollies: What our representatives will be reading over the Christmas break, Troy Bramston, The Australian, 14/12/15) On this vile little propaganda tome, see my 23/4/10 post Creative Destruction.]
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Palestinian Quislings
Blatant Zionist propaganda in the Sydney Morning Herald from Colin Rubenstein, executive director of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC):
"If the international community wants to ensure that any ceasefire agreement prevents yet another bloody Gaza conflict..."
Bloody for whom, Rubes?
"... like the one that ended on August 27, they should be listening to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas."
That's the PA 'president' whose term expired in 2009.
"He has repeatedly criticised Hamas for instigating and then prolonging the war and causing Palestinian suffering, lamenting how 'it was possible for us to avoid all of that, 2000 martyrs, 10,000 injured'. Earlier he had asked of Hamas 'What are you trying to achieve by sending rockets?..."
Here we go again.
Zionism's use of Palestinian quislings to counter and undermine Palestinian resistance to Israeli aggression is as old as the Zionist project itself.
Blanche Dugdale, Lord Balfour's niece, was a gentile Zionist groupie and confidante of Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann in the 30s and 40s. The following entry in her diary alludes to the conflict between the armed Palestinian resistance to British rule (& Zionist colonisation) from 1936-39, led by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, and the collaborationist opposition led by the Nashashibi clan:
"January 18th [1939] - London... home to tea - then was rung up by Peter Rutenberg, this moment arrived from Palestine. He has been very active there, pinning the moderate Arabs to our side by the usual methods. Fakhri Nashashibi is earning his keep by staying in Jerusalem and shouting aloud that the Mufti and his friends do not represent Palestine." (Baffy: The Diaries of Blanche Dugdale 1936-1947, 1973, p 119)
Sound familiar?
Another reference to Rutenberg and Nashashibi appears in Hillel Cohen's study Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948 (2008).
Writing on the February 1939 London Conference, convened by the British government to discuss Palestine's future governance and involving both Zionist and Palestinian Arab delegations, the latter drawn from the Mufti's Arab Higher Committee, Cohen notes that "the [Nashashibi] opposition had only token representation in the Palestinian delegation, and even that was achieved only after a tenacious struggle. Fakhri Nashashibi himself traveled to London on Zionist funding; it was his friend Pinhas Rutenberg who gave him 4,000 Palestinian pounds to pay for his trip." (pp 132-33)
And, just as the collaborationist Abbas criticises Hamas over Israel's latest wilding in Gaza, Fakhri Nashashibi "considered the [Palestinian] uprising of 1936-39 a 'counterfeit rebellion'." (ibid, p 265)
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
"If the international community wants to ensure that any ceasefire agreement prevents yet another bloody Gaza conflict..."
Bloody for whom, Rubes?
"... like the one that ended on August 27, they should be listening to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas."
That's the PA 'president' whose term expired in 2009.
"He has repeatedly criticised Hamas for instigating and then prolonging the war and causing Palestinian suffering, lamenting how 'it was possible for us to avoid all of that, 2000 martyrs, 10,000 injured'. Earlier he had asked of Hamas 'What are you trying to achieve by sending rockets?..."
Here we go again.
Zionism's use of Palestinian quislings to counter and undermine Palestinian resistance to Israeli aggression is as old as the Zionist project itself.
Blanche Dugdale, Lord Balfour's niece, was a gentile Zionist groupie and confidante of Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann in the 30s and 40s. The following entry in her diary alludes to the conflict between the armed Palestinian resistance to British rule (& Zionist colonisation) from 1936-39, led by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, and the collaborationist opposition led by the Nashashibi clan:
"January 18th [1939] - London... home to tea - then was rung up by Peter Rutenberg, this moment arrived from Palestine. He has been very active there, pinning the moderate Arabs to our side by the usual methods. Fakhri Nashashibi is earning his keep by staying in Jerusalem and shouting aloud that the Mufti and his friends do not represent Palestine." (Baffy: The Diaries of Blanche Dugdale 1936-1947, 1973, p 119)
Sound familiar?
Another reference to Rutenberg and Nashashibi appears in Hillel Cohen's study Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948 (2008).
Writing on the February 1939 London Conference, convened by the British government to discuss Palestine's future governance and involving both Zionist and Palestinian Arab delegations, the latter drawn from the Mufti's Arab Higher Committee, Cohen notes that "the [Nashashibi] opposition had only token representation in the Palestinian delegation, and even that was achieved only after a tenacious struggle. Fakhri Nashashibi himself traveled to London on Zionist funding; it was his friend Pinhas Rutenberg who gave him 4,000 Palestinian pounds to pay for his trip." (pp 132-33)
And, just as the collaborationist Abbas criticises Hamas over Israel's latest wilding in Gaza, Fakhri Nashashibi "considered the [Palestinian] uprising of 1936-39 a 'counterfeit rebellion'." (ibid, p 265)
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Doing the Donkey* in the NSW Knesset 3
On the speech of The Hon. Fred Nile, Christian Democrats, in the NSW Legislative Council, arising out of the NSW Parliamentary Friends of Israel (PFoI) "study mission" 'debate' of February 28:
Now Fred's a real Israel junkie. As he says, "I spent nearly 3 weeks in Israel in January and visited many of the pilgrim sites following the official tour." What's more, "I have been to Israel on 3 other occasions and have a good association with Israel."
So much for that bit of the motion which says that "the purpose of this study mission was to build an understanding amongst the delegates of the complex and various issues... etc, etc."
Or as Fred put it, "I did not have to go on this study tour to be convinced to give Israel support. I have always been on the record as strongly supporting the... state of Israel."
So there!
Not that we're surprised. After all, Fred has his Zionist talking points down to a fine art:
"I know there are a lot of statements made that Israel has to give up land for peace. Sadly, when Israel gives up land for peace, at it did with Gaza [?!], it gets rockets in return from both Hamas... and Hezbollah..."
"We saw the huge wall that had been built by Israel between Israel and Palestinian territory to protect Israel's security from suicide bombers."
Between Israel and Palestinian territory?!!!
Also, we have it on good authority from Fred that despite everything we've heard about those notorious Israeli checkpoints (chokepoints?) "there is tremendous movement from Palestinian territory into and out of Israel."
And ditto for Gaza, which is "not a concentration camp" because "every day, trucks are carrying in food, construction materials and so on, so that the community gets everything it needs."
Now that visit to the Knesset was certainly a buzz for Fred: "It has 120 members. The deputation learnt that this was based on the historical biblical Jewish Sanhedrin, which had 120 members." Why, he even discovered that "[t]here are some small religious parties that have some similarities to the Christian Democrats..."! (And you - some of you at any rate - think I'm just being satirical when I talk about the NSW Knesset.)
As you'd expect, Fred found Bethlehem "very interesting," although it must have come as a bit of a blow because "[i]t was previously a Christian city; now it is Muslim." And, sure enough, Fred being Fred, it was the Mooslims wot done it: "Sadly, a lot of the Christians have experienced persecution and discrimination, and that is why the majority have left..."
And this despite having been briefed by what he calls the "PLO Governor of Jerusalem" (no names of course). But what, one wonders, did Guv have to say? All we get from Fred is that he "shared some of the problems they were facing regarding finance and water."
Now if Fred's any guide here, the PA appears to have something of a PR problem. While Israel's drama queens are banging on about Palestinian 'terrorism' and getting all the attention with 'Woe is us! We have only 15 seconds before being incinerated by a Hamas/Hezbollah/Iranian rocket', the PA dude just drones on about money and water. Boooring!
Just to show what a handle the Israelis have on laying these foreign fools in the aisle, check this one out:
We're at Israel's Supreme Court in the awesome presence of one of Israel's "most experienced judges," Justice Dalia Dorner, right?
As Fred tells it: "During her presentation, one of the first things she mentioned was Australia's rejection of Jewish refugees prior to World War II."
Jewish refugees? Remember this is Zionist aristocracy speaking, the representative of a movement that in the 30s and 40s was only interested in importing the right kind of Jews into Palestine, the kind who would later go on to create their own non-Jewish refugees in 1948.
And here's Fred, whose Islamophobic Christian Democrats call for a "moratorium on Islamic [sic] immigration... while monitoring the willingness of the existing Islamic community to abandon support for terrorism...," so overcome with guilt that he tells us: "[E]ven though I was not the delegation leader, I did in my remarks apologise for that rejection - hopefully it will never occur again."
I reckon Justice Dorner's still dining out on that one.
Like his colleague Rick Colless, who thought the Israeli colonization of the West Bank was a process of "Palestinian people," "Muslim people," and "Jewish people" all "work[ing] together towards a peaceful solution," when it comes to the settlements Fred can see naught but peace and light:
"We visited [the] remarkable Israeli town of Efrat, in the region of Gush Etzion. We were beriefed by the energetic mayor... Oded Revevi, concerning the remarkable progress by the citizens of Efrat... What impressed me was the way that Jewish families are working in harmony with their Arab neighbours, who farm land right on the borders of Efrat and even within the town council boundaries - without any conflict or violence, but in a peaceful manner."
Apparently, no one told him that those same Arab "neighbours" are currently involved in trying to fend off yet another Israeli land grab in Israel's High Court of Justice.**
Finally, lest the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies (listening in with rapt attention, in the form of its omnipresent CEO Vic Alhadeff, to the 'debate') be accused of not lining up a few Arab locals for our 'study' tourists to chat with, Fred cites two.
Although he describes Issa Jaber Abu Ghosh as a "Palestinian leader in [his] own village" of Abu Ghosh, it should be pointed out that he's actually an Israeli citizen and that Abu Ghosh, near Jerusalem, is in Israel (im)proper.
Typically, Fred doesn't refer to the content of Abu Ghosh's "briefing," except to describe it as "quite remarkable." (Still, if you're interested, you can check out a Radio National interview*** Abu Ghosh did with Rachael Kohn in 2008, where he's grandly described as "Chairman of the Interreligious Co-ordinating Council in Israel," and one who "takes his role very seriously as a promoter of peace and inter-religious co-operation.") Suffice it to say that the village of Abu Ghosh, which has a history of collaboration with the Zionist movement dating back to 1912****, was one of only 3 Palestinian villages to survive the Zionist ethnic cleansing of central Palestine in 1948. Any wonder then that Fred found the man "quite remarkable"?
The other Arab local was "Arabic Christian pastor Steven Khoury of the Arabic Calvary Church," whose presentation Fred describes as "very interesting." Just how "interesting" becomes apparent when you read, in a September 25, 2009 article in Israel's Haaretz newspaper, that Khoury - and here my flabber is well and truly gasted - is a PALESTINIAN CHRISTIAN ZIONIST who believes that "it's the job of the Jews to return to the land and convert to Christianity, while it's the job of Christians to help bring that about."*****
There you go. Just when you'd thought you'd heard it all with Khaled Abu Toameh being a Zionist and all, now you've discovered a Palestinian Christian Zionist. Top that!
Next in the Doing the Donkey in the NSW Knesset series: Walt (I get around) Secord, MLC.
[*See my 2/3/13 post Doing the Donkey; **See Palestinians argue in court against Efrat expansion, Tovah Lazaroff, Jerusalem Post, 14/3/13;***The Spirit of Things, 22/6/08; ****Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948, Hillel Cohen, 2008, p 78; *****Bible politics and Palestinian Zionists, Tristan Sturm]
Now Fred's a real Israel junkie. As he says, "I spent nearly 3 weeks in Israel in January and visited many of the pilgrim sites following the official tour." What's more, "I have been to Israel on 3 other occasions and have a good association with Israel."
So much for that bit of the motion which says that "the purpose of this study mission was to build an understanding amongst the delegates of the complex and various issues... etc, etc."
Or as Fred put it, "I did not have to go on this study tour to be convinced to give Israel support. I have always been on the record as strongly supporting the... state of Israel."
So there!
Not that we're surprised. After all, Fred has his Zionist talking points down to a fine art:
"I know there are a lot of statements made that Israel has to give up land for peace. Sadly, when Israel gives up land for peace, at it did with Gaza [?!], it gets rockets in return from both Hamas... and Hezbollah..."
"We saw the huge wall that had been built by Israel between Israel and Palestinian territory to protect Israel's security from suicide bombers."
Between Israel and Palestinian territory?!!!
Also, we have it on good authority from Fred that despite everything we've heard about those notorious Israeli checkpoints (chokepoints?) "there is tremendous movement from Palestinian territory into and out of Israel."
And ditto for Gaza, which is "not a concentration camp" because "every day, trucks are carrying in food, construction materials and so on, so that the community gets everything it needs."
Now that visit to the Knesset was certainly a buzz for Fred: "It has 120 members. The deputation learnt that this was based on the historical biblical Jewish Sanhedrin, which had 120 members." Why, he even discovered that "[t]here are some small religious parties that have some similarities to the Christian Democrats..."! (And you - some of you at any rate - think I'm just being satirical when I talk about the NSW Knesset.)
As you'd expect, Fred found Bethlehem "very interesting," although it must have come as a bit of a blow because "[i]t was previously a Christian city; now it is Muslim." And, sure enough, Fred being Fred, it was the Mooslims wot done it: "Sadly, a lot of the Christians have experienced persecution and discrimination, and that is why the majority have left..."
And this despite having been briefed by what he calls the "PLO Governor of Jerusalem" (no names of course). But what, one wonders, did Guv have to say? All we get from Fred is that he "shared some of the problems they were facing regarding finance and water."
Now if Fred's any guide here, the PA appears to have something of a PR problem. While Israel's drama queens are banging on about Palestinian 'terrorism' and getting all the attention with 'Woe is us! We have only 15 seconds before being incinerated by a Hamas/Hezbollah/Iranian rocket', the PA dude just drones on about money and water. Boooring!
Just to show what a handle the Israelis have on laying these foreign fools in the aisle, check this one out:
We're at Israel's Supreme Court in the awesome presence of one of Israel's "most experienced judges," Justice Dalia Dorner, right?
As Fred tells it: "During her presentation, one of the first things she mentioned was Australia's rejection of Jewish refugees prior to World War II."
Jewish refugees? Remember this is Zionist aristocracy speaking, the representative of a movement that in the 30s and 40s was only interested in importing the right kind of Jews into Palestine, the kind who would later go on to create their own non-Jewish refugees in 1948.
And here's Fred, whose Islamophobic Christian Democrats call for a "moratorium on Islamic [sic] immigration... while monitoring the willingness of the existing Islamic community to abandon support for terrorism...," so overcome with guilt that he tells us: "[E]ven though I was not the delegation leader, I did in my remarks apologise for that rejection - hopefully it will never occur again."
I reckon Justice Dorner's still dining out on that one.
Like his colleague Rick Colless, who thought the Israeli colonization of the West Bank was a process of "Palestinian people," "Muslim people," and "Jewish people" all "work[ing] together towards a peaceful solution," when it comes to the settlements Fred can see naught but peace and light:
"We visited [the] remarkable Israeli town of Efrat, in the region of Gush Etzion. We were beriefed by the energetic mayor... Oded Revevi, concerning the remarkable progress by the citizens of Efrat... What impressed me was the way that Jewish families are working in harmony with their Arab neighbours, who farm land right on the borders of Efrat and even within the town council boundaries - without any conflict or violence, but in a peaceful manner."
Apparently, no one told him that those same Arab "neighbours" are currently involved in trying to fend off yet another Israeli land grab in Israel's High Court of Justice.**
Finally, lest the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies (listening in with rapt attention, in the form of its omnipresent CEO Vic Alhadeff, to the 'debate') be accused of not lining up a few Arab locals for our 'study' tourists to chat with, Fred cites two.
Although he describes Issa Jaber Abu Ghosh as a "Palestinian leader in [his] own village" of Abu Ghosh, it should be pointed out that he's actually an Israeli citizen and that Abu Ghosh, near Jerusalem, is in Israel (im)proper.
Typically, Fred doesn't refer to the content of Abu Ghosh's "briefing," except to describe it as "quite remarkable." (Still, if you're interested, you can check out a Radio National interview*** Abu Ghosh did with Rachael Kohn in 2008, where he's grandly described as "Chairman of the Interreligious Co-ordinating Council in Israel," and one who "takes his role very seriously as a promoter of peace and inter-religious co-operation.") Suffice it to say that the village of Abu Ghosh, which has a history of collaboration with the Zionist movement dating back to 1912****, was one of only 3 Palestinian villages to survive the Zionist ethnic cleansing of central Palestine in 1948. Any wonder then that Fred found the man "quite remarkable"?
The other Arab local was "Arabic Christian pastor Steven Khoury of the Arabic Calvary Church," whose presentation Fred describes as "very interesting." Just how "interesting" becomes apparent when you read, in a September 25, 2009 article in Israel's Haaretz newspaper, that Khoury - and here my flabber is well and truly gasted - is a PALESTINIAN CHRISTIAN ZIONIST who believes that "it's the job of the Jews to return to the land and convert to Christianity, while it's the job of Christians to help bring that about."*****
There you go. Just when you'd thought you'd heard it all with Khaled Abu Toameh being a Zionist and all, now you've discovered a Palestinian Christian Zionist. Top that!
Next in the Doing the Donkey in the NSW Knesset series: Walt (I get around) Secord, MLC.
[*See my 2/3/13 post Doing the Donkey; **See Palestinians argue in court against Efrat expansion, Tovah Lazaroff, Jerusalem Post, 14/3/13;***The Spirit of Things, 22/6/08; ****Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948, Hillel Cohen, 2008, p 78; *****Bible politics and Palestinian Zionists, Tristan Sturm]
Monday, November 28, 2011
Fine & Danby
Federal Labor's Minister for Israel, Michael Danby MP, seems to be winning a few hearts lately:
1) "But the best speech on Afghanistan this week came from Labor's Michael Danby, the chairman of parliament's foreign affairs committee. Danby is a true Australian cosmopolitan, with the widest range of foreign policy interests of anyone on the backbench on either side of parliament. He profoundly supports Australia's Afghanistan commitment and I think he is mistaken to do so. But Danby also has a George Orwell-like willingness to face difficult and unpleasant facts." (Denying a deadly dividend, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 26/11/11)
A true Australian cosmopolitan, with the widest range of foreign policy interests of anyone on the backbench?
Oh, really? Why O why is Greg hiding Michael's Light Unto the Nations under a bushel? The plain fact of the matter is that there's really only one foreign policy interest that really gets Danby's juices going. The rest is just window-dressing:
"[Danby] corrals his parliamentary colleagues and forces them to think long, hard and seriously about matters that often conjure knee-jerk reactions. 'During a recent political controversy [MERC: Gaza?], we had 11 federal MPs get together on an Israel issue. Mike Kelly [MP] convened them and I organised with the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), who had a delegation up there, to sit down with us and we strategised together', Danby said."*
As for that alleged George Orwell-like willingness to face difficult and unpleasant facts, here's Danby 'facing' the fact that his god has failed:
"The boycott [Israel] campaign... is a tactic designed by extremist organisations such as Hamas to mask the strategy of the 'one state solution', a single state between Jordan and the Mediterranean. This would lead to the destruction of the independent Jewish state of Israel. Any Israeli Jews who are not killed, who did not flee for their lives, would be left as a benighted minority (the Arab word for which is 'Dhimmis') in a Hamas-ruled theocratic state."**
Now what might the anti-Zionist George Orwell say about the above? Why, this of course:
"It is difficult if not impossible for any nationalist to conceal his allegiance. The smallest slur upon his own unit... fills him with uneasiness which he can relieve only by making some sharp retort." (Notes on Nationalism, 1945)
2) "Amid all the rancor of that final sitting week, Labor's Michael Danby introduced to the House of Representatives a motion that highlighted the best in public debate. He called on Parliament to recognise each July 11 as Srebrenica Remembrance Day, as a reminder of the evil that led to the genocide of more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys at the hands of the rebel Serb forces of Ratko Mladic in Bosnia in 1995. It was, Danby said, 'what the Russians would call an act of pamyat - memory." (Rising from the mire, Paul Daley, The Sun-Herald, 27/11/11)
Srebrenica Remembrance Day? OK, I get it! Israeli massacres of Palestinians, Lebanese, and others, dating from the 1930s through to the present, become a bit of a blur after a while, so done and dusted Srebrenica it is. Brilliant move! As Orwell would have said (and did): "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." (Notes on Nationalism, 1945)
Ah, but is there more to Danby's 'cosmopolitanism' than meets the eye? I know I'm a cynical bastard at the best of times, but could it have something to do with this?:
"How does it come about that whether the Palestinian application for statehood will be put to a vote at all, or will simply be rejected, depends on Bosnia and Herzegovina, one of the Security Council's non-permanent members? Nine out of 15 votes are needed to win full membership of the UN as a sovereign state, and Palestine has secured 8 so far: those of South Africa, India, Brazil, Lebanon, China, Russia, Nigeria and Gabon. The 9th vote should come from Portugal, Colombia or Bosnia. Portugal will most probably follow the advice of EU headquarters and vote against it. President Abbas personally went to Bogota to lobby for the Colombian vote, but was told that Colombia is too dependent on American aid. So only Sarajevo is left to receive Palestine's last efforts to secure a yes vote, as well as Israeli and American efforts to persuade Bosnia to join those SC members rejecting the proposal or abstaining from the vote." (The importance of Bosnia on Palestine's path to the UN, Hajrudin Somun, Today's Zaman, 29/11/11)
But could a Srebrenica Remembrance Day be taking the irony a little too far?:
"The 3 members of the Bosnian presidency act as 3 heads of state... Each... must support a decision in order for the country's representaive to the SC to vote for the Palestinian petition. Otherwise the Bosnian delegation must abstain... Bakir Izetbegovic, representinting Bosniaks in the presidency, expressed his unreserved support for the Palestinian's legitimate quest for UN membership... The Croat member of the presidency, Zeljko Comsic, generally supports Palestine... The Serb representative, Nebojsa Radmanovic, however, strongly opposes the Palestinian quest for statehood..." (ibid)
But there's more: "Radmanovic... denies that he is pro-Israeli, but how can the fact that he and Milorad Dodik, president of the Bosnian entity Republika Srpska, hosted Avigdor Lieberman when he spent a few days on vacation in Bosnia and Herzegovina last summer be interpreted otherwise? Israel has also promised to invest in the Serb entity." (ibid)
And more: "This attitude on the part of Bosnian Serb leaders has other roots as well: They... regard the whole 'Palestinian cause' as an Islamic one..." (ibid)
So, let's pull all this together: Australia's Minister for Israel is proposing a memorial to Bosnian Muslims massacred by Bosnian Serbs, who are lining up with Israel to block Palestinian statehood, which is supported by Bosnian Muslims.
Surely it's just a coincidence! There couldn't possibly be any connection between these two phenomena. To suggest otherwise would be way too cynical, even for me.
What do you reckon, George?
[*A decade of Danby, Peter Kohn & Naomi Levin, The Australian Jewish News, 27/2/09;**Knowing the truth will scare voters, The Australian, 2/4/11]
1) "But the best speech on Afghanistan this week came from Labor's Michael Danby, the chairman of parliament's foreign affairs committee. Danby is a true Australian cosmopolitan, with the widest range of foreign policy interests of anyone on the backbench on either side of parliament. He profoundly supports Australia's Afghanistan commitment and I think he is mistaken to do so. But Danby also has a George Orwell-like willingness to face difficult and unpleasant facts." (Denying a deadly dividend, Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 26/11/11)
A true Australian cosmopolitan, with the widest range of foreign policy interests of anyone on the backbench?
Oh, really? Why O why is Greg hiding Michael's Light Unto the Nations under a bushel? The plain fact of the matter is that there's really only one foreign policy interest that really gets Danby's juices going. The rest is just window-dressing:
"[Danby] corrals his parliamentary colleagues and forces them to think long, hard and seriously about matters that often conjure knee-jerk reactions. 'During a recent political controversy [MERC: Gaza?], we had 11 federal MPs get together on an Israel issue. Mike Kelly [MP] convened them and I organised with the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), who had a delegation up there, to sit down with us and we strategised together', Danby said."*
As for that alleged George Orwell-like willingness to face difficult and unpleasant facts, here's Danby 'facing' the fact that his god has failed:
"The boycott [Israel] campaign... is a tactic designed by extremist organisations such as Hamas to mask the strategy of the 'one state solution', a single state between Jordan and the Mediterranean. This would lead to the destruction of the independent Jewish state of Israel. Any Israeli Jews who are not killed, who did not flee for their lives, would be left as a benighted minority (the Arab word for which is 'Dhimmis') in a Hamas-ruled theocratic state."**
Now what might the anti-Zionist George Orwell say about the above? Why, this of course:
"It is difficult if not impossible for any nationalist to conceal his allegiance. The smallest slur upon his own unit... fills him with uneasiness which he can relieve only by making some sharp retort." (Notes on Nationalism, 1945)
2) "Amid all the rancor of that final sitting week, Labor's Michael Danby introduced to the House of Representatives a motion that highlighted the best in public debate. He called on Parliament to recognise each July 11 as Srebrenica Remembrance Day, as a reminder of the evil that led to the genocide of more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys at the hands of the rebel Serb forces of Ratko Mladic in Bosnia in 1995. It was, Danby said, 'what the Russians would call an act of pamyat - memory." (Rising from the mire, Paul Daley, The Sun-Herald, 27/11/11)
Srebrenica Remembrance Day? OK, I get it! Israeli massacres of Palestinians, Lebanese, and others, dating from the 1930s through to the present, become a bit of a blur after a while, so done and dusted Srebrenica it is. Brilliant move! As Orwell would have said (and did): "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." (Notes on Nationalism, 1945)
Ah, but is there more to Danby's 'cosmopolitanism' than meets the eye? I know I'm a cynical bastard at the best of times, but could it have something to do with this?:
"How does it come about that whether the Palestinian application for statehood will be put to a vote at all, or will simply be rejected, depends on Bosnia and Herzegovina, one of the Security Council's non-permanent members? Nine out of 15 votes are needed to win full membership of the UN as a sovereign state, and Palestine has secured 8 so far: those of South Africa, India, Brazil, Lebanon, China, Russia, Nigeria and Gabon. The 9th vote should come from Portugal, Colombia or Bosnia. Portugal will most probably follow the advice of EU headquarters and vote against it. President Abbas personally went to Bogota to lobby for the Colombian vote, but was told that Colombia is too dependent on American aid. So only Sarajevo is left to receive Palestine's last efforts to secure a yes vote, as well as Israeli and American efforts to persuade Bosnia to join those SC members rejecting the proposal or abstaining from the vote." (The importance of Bosnia on Palestine's path to the UN, Hajrudin Somun, Today's Zaman, 29/11/11)
But could a Srebrenica Remembrance Day be taking the irony a little too far?:
"The 3 members of the Bosnian presidency act as 3 heads of state... Each... must support a decision in order for the country's representaive to the SC to vote for the Palestinian petition. Otherwise the Bosnian delegation must abstain... Bakir Izetbegovic, representinting Bosniaks in the presidency, expressed his unreserved support for the Palestinian's legitimate quest for UN membership... The Croat member of the presidency, Zeljko Comsic, generally supports Palestine... The Serb representative, Nebojsa Radmanovic, however, strongly opposes the Palestinian quest for statehood..." (ibid)
But there's more: "Radmanovic... denies that he is pro-Israeli, but how can the fact that he and Milorad Dodik, president of the Bosnian entity Republika Srpska, hosted Avigdor Lieberman when he spent a few days on vacation in Bosnia and Herzegovina last summer be interpreted otherwise? Israel has also promised to invest in the Serb entity." (ibid)
And more: "This attitude on the part of Bosnian Serb leaders has other roots as well: They... regard the whole 'Palestinian cause' as an Islamic one..." (ibid)
So, let's pull all this together: Australia's Minister for Israel is proposing a memorial to Bosnian Muslims massacred by Bosnian Serbs, who are lining up with Israel to block Palestinian statehood, which is supported by Bosnian Muslims.
Surely it's just a coincidence! There couldn't possibly be any connection between these two phenomena. To suggest otherwise would be way too cynical, even for me.
What do you reckon, George?
[*A decade of Danby, Peter Kohn & Naomi Levin, The Australian Jewish News, 27/2/09;**Knowing the truth will scare voters, The Australian, 2/4/11]
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Spot the Logic
The Sydney Morning Herald's latest editorial (Palestine: back to square one, 26/9/11)) on the Palestinian Authority's bid for UN recognition of a Palestinian state waffles its way to the following non sequitur:
"[Reopened Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations] are worth a try. Otherwise everybody stands to lose":-
"Barack Obama... risks alienating the forces of democratic change in the Middle East..."
"Israel... risks becoming even more isolated within its region."
"Abbas... endangers crucial US financial support."
Therefore:
"If the Palestinian issue does come to a vote in the UN General Assembly, we should abstain."
So, if US politics is so dysfunctional that the Israel lobby has Obama by the balls and your forces of democratic change in the Middle East are only too aware of this; and Israel is a serial abuser of the Palestinians and others in the region, such that no self-respecting Arab would want anything to do with it; and US Congresspersons would happily club baby seals to death, let alone cut off PA funding, if the Israel lobby demanded it of them, then we - who never tire of mouthing two-state rhetoric - should abstain.
Classic Herald cluelessness!
The relevant letters in the same issue, apart from those written by the usual suspects, are a different matter entirely. I particularly liked this one from John Little of Cronulla:
"I was born in 1950 and have lived through massive change in world power balance, war, conflict, conflict resolution, reconciliation, economic development and huge improvement in the lives of billions of ordinary people.
"Crises have come and gone. Natural disasters happen, then things get better. Disputes that once looked intractable fade into nothing... just grainy old newsreels as the cities and people they once blighted now thrive and prosper. Steady, steady progress.
"The world moves on and fresh flowers bloom. New chapters are written and wonderful, exciting challenges summon the genius of the young generation to respond.
"Then there is Palestine."
"[Reopened Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations] are worth a try. Otherwise everybody stands to lose":-
"Barack Obama... risks alienating the forces of democratic change in the Middle East..."
"Israel... risks becoming even more isolated within its region."
"Abbas... endangers crucial US financial support."
Therefore:
"If the Palestinian issue does come to a vote in the UN General Assembly, we should abstain."
So, if US politics is so dysfunctional that the Israel lobby has Obama by the balls and your forces of democratic change in the Middle East are only too aware of this; and Israel is a serial abuser of the Palestinians and others in the region, such that no self-respecting Arab would want anything to do with it; and US Congresspersons would happily club baby seals to death, let alone cut off PA funding, if the Israel lobby demanded it of them, then we - who never tire of mouthing two-state rhetoric - should abstain.
Classic Herald cluelessness!
The relevant letters in the same issue, apart from those written by the usual suspects, are a different matter entirely. I particularly liked this one from John Little of Cronulla:
"I was born in 1950 and have lived through massive change in world power balance, war, conflict, conflict resolution, reconciliation, economic development and huge improvement in the lives of billions of ordinary people.
"Crises have come and gone. Natural disasters happen, then things get better. Disputes that once looked intractable fade into nothing... just grainy old newsreels as the cities and people they once blighted now thrive and prosper. Steady, steady progress.
"The world moves on and fresh flowers bloom. New chapters are written and wonderful, exciting challenges summon the genius of the young generation to respond.
"Then there is Palestine."
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Arm-Twisting for Israel
Well I never! The World's Greatest Democracy is stooping to bully and threaten other nations on Israel's behalf:
"Abbas is said to have agreed [to renewed peace negotiations] after several Security Council members who had committed themselves to support the Palestinians reneged after being pressured by Washington. Early in the week Palestinian officials told reporters they had the support of 9 countries. But on Thursday they said Portugal had succumbed to US threats to withhold support in financial institutions for its stricken economy, and Bosnia to a move to block Kosovo's admission to the UN. Nigeria, Gabon and Columbia were all said to be under unspecified pressure." (Reneging nations tarnish Abbas 'coup', Paul McGeough, Sydney Morning Herald, 24/9/11)
This should come as no surprise, however, given that it was precisely such US arm-twisting and threats that ensured the passage of the UN resolution partitioning Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state in 1947, and gave Zionist forces the legal cover they needed to ethnically cleanse Palestine the year after. For the gory details, see my posts The Israeli Occupation of Federal Parliament 3 (14/3/08); Talking Turkey on the Two-State Solution (11/11/08); Now Honestly... (25/6/09).
"Abbas is said to have agreed [to renewed peace negotiations] after several Security Council members who had committed themselves to support the Palestinians reneged after being pressured by Washington. Early in the week Palestinian officials told reporters they had the support of 9 countries. But on Thursday they said Portugal had succumbed to US threats to withhold support in financial institutions for its stricken economy, and Bosnia to a move to block Kosovo's admission to the UN. Nigeria, Gabon and Columbia were all said to be under unspecified pressure." (Reneging nations tarnish Abbas 'coup', Paul McGeough, Sydney Morning Herald, 24/9/11)
This should come as no surprise, however, given that it was precisely such US arm-twisting and threats that ensured the passage of the UN resolution partitioning Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state in 1947, and gave Zionist forces the legal cover they needed to ethnically cleanse Palestine the year after. For the gory details, see my posts The Israeli Occupation of Federal Parliament 3 (14/3/08); Talking Turkey on the Two-State Solution (11/11/08); Now Honestly... (25/6/09).
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Israel's Win-Win at the UN
Palestinian-American academic Joseph Massad's essay, State of recognition (english.aljazeera.net, 15/9/11), is one of the best I've read on the Palestinian Authority's current bid for statehood through the UN.
He believes that whether the UN recognises a nominally PA-controlled but still Israeli-occupied Palestinian statelet or not, "either outcome will be in the interest of Israel."
Massad reminds us of the PA's dubious motives: "The ongoing Arab uprisings have raised Palestinian expectations about the necessity of ending the occupation and have challenged the modus vivendi the PA has with Israel. Furthermore, with the increase in Palestinian grassroots activism to resist the Israeli occupation, the PA has decided to shift the Palestinian struggle from popular mobilisation it will not be able to control, and which it fears could topple it, to the international legal arena. The PA hopes that this shift from the popular to the juridical will demobilise Palestinian political energies and displace them onto an arena that is less threatening to the survival of the PA itself."*
According to Massad, while the PA hopes statehood will better enable it to "challenge Israel internationally using legal instruments only available to member states to force it to grant 'independence'," the US would always use its Security Council veto to shield Israel from such challenges, something it has already done 41 times.
Moreover, Massad also believes that any new powers wielded by a PA-controlled, Israeli-occupied, UN-recognised 'Palestine' would come at an "enormous cost to the Palestinian people." He lists the negative implications of a successful UN vote as:
"(1) The PLO will cease to represent the Palestinian people at the UN, and the PA will replace it as their presumed state.
"(2) The PLO, which represents all Palestinians (about 12 million people in historic Palestine and in the diaspora), and was recognised as their sole representative at the UN in 1974, will be truncated to the PA, which represents only West Bank Palestinians (about 2 million people). Incidentally, this was the vision presented by the infamous Geneva Accords that went nowhere.
"(3) It will politically weaken Palestinian refugees' right to return to their homes and be compensated, as stipulated in UN resolutions. The PA does not represent the refugees, even though it claims to represent their 'hopes' of establishing a Palestinian state at their expense. Indeed, some international legal experts fear it could even abrogate the Palestinian right of return altogether. It will also forfeit the rights of Palestinian citizens living in Israel who face institutional and legal racism in the Israeli state, as it presents them with a fait accompli of the existence of the Palestinian state (its phantasmatic nature not withstanding). This will only give credence to Israeli claims that the Jews have a state and the Palestinians now have one too and if Palestinians citizens of Israel were unhappy, or even if they were happy, with their third-class status in Israel, they should move or can be forced to move to the Palestinian state at any rate.
"(4) Israel could ostensibly come around soon after a UN vote in favour of Palestinian statehood and inform the PA that the territories it now controls (a small fraction of the West Bank) is all the territory Israel will concede and that this will be the territorial basis of the Palestinian state. The Israelis do not tire of reminding the PA that the Palestinians will not have sovereignty, an army, control of their borders, control of their water resources, control over the number of refugees it could allow back, or even jurisdiction over Jewish colonial settlers. Indeed, the Israelis have already obtained UN assurances about their right to 'defend themselves' and to preserve their security with whatever means they think are necessary to achieve these goals. In short, the PA will have the exact same Bantustan state that Israel and the US have been promising to grant it for two decades!.
"(5) The US and Israel could also, through their many allies, inject a language of 'compromise' in the projected UN recognition of the PA state, stipulating that such a state must exist peacefully side by side with the 'Jewish State' of Israel. This would in turn exact a precious UN recognition of Israel's 'right' to be a Jewish state, which the UN and the international community, the US excepted, have refused to recognize thus far. This will directly link the UN recognition of a phantasmatic non-existent Palestinian state to UN recognition of an actually existing state of Israel that discriminatews legally and institutionally against non-Jews as a 'Jewish state'.
"(6) The US and Israel will insist after a positive vote that, while the PA is right to make certain political demands as a member state, it would have to abrogate its recent reconciliation agreement with Hamas. Additionally, sanctions could befall the PA state itself for associating with Hamas, which the US and Israel consider a terrorist group. The US Congress has already threatened to punish the PA and will not hesitate to urge the Obama administration to add Palestine to its list of 'State Sponsors of Terrorism' along with Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria."
All that will advance Israeli interests, says Massad, but so too will "a US veto, and/or the ability of the US to pressure and twist the arms of tens of countries around the world to reject the bid of the PA in the General Assembly, resulting in failure to recognise PA statehood." This will mean a return to "the unending 'peace process'," during which a stroppier US "will continue to push for PA and Arab recognition of Israel as a 'Jewish state' that has the right to discriminate by law against non-Jews in exchange for an ever-deferred recognition of a Palestinian Bantustan as an 'economically viable' Palestinian state - a place where Palestinian neoliberal businessmen can make profits off international aid and investment."
Massad concludes that "either outcome will keep the Palestinian people colonised, discriminated against, oppressed, and exiled. This entire brouhaha over the UN vote is ultimately about which of the two scenarios is better for Israeli interests."
[*"Israel has given approval for the PA to equip its security forces with riot-control gear, such as tear gas grenades and rubber bullets. The PA has approached Israeli firms to buy such equipment in advance of expected demonstrations on the West Bank around the Palestinian's request for UN recognition as an independent state." (Israel okays acquisition of anti-riot gear ahead of UN vote, Amos Harel, Haaretz, 15/9/11)]
He believes that whether the UN recognises a nominally PA-controlled but still Israeli-occupied Palestinian statelet or not, "either outcome will be in the interest of Israel."
Massad reminds us of the PA's dubious motives: "The ongoing Arab uprisings have raised Palestinian expectations about the necessity of ending the occupation and have challenged the modus vivendi the PA has with Israel. Furthermore, with the increase in Palestinian grassroots activism to resist the Israeli occupation, the PA has decided to shift the Palestinian struggle from popular mobilisation it will not be able to control, and which it fears could topple it, to the international legal arena. The PA hopes that this shift from the popular to the juridical will demobilise Palestinian political energies and displace them onto an arena that is less threatening to the survival of the PA itself."*
According to Massad, while the PA hopes statehood will better enable it to "challenge Israel internationally using legal instruments only available to member states to force it to grant 'independence'," the US would always use its Security Council veto to shield Israel from such challenges, something it has already done 41 times.
Moreover, Massad also believes that any new powers wielded by a PA-controlled, Israeli-occupied, UN-recognised 'Palestine' would come at an "enormous cost to the Palestinian people." He lists the negative implications of a successful UN vote as:
"(1) The PLO will cease to represent the Palestinian people at the UN, and the PA will replace it as their presumed state.
"(2) The PLO, which represents all Palestinians (about 12 million people in historic Palestine and in the diaspora), and was recognised as their sole representative at the UN in 1974, will be truncated to the PA, which represents only West Bank Palestinians (about 2 million people). Incidentally, this was the vision presented by the infamous Geneva Accords that went nowhere.
"(3) It will politically weaken Palestinian refugees' right to return to their homes and be compensated, as stipulated in UN resolutions. The PA does not represent the refugees, even though it claims to represent their 'hopes' of establishing a Palestinian state at their expense. Indeed, some international legal experts fear it could even abrogate the Palestinian right of return altogether. It will also forfeit the rights of Palestinian citizens living in Israel who face institutional and legal racism in the Israeli state, as it presents them with a fait accompli of the existence of the Palestinian state (its phantasmatic nature not withstanding). This will only give credence to Israeli claims that the Jews have a state and the Palestinians now have one too and if Palestinians citizens of Israel were unhappy, or even if they were happy, with their third-class status in Israel, they should move or can be forced to move to the Palestinian state at any rate.
"(4) Israel could ostensibly come around soon after a UN vote in favour of Palestinian statehood and inform the PA that the territories it now controls (a small fraction of the West Bank) is all the territory Israel will concede and that this will be the territorial basis of the Palestinian state. The Israelis do not tire of reminding the PA that the Palestinians will not have sovereignty, an army, control of their borders, control of their water resources, control over the number of refugees it could allow back, or even jurisdiction over Jewish colonial settlers. Indeed, the Israelis have already obtained UN assurances about their right to 'defend themselves' and to preserve their security with whatever means they think are necessary to achieve these goals. In short, the PA will have the exact same Bantustan state that Israel and the US have been promising to grant it for two decades!.
"(5) The US and Israel could also, through their many allies, inject a language of 'compromise' in the projected UN recognition of the PA state, stipulating that such a state must exist peacefully side by side with the 'Jewish State' of Israel. This would in turn exact a precious UN recognition of Israel's 'right' to be a Jewish state, which the UN and the international community, the US excepted, have refused to recognize thus far. This will directly link the UN recognition of a phantasmatic non-existent Palestinian state to UN recognition of an actually existing state of Israel that discriminatews legally and institutionally against non-Jews as a 'Jewish state'.
"(6) The US and Israel will insist after a positive vote that, while the PA is right to make certain political demands as a member state, it would have to abrogate its recent reconciliation agreement with Hamas. Additionally, sanctions could befall the PA state itself for associating with Hamas, which the US and Israel consider a terrorist group. The US Congress has already threatened to punish the PA and will not hesitate to urge the Obama administration to add Palestine to its list of 'State Sponsors of Terrorism' along with Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria."
All that will advance Israeli interests, says Massad, but so too will "a US veto, and/or the ability of the US to pressure and twist the arms of tens of countries around the world to reject the bid of the PA in the General Assembly, resulting in failure to recognise PA statehood." This will mean a return to "the unending 'peace process'," during which a stroppier US "will continue to push for PA and Arab recognition of Israel as a 'Jewish state' that has the right to discriminate by law against non-Jews in exchange for an ever-deferred recognition of a Palestinian Bantustan as an 'economically viable' Palestinian state - a place where Palestinian neoliberal businessmen can make profits off international aid and investment."
Massad concludes that "either outcome will keep the Palestinian people colonised, discriminated against, oppressed, and exiled. This entire brouhaha over the UN vote is ultimately about which of the two scenarios is better for Israeli interests."
[*"Israel has given approval for the PA to equip its security forces with riot-control gear, such as tear gas grenades and rubber bullets. The PA has approached Israeli firms to buy such equipment in advance of expected demonstrations on the West Bank around the Palestinian's request for UN recognition as an independent state." (Israel okays acquisition of anti-riot gear ahead of UN vote, Amos Harel, Haaretz, 15/9/11)]
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
The Palfour Declaration
Here's the Palestinian 'President' Mahmoud Abbas' version of 'the vision thing' in the lead-up to the Palestinian Authority's bid to seek UN membership for a Palestinian state later this month:
"We don't want to isolate Israel but to live with it in peace and security. We don't want to delegitimize Israel. We want to legitimize ourselves. We have good coordination [with Israel] to prevent terror and keep the situation calm and quiet. We will continue to do our job. Security will prevail as long as I'm in office." (Abbas affirms Palestinian bid for UN membership, Ethan Bronner, nytimes.com, 5/9/11)
Yet as inspiring as Abbas' vision thingy is, I think the Palestinians could do better. Heaps better. So, in the spirit of 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander', and drawing on precedent, here's the text I think the Palestinians should be taking to the UN:
'The United Nations view with favour the establishment in Israel of a national home for the Palestinian people, and will use its best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing Jewish communities in Israel, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.'
Way to go!
"We don't want to isolate Israel but to live with it in peace and security. We don't want to delegitimize Israel. We want to legitimize ourselves. We have good coordination [with Israel] to prevent terror and keep the situation calm and quiet. We will continue to do our job. Security will prevail as long as I'm in office." (Abbas affirms Palestinian bid for UN membership, Ethan Bronner, nytimes.com, 5/9/11)
Yet as inspiring as Abbas' vision thingy is, I think the Palestinians could do better. Heaps better. So, in the spirit of 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander', and drawing on precedent, here's the text I think the Palestinians should be taking to the UN:
'The United Nations view with favour the establishment in Israel of a national home for the Palestinian people, and will use its best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing Jewish communities in Israel, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.'
Way to go!
Sunday, February 20, 2011
No, We Can't
As if further proof were needed that Israel and its US fifth column call the shots when it comes to US policy in the Middle East, here's the latest:
The Palestinians had a draft resolution, sponsored by 122 nations, ready to go before the United Nations Security Council. It consciously embodied long-standing US policy condemning Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The US had a choice when it came to the vote: vote for a resolution which did no more than reiterate its own policy on the issue, or veto it regardless.
Obama, mindful that a US veto would further undermine the US's increasingly shaky hold on the Arab world and make him a universal laughing stock, had to act.
So he got on the blower and persuaded/browbeat/begged (who knows?) his client, Palestinian 'president' Abbas, into blocking his own resolution.
Why? Because Obama knew that the Israel lobby would not for a moment hesitate to deploy its power and resources in order to consign him to history's dustbin. (See Bullying the Palestinians, MJ Rosenberg, english.aljazeera.net, 18/2/11)
The Israel lobby is no ordinary organization. To truly understand what it is Obama is up against, consider the following from James Petras' Rulers & Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists, Militants (2007):
"For the first time in the history of world empires, a tiny ethnic-religious minority representing less than 2% of the population is able to shape US policy in the Middle East to serve the colonial interests of a foreign country (Israel), which represents less than 1% of the population of the Middle East. And indeed, within Israel itself, given the occasional polls indicating Jewish Israeli preference for peace over maintenance of settler colonies, that number shrinks even further. The Zionist power configuration (ZPC) in the US, with several hundred thousand fanatical activists throughout the country, can mobilize close to 98% of the US Congress on any legislation favoring Israel, even when their approval prejudices the interests of major US oil multinationals. AIPAC (the America-Israel Political Affairs Committee), with 100,000 members and 100 full time agents writes over 100 pieces of congressional legislation affecting US trade, military aid, and sanctions policies favoring Israel every year. In March 2007, the leaders of both political parties, Congess and the Senate, and over 50% of all members of the Congress attended and pledged allegiance to the state of Israel at the most recent AIPAC convention in Washington. This was despite the fact that two leaders of AIPAC are currently on trial for spying for Israel and face 20 years in prison!
"The ZPC includes far more than the AIPAC 'lobby'. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Zionists controlled the Vice President's office, including convicted felon Irving 'Scooter' Libby, the Pentagon and its 'intelligence' operations (Wolfowitz, Zakheim, Feith and Shulsky), and held strategic positions in the White House and National Security Council (NSC) (Frum - author of Bush's Axis of Evil speech, Abrams - pardoned felon from the Iran-Contra scandal, now in charge of Middle East policy, and Ari Fleischer - President Bush's spokesman). Zionists dominate the editorial and opinion pages of the major newspapers (Wall Street Journal, Washington Post & New York Times), major television networks and Hollywood. Hundreds of regional, state and local Jewish federations intervene to prevent any criticism of Israel, attacking any critics, meetings, theatrical or cinema productions and successfully forcing cancellations.
"The Zionist power structure has been the leading force pushing US war plans and sanctions against Iran. They backed Bush's invasion of Iraq. The ZPC secured US backing for Israel's bloody attack on Lebanon, no matter that it weakened the successfully installed US puppet ruler, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. The ZPC authored and secured congressional legislation blocking any contact with the Palestinian unity government. They successfully lined up US congressional support for Israel's starvation blockade of Palestine, put in place to try to roll back the democratic election of Hamas, and to punish the Palestinians for it. The scope and depth of Zionist power over US Middle East policy goes far beyond influencing 'public opinion' (the major media expression of which it has largely locked up) - it penetrates key institutions, designs and enforces policy implementation, and promotes wars which benefit Israel.
"In a word, the ZPC's primary loyalty is to the state of Israel and its policy is designed to colonize the US Congress on behalf and to the benefit of the 'mother country', Israel." (pp 131-132)
Update: The Palestinians ended up insisting that the draft resolution go to a vote on 18 February. Unsurprisingly, despite the backing of the other 14 SC members, the resolution was vetoed by the US. Of 14 SC votes vetoed by one of the 5 permanent members of the council (Britain, China, France, Russia and the US) since 2000, 10 have been US vetoes, 9 in defence of Israel. (See US vetoes UN draft condemning Israeli settlements, af.reuters.com, 18/2/11)
The Palestinians had a draft resolution, sponsored by 122 nations, ready to go before the United Nations Security Council. It consciously embodied long-standing US policy condemning Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The US had a choice when it came to the vote: vote for a resolution which did no more than reiterate its own policy on the issue, or veto it regardless.
Obama, mindful that a US veto would further undermine the US's increasingly shaky hold on the Arab world and make him a universal laughing stock, had to act.
So he got on the blower and persuaded/browbeat/begged (who knows?) his client, Palestinian 'president' Abbas, into blocking his own resolution.
Why? Because Obama knew that the Israel lobby would not for a moment hesitate to deploy its power and resources in order to consign him to history's dustbin. (See Bullying the Palestinians, MJ Rosenberg, english.aljazeera.net, 18/2/11)
The Israel lobby is no ordinary organization. To truly understand what it is Obama is up against, consider the following from James Petras' Rulers & Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists, Militants (2007):
"For the first time in the history of world empires, a tiny ethnic-religious minority representing less than 2% of the population is able to shape US policy in the Middle East to serve the colonial interests of a foreign country (Israel), which represents less than 1% of the population of the Middle East. And indeed, within Israel itself, given the occasional polls indicating Jewish Israeli preference for peace over maintenance of settler colonies, that number shrinks even further. The Zionist power configuration (ZPC) in the US, with several hundred thousand fanatical activists throughout the country, can mobilize close to 98% of the US Congress on any legislation favoring Israel, even when their approval prejudices the interests of major US oil multinationals. AIPAC (the America-Israel Political Affairs Committee), with 100,000 members and 100 full time agents writes over 100 pieces of congressional legislation affecting US trade, military aid, and sanctions policies favoring Israel every year. In March 2007, the leaders of both political parties, Congess and the Senate, and over 50% of all members of the Congress attended and pledged allegiance to the state of Israel at the most recent AIPAC convention in Washington. This was despite the fact that two leaders of AIPAC are currently on trial for spying for Israel and face 20 years in prison!
"The ZPC includes far more than the AIPAC 'lobby'. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Zionists controlled the Vice President's office, including convicted felon Irving 'Scooter' Libby, the Pentagon and its 'intelligence' operations (Wolfowitz, Zakheim, Feith and Shulsky), and held strategic positions in the White House and National Security Council (NSC) (Frum - author of Bush's Axis of Evil speech, Abrams - pardoned felon from the Iran-Contra scandal, now in charge of Middle East policy, and Ari Fleischer - President Bush's spokesman). Zionists dominate the editorial and opinion pages of the major newspapers (Wall Street Journal, Washington Post & New York Times), major television networks and Hollywood. Hundreds of regional, state and local Jewish federations intervene to prevent any criticism of Israel, attacking any critics, meetings, theatrical or cinema productions and successfully forcing cancellations.
"The Zionist power structure has been the leading force pushing US war plans and sanctions against Iran. They backed Bush's invasion of Iraq. The ZPC secured US backing for Israel's bloody attack on Lebanon, no matter that it weakened the successfully installed US puppet ruler, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. The ZPC authored and secured congressional legislation blocking any contact with the Palestinian unity government. They successfully lined up US congressional support for Israel's starvation blockade of Palestine, put in place to try to roll back the democratic election of Hamas, and to punish the Palestinians for it. The scope and depth of Zionist power over US Middle East policy goes far beyond influencing 'public opinion' (the major media expression of which it has largely locked up) - it penetrates key institutions, designs and enforces policy implementation, and promotes wars which benefit Israel.
"In a word, the ZPC's primary loyalty is to the state of Israel and its policy is designed to colonize the US Congress on behalf and to the benefit of the 'mother country', Israel." (pp 131-132)
Update: The Palestinians ended up insisting that the draft resolution go to a vote on 18 February. Unsurprisingly, despite the backing of the other 14 SC members, the resolution was vetoed by the US. Of 14 SC votes vetoed by one of the 5 permanent members of the council (Britain, China, France, Russia and the US) since 2000, 10 have been US vetoes, 9 in defence of Israel. (See US vetoes UN draft condemning Israeli settlements, af.reuters.com, 18/2/11)
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Taken for a Ride on the Peace (Process) Train
"Official sources in Palestine have reported that the Chief Negotiator for the Palestinian Authority [Dr Saeb Erekat] has resigned from his post... The reason for the resignation, claims the Maan News Agency, are the leaks of what are now called 'The Palestine Papers' published by Al-Jazeera satellite television and Britain's Guardian newspaper. Although an internal PA investigation cleared Dr Erekat of any involvement in the leaks, he believes that the documents were leaked from his office and so he must take ultimate responsibility. In Gaza, a Hamas spokesman, Fawzi Barhoum, said that Erekat's resignation proves his involvement in 'giving up the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people'." (Chief Palestinian negotiator resigns, George Rishmawi, middleeastmonitor.org.uk, 14/2/11)
What a shame! To give you just a snapshot or three of the PA's Clown Prince in action, here are some extracts from one of the Palestine Papers, Minutes from Expert Committee on State-to-State (11/5/08, Inbal Hotel, West Jerusalem). They reveal the process as akin to the kind of negotiations you might expect a chicken to undertake with a fox while it's being eaten. Sad, so utterly sad:
Saeb Erekat: How have you been?
Yossi Gal: Not too bad, can't complain, how about you?
SE: I'm lying. I've been lying for the last weeks.
YG: Between jogging?
SE: No, no, lying, lying. I was in Cairo, I was in Jordan, I was in America. Everybody is asking me, what is going on in Israel, what is Olmert going to do?
YG: And you are telling everyone we are the verge of success.
SE: And I always tell them this is an internal Israeli matter, a domestic Israeli matter, and I keep lying. If somebody sneezes in Tel Aviv, I get the flu in Jericho, and I have to lie. So that's my last week - all lies.
YG: As a professor of negotiations, you know that white lies are allowed now and then.
SE: I'm not complaing, I'm admitting - and sometimes I don't feel like lying.
YG: Well, around the table we won't be lying.
...
SE: Give it to us, Yossi. We are trying to be over-protectionist at this stage, because when we speak about a country with limited arms, we cannot speak about a country with limited dignity. And this is why we have to cover ourselves with everything you do with our nations. Because at this stage we haven't sensed your concept of what you see to be a Palestinian state. All that we have seen reflected in all of the committees are fears, suspicions, doubting me, doubting my ability, and ever since I have never heard an Israeli official telling me he has trust in me. And they keep telling me 'Gaza'. Okay, I was a criminal in Gaza. I made a mistake. I destroyed myself, but even if someone shoots someone, they execute him once. I am being executed by Israeli officials and Israeli negotiators on the hour, every hour, in each session. So, this is why please understand where we are coming - I just want to cut the long story short here: We haven't seen any attempt by any of you, Olmert down - and the last time we sit with you and play 'neon stupid' on our foreheads - because we don't see exactly where you are coming from and where you are going, and so on. So, as a state, we feel the need to protect ourselves with international law, treaties, conventions... maybe in the future when we see that you are changing your attitudes... like for instance on security. You know when you say there are threats coming from the East in Israeli minds, that is when Palestinians take over Jordan. And because of that 28% of the Jordan Valley must have emergency locations, I don't know, soldiers... I am being so honest now - I am not lying - because I lied too much last week for Israelis, and I am telling you where we are coming from.
...
SE: Once we feel we are being taken for a ride, we get protective - that is the only defence. Because ever since Eve negotiated [with] Adam, I am the most disadvantaged negotiator in history. No country, no army, no navy, no economy, people are fragmented, defeated in Gaza, so that is - I am trying to explain to you why we [have] these 8 with all of these caveats. Protection.
What a shame! To give you just a snapshot or three of the PA's Clown Prince in action, here are some extracts from one of the Palestine Papers, Minutes from Expert Committee on State-to-State (11/5/08, Inbal Hotel, West Jerusalem). They reveal the process as akin to the kind of negotiations you might expect a chicken to undertake with a fox while it's being eaten. Sad, so utterly sad:
Saeb Erekat: How have you been?
Yossi Gal: Not too bad, can't complain, how about you?
SE: I'm lying. I've been lying for the last weeks.
YG: Between jogging?
SE: No, no, lying, lying. I was in Cairo, I was in Jordan, I was in America. Everybody is asking me, what is going on in Israel, what is Olmert going to do?
YG: And you are telling everyone we are the verge of success.
SE: And I always tell them this is an internal Israeli matter, a domestic Israeli matter, and I keep lying. If somebody sneezes in Tel Aviv, I get the flu in Jericho, and I have to lie. So that's my last week - all lies.
YG: As a professor of negotiations, you know that white lies are allowed now and then.
SE: I'm not complaing, I'm admitting - and sometimes I don't feel like lying.
YG: Well, around the table we won't be lying.
...
SE: Give it to us, Yossi. We are trying to be over-protectionist at this stage, because when we speak about a country with limited arms, we cannot speak about a country with limited dignity. And this is why we have to cover ourselves with everything you do with our nations. Because at this stage we haven't sensed your concept of what you see to be a Palestinian state. All that we have seen reflected in all of the committees are fears, suspicions, doubting me, doubting my ability, and ever since I have never heard an Israeli official telling me he has trust in me. And they keep telling me 'Gaza'. Okay, I was a criminal in Gaza. I made a mistake. I destroyed myself, but even if someone shoots someone, they execute him once. I am being executed by Israeli officials and Israeli negotiators on the hour, every hour, in each session. So, this is why please understand where we are coming - I just want to cut the long story short here: We haven't seen any attempt by any of you, Olmert down - and the last time we sit with you and play 'neon stupid' on our foreheads - because we don't see exactly where you are coming from and where you are going, and so on. So, as a state, we feel the need to protect ourselves with international law, treaties, conventions... maybe in the future when we see that you are changing your attitudes... like for instance on security. You know when you say there are threats coming from the East in Israeli minds, that is when Palestinians take over Jordan. And because of that 28% of the Jordan Valley must have emergency locations, I don't know, soldiers... I am being so honest now - I am not lying - because I lied too much last week for Israelis, and I am telling you where we are coming from.
...
SE: Once we feel we are being taken for a ride, we get protective - that is the only defence. Because ever since Eve negotiated [with] Adam, I am the most disadvantaged negotiator in history. No country, no army, no navy, no economy, people are fragmented, defeated in Gaza, so that is - I am trying to explain to you why we [have] these 8 with all of these caveats. Protection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)