Israeli Foreign Ministry Plans New Hasbara Effort Against Palestinians

Rafael Barak

Haaretz reports that the Israeli Foreign Ministry has officially launched a diplomatic campaign to dissuade the international community from recognizing an independent Palestinian state along 1967 borders and possibly catalyzing the passage of a UN Security Council resolution against settlement building.

Efforts will include “an immediate public relations campaign on the matter at the bureaus of the premiers, foreign ministers and parliament in each respective country” as well as the dissemination of a “legal position paper” expressing that “only direct negotiations could end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not unilateral actions that subvert past accords.”

According to Director-General Rafael Barak, “[Seeking a UNSC resolution on settlement activity] can only hurt attempts to renew talks.” Seemingly unbeknownst to Barak are the myriad of pre-existing Security Council resolutions aimed at settlement activity. From a previous post:

• Operative paragraph one of UNSC Resolution 242, in which the Security Council unanimously “affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of...the following principles: Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”
• UNSC Resolution 446 explicitly denouncing settlement activity (three abstentions)
• UNSC Resolution 452 explicitly denouncing settlement activity (one abstention)
• UNSC Resolution 465 explicitly denouncing settlement activity (unanimous)
• UNSC Resolution 471 explicitly denouncing settlement activity (one abstention)
• Portions of UNSC Resolution 252, passed with two abstentions, in which the Security Council “considers that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status; [and] Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem”
• UNSC Resolution 267 explicitly denouncing annexation and settlement of East Jerusalem (unanimous)
• UNSC Resolution 298 explicitly denouncing annexation and settlement of East Jerusalem (one abstention)
• UNSC Resolution 476 explicitly denouncing annexation and settlement of East Jerusalem (one abstention)
• UNSC Resolution 478 explicitly denouncing annexation and settlement of East Jerusalem (one abstention)

Frankly, another UNSC resolution condemning settlement activity would merely be a drop in the bucket.

With these new efforts, Israel makes the claim that Palestinians are illegally sabotaging the entire peace process. This is utter hyperbole. Outside of allegations that the PA has surpassed the legal limitations imposed by Oslo, which can be more thoroughly examined once the Ministry’s position paper is made public, even Barak himself admits that Palestinian actions are “processes that could take place alongside negotiations and a settlement freeze.”

The fact of the matter is Palestinian jockeying in the international community cannot unilaterally end the conflict on Palestinian terms. Since the Palestinian National Council’s 1988 declaration of statehood, more than 100 countries have recognized an independent Palestine. To think that recognition of a Palestinian state along 1967 borders by the majority of the international community will substitute for Israeli withdrawal of the occupied territories is a ridiculous position. Israel knows this. So why go to such lengths to subvert recognition?

Barak plainly states the reason Israel is embarking on its hasbara effort. In his words, “Palestinians were hoping that their proceedings would encourage Barack Obama's administration to take certain steps in their future, including dealing with the 1967 borders and increasing pressure on Israel.” To the Ministry, the realization of such hopes is simply unacceptable. In Barak’s view, all issues must be settled through negotiations which pressure Israel and Palestinians to make equal concessions. This is because Palestinians already have legitimate, established rights to almost all of their demands –rights that Israel is unwilling to accept, and therefore hopes to escape the burden of by “negotiating.”

• Palestinians are already entitled to their Right of Return as enshrined in UNGA Resolution 194, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
• Israel has never been legally allowed to settle any land in the West Bank or East Jerusalem, as evidenced by the numerous UNSC resolutions mentioned above as well as the decision rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Geneva Conventions
• Israel’s siege of Gaza was already determined illegal by a UN Fact Finding Mission and must be lifted without condition
• Portions of Israel’s partition wall that cut into the West Bank (85% of the wall) should already be demolished or re-routed per the ICJ’s  decision
• Palestinians’ (unilateral) right to self-determination is already guaranteed by the UN Charter, the UDHR, the ICCPR and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

There are in reality very few issues which could not be settled by Israel simply adhering to established international consensus. The Israeli government is plainly aware of this fact and is consequently trying to trap Palestinians into making concessions to gain what they should already have. This is why the Foreign Ministry is trying to block another resolution. This is why Israel does not want to face extra pressure from the Obama administration. This is why Israel fears further solidification of diplomatic ties between Palestine and other countries. 

If the international community would simply enforce its decisions, the negotiation process would be a very different one. Palestinians would negotiate only on issues that are not already settled, e.g. the sharing of natural resources and security arrangements, or on the best application of internationally recognized principles rather than arguments about whether they are even valid. In this way, Israel would stand to lose much more than in the current situation. Consequently, the Foreign Ministry will fight with all of its power to maintain the status quo.

Congress Aids Terrorism with Position on Palestinian State

On November 29th, 2010 Congressman Ted Poe (R- Texas) submitted H.R. 1734 to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The main text of the bill, which can be found in its entirety here, does the following:

(1) reaffirms [Congress’] strong opposition to any attempt to establish a Palestinian state outside the negotiating process;

(2) strongly and unequivocally opposes any attempt to seek recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations or other international forums;

(3) calls upon the Administration to continue its opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state;

(4) calls upon the Administration to affirm that the United States would deny any recognition, legitimacy, or support of any kind to any unilaterally declared ‘‘Palestinian state’’ and would urge other responsible nations to follow suit, and to make clear that any such unilateral declaration would constitute a grievous violation of the principles underlying the Oslo Accords and the Middle East peace process;

(5) calls upon the Administration to affirm that the United States will oppose any attempt to seek recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations or other international forums and will veto any resolution to that end by the United Nations Security Council;

(6) calls upon the President and the Secretary of State to lead a high-level diplomatic effort to encourage the European Union and other responsible nations to strongly and unequivocally oppose the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state or any attempt to seek recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations or other international forums; and

(7) supports the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the achievement of a true and lasting peace through direct negotiations between the parties.

Since this submission, another bill proposed by Rep. Howard Berman, Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and allegedly penned by AIPAC has passed as of December 15^th.  Though the text of this bill has yet to be made public, the American Association for Palestinian Equal Rights and the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation are basing their critique of the legislation on the text of H.R. 1734.

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)

This legislation stands in testament to the well-established fact that American politicians not only consistently act unfairly in the interests of Israel to the detriment of Palestinians, but further imperil the lives of  American citizens with their actions by directly and unnecessarily contributing to the perpetuation of terrorism against the United States.

H.R. 1734 speaks to the inherent hypocrisy of the US government’s position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in that it takes specific issue with the concept of “unilateral declarations of statehood,” apparently lost to President Truman’s recognition of Israel’s (unilateral declaration of) statehood within 11 minutes of the 1948 proclamation. Upon being recognized by a majority within International Community of States, Israel was accepted into the United Nations, against the objections of Palestinians and various Arab nations. 

Seemingly, there is nothing objectionable in this series of events in the House's view regardless of its impact on the conflict. However, Palestinians cannot be afforded the same opportunity to appeal to the international community when negotiations prove unproductive. Because the legislation makes no mention of the means by which Israel declared statehood, nor of the violence that resulted, one cannot conclude that congress is trying to avoid making the same mistake as before. Instead, the House simply contends that Palestinians must be subjected to Israel’s proclivity for intransigence for an indefinite period of time ,so as not to adversely affect the virtually non-existent peace process, remaining trapped by agreements that Israel routinely violates while the Palestinian Authority falls over itself to improve Israel’s security situation.

While congress claims that the PA has not lived up to its Oslo promises, a charge that stems from alleged shortcomings in preventing terrorism and incitement, reality tells a different story. According to recently released wikileaks cables, Israel is fact quite pleased with the PA. What’s more Palestine solidarity activists, investigative journalists and human rights organizations routinely accuse the PA with human rights violations in its attempts to strangle both violent and non-violent resistance, and generally accepting Israel’s attempt to outsource the occupation.

Even the Department of State agrees that the PA has done exceedingly well in living up to its security obligations, stating, “the Palestinian Authority (PA) continued its counterterrorism efforts in 2009, with an emphasis on controlling the activities of terrorist organizations, particularly Hamas, in the West Bank.” The report goes on to state that the main threat to Israeli security comes from Hamas’ qassam fire, and that during the reporting period “Israeli authorities, among others, identified the improved capacity and performance of PA security forces as a leading contributor to the improved security environment of the West Bank.”  Finally, “Security cooperation between the PA and the Israeli government was close and productive, although there were continued Israeli military incursions in Palestinian population centers in the West Bank, which the PA strongly criticized. PA officials stressed the importance of close security cooperation with the Israeli government.” Thus the PA is not only fully engaged in maintaining security within the occupied West Bank and for Israel, but would like to cooperate with Israel even more so than it already does.

Yet Palestinians are no closer to achieving statehood, and instead are being called upon by congress to continue to engage “without precondition” (read: while simultaneously letting Israel confiscate Palestinian land in violation of international law). Why on earth should they? Simply because Congress is under the impression that peace can only be achieved through direct negotiations, despite the utter lack of progress toward a lasting solution, and continuous steps in the opposite direction.

Congressmen Poe and Berman would rather attempt to strong-arm Palestinians and the international community at large into sitting down to Israel’s table. This brings us to the next issue with the bill: the United States government’s insistence on actively interfering with Palestinian diplomacy on behalf of Israel. The United States is perfectly warranted in refusing to recognize a Palestinian state along pre-1967 borders. There are many states within the United Nations that do not recognize one another. However, actively attempting to convince other nations to follow suit, and threatening to veto any legislation that would otherwise pass through the Security Council is not only inherently wrong and prejudiced, but perfectly exemplifies one of the main reasons the United States is a consistent target of terrorism.

Authors of The Israel Lobby John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt content that there is “abundant evidence that U.S. support for Israel encourages anti-Americanism throughout the Arab and Islamic world and has fueled the rage of anti-American terrorists.” [1] Mearsheimer and Walt go on to explain:

While some Islamic radicals are genuinely upset by what they regard as the West’s materialism and venality, its alleged “theft” of Arab oil, its support for corrupt Arab monarchies, its repeated military interventions in the region, etc., they are also angered by U.S. support for Israel and Israel’s harsh treatment of the Palestinians. Thus, Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian dissident whose writings have been an important inspiration for contemporary Islamic fundamentalists, was hostile to the United States both because he saw it as a corrupt and licentious society and also because of U.S. support for Israel. Or as Sayyid Muhammed Husayn Fadlallah, spiritual leader of Hezbollah, put it in 2002, “I believe that America bears responsibility for all of Israel…America is a hypocritical nation…for it gives solid support and lethal weapons to the Israelis, but it gives the Arabs and the Palestinians only words.”

Unconditional American support for Israel was also one of the chief reasons Al Qaeda used to target the World Trade Center in 2001. The 9/11 commission determined in a background study, bin Laden attempted to expedite the attack upon witnessing the beginning of the Second Intifada in the fall of 2000 and again when he learned Ehud Barak was to visit Washington in June 2001. What’s more, the 9/11 Commision Report states Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the so-called “principle architect” of the attack, had an animus toward the United States that “stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.” [2]

In the same vein, Osama bin Laden articulated myriad justifications for targeting the US and its citizens in his global jihad in his 2005 “Letter to America.” First and foremost, bin Laden explains that “it is very simple: Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.” His first example: “You attacked us in Palestine.”

Pre-dating the letter by nine years, bin Laden’s 1996 Fatwa was primarily concerned with the fact that “people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq.” The title of the fatwa was “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."

Clearly, US foreign policy in general and unwavering support for Israel in particular has contributed greatly to the United States’ problem with terrorism. When politicians advance such potentially destructive pieces of legislation, they must keep this fact in mind, or be prepared to face the consequences –hopefully not with calls to escalate the War on Terror, thereby missing the point entirely.

This is not to say that Americans should yield uncritically to the demands of terrorists, letting them control US foreign policy as citizens cower in fear. Yet the United States consistently exacerbates its own problems by arrogantly dabbling in the affairs of other nations, offering fuel for the fire, and American citizens and troops (not to mention citizens of other countries) pay the price, ...all for what? The truth of the matter is that congress is worried that unilateral declaration and recognition of a Palestinian state will not offer Israel the guarantees it was hoping to squeeze out of the PA with the help of its largest benefactor.

Unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, and the subsequent recognition of that state by the international community will not solve the conflict. It will simply allow Palestinians to act from a place of authority and empowerment when settling final status issues with Israel.  Without some kind of political capital to rely on, the PA will not be able to guarantee a just solution for its people. Far from being concerned with simply settling the conflict –which the United States could easily do by applying serious pressure to Israel and the PA equally, the US wants to settle the conflict on Israel’s terms.

Some might contend that this characterization is overly cynical, and perhaps congress truly believes negotiations are the answer. Unfortunately, regardless of the veracity of that contention, one can say with confidence that it is the not the way the international community, or the enemies of the United States for that matter, will view such legislation.

[1] The Israel Lobby - John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, 2007, pg 67

[2] 9/11 Commission Report -National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, 2004, pg 147 

Collapse of Negotiations a Gain for Palestine

As the United States sends US Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell to grasp at straws in hopes of restarting negotiations to create a Palestinian state after the Israeli government refused to curb settlement construction, Obama’s inability to entice Netanyahu’s coalition to comply with international law has frustrated many who wish for peace between Israel and Palestine. However, upon closer inspection it becomes apparent that Obama’s specific failure and the now-seemingly inevitable collapse of negotiations in general constitute a tactical victory for Palestinians.

Firstly, Obama’s initial offering and its subsequent rejection have opened the door to mounting malcontent among the American public, causing some to examine the United States’ special relationship with Israel more critically. The very contents of the aid package began this process. In the midst of a prolonged recession the US offered Israel $3 Billion worth of F-35 fighter jets among other incentives (such as a  guarantee of U.S veto should the Palestinian Authority call upon United Nations Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state) at the same time that Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were extended for two years. To many Americans, politicians’ Israel First attitude became glaringly obvious –and quite a few did not like what they saw. Incidents such as this offer a powerful foundation for reexamining Israel’s special place in the United States’ pocketbook. The context of this offer, embedded in a time in which the state of the economy has facilitated the emergence of staunch movements against large government expenditures, could not be worse for Israel, which relies on US aid to sustain the occupation. Undermining this relationship has real consequences for Palestinians on the ground.

On a political level, the generosity of the offer exposed the United States’ impartiality in the matter. America usually functions more as Israel’s lawyer than a third-party facilitator of negotiations. Illuminating Obama’s position and methodology gives observers a perfect example of such behavior. Recognition of this reality is an integral component of its correction.

Luckily, US taxpayers avoided further subsidizing Israel’s war crimes and in doing so escaped an unnecessary if not immoral burden. Obama’s failure also did more to expose the United States’ weakness in the face of Israeli obstinacy, calling into question exactly who is in control of this relationship. Palestine solidarity activists and impartial analysts have long argued that Israel “wags the dog” when it comes to the US to American detriment. Israel’s refusal to cooperate with US demands is not new, yet this particular incident highlights the country’s arrogance in a startlingly demonstrative way. Each instance of recalcitrance works to undermine Israel’s position in American esteem, or at the very least stretches the bounds of what previously unconcerned Americans are willing to stand.

Some believe that Obama’s offer was simply a pretext for items that Israel will inevitably receive irrespective of compliance with any US demands. Various analysts have suggested this is the very reason Netanyahu was unable to convince his coalition to accept a partial moratorium –why by the cow when you can get the milk for free? Yet the delinking of the package from the peace process again offers US citizens more grounds to question policy toward Israel. Apologists might be compelled to excuse the fiscal magnitude of Obama’s gift with the belief that peace is worth any price. What excuse can they offer if Israel still receives it regardless of intransigence? If receiving these items were inevitable, there are only three outcomes. 1) The US will be further exposed as putting Israel’s interests ahead of its own in even more explicit terms 2) Israel will have to actually pay for the jets or 3) The US will be forced to create another pretext for the gift.  In any event, Palestinians win.

As for US Security Council veto, while many assume Israel needs no such guarantee as the US consistently veto’s “anti-Israel” legislation without precondition, Israel’s refusal to meet demands obviates 100% certainty on the subject.

The current stall in and ultimate failure of negotiations also renders moot the weakness of any agreement that would have been reached, specifically the inability to enforce it due to Hamas’ absence in the process. As the ruling government of what will be the other half of a Palestinian state, Hamas’ cooperation with Fatah in implementing any promises made to Israel and acceptance of Israel’s pledges as sufficiently just are integral to the contract’s viability. Leaving Hamas out only works to ensure that the entire process will be an exercise in futility, in which case Palestinians will (most likely) have given up much in exchange for nothing at all while Israel exploits Hamas’ non-cooperation to excuse its own inevitable shortcomings. If the peace process does not fall apart completely, at the very least stalling the resumption of negotiations will give Hamas and Fatah a chance to continue the next round of reconciliation talks between the two factions.

In most cases, Israel has sufficiently controlled popular discourse concerning all aspects of the conflict, whether they center on war history, the humanitarian situation in Gaza, the level of existential threat the country faces, justifications for various human rights abuses or the disintegration of negotiations. The latest collapse serves as a marked departure from such control of the narrative.

While Arabs were unfairly blamed for everything from their own ethnic cleansing (by not implementing the UN’s 1948 Partition Plan) to not accepting a state of their own when they were offered one (as Arafat rejected Camp David), the world has finally woken up to Israel’s role in perpetuating conflict. Main stream outlets’ coverage of negotiations plainly refers to Israel’s refusal to curb settlement construction as the reason for the stalemate. Couple this development with international backlash against Operation Cast Lead in 2008 and reactions to the flotilla massacre this past May and Palestinians just might be getting the sympathetic ear their cause deserves. People are looking at the conflict through a new paradigm, one which is more reflective of reality and consequently works to empower the Palestinian position.

At the same time, the more radical elements of Netanyahu’s settler-controlled coalition are finally being exposed. The more racist legislation that passes through the Knesset, the more opportunities for peace that the coalition rejects, the more Israel will be treated like a rouge pariah state. The political isolation that will ensue provides Israel with a compelling reason to fall in line with accepted international norms or will at minimum mount international support in defense of Palestinian rights.

The international community has already begun to act in solidarity with Palestine as a result of Obama’s failure. The Palestinian Authority’s threat to appeal to the United Nations to facilitate the declaration of an independent state has been historically seen as an empty threat, however as a result of the latest collapse Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay have formally recognized a Palestinian state along 1967 borders in the past weeks. The European Union will discuss recognition in as soon as one year. Israel is losing its chance to impact the substance of a settlement.

What’s more, the media are now openly discussing other alternatives to solving the conflict, including a one-state solution. As Alex Kane reports, while the debate on a one-state solution has been discussed in reference to its allegedly disastrous consequences for Israel, any solution-oriented debate that utilizes the term “apartheid” is a step in the right direction to achieving justice for Palestinians both inside and outside Israel.  

Because the proposed settlement moratorium was admittedly partial (excluding East Jerusalem in contravention of international law) and temporary (only to last 90 days), Palestinians did not stand gain much tangibly. In contrast, Israel’s rejection of Obama’s incentive package has provided myriad advantages to the Palestinian cause which would have proved difficult to attain in alternate iterations of events. While peace still seems illusive, it is fair to say that Palestinians have gained more than they have lost this week.

Obama: Israel's Lawyer

Just yesterday, Prime Minister Netanyahu demanded that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as a Jewish state in exchange for Israeli compliance with international law. Shortly after, State Department spokesman Philip Crowley illuminated  the United State's official position on the proposal, explaining, "We recognize the special nature of the Israeli State. It is a state for the Jewish people." While President Obama's views on the institutionalization of Israel's ethnic character are of no surprise, such an outright endorsement of Netanyahu's insult to the PA stands in stark contrast with the vision of the United States as impartial mediator the American public has been spoon-fed over the past few months.

If the admission of offering military, financial and political concessions in exchange for a partial extension of the so-called settlement "freeze" hadn't done enough to destroy the Obama Administration's credibility in the peace process, this was surely the final blow. How could any casual observer continue to believe Obama had the interests of both parties at heart while simultaneously lauding Netanyahu's inanity as even remotely legitimate?

Israel's settlement construction is illegal under international law. The United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Security Council and International Court of Justice all concur: Settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem must immediately halt and reverse, along with construction of the partition wall. Just as chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said, Israel's Jewish character has no bearing the illegal status of Israel's settlements. Netanyahu's condition is a wanton distraction.

The proposal also has nothing to do with Israel's right to exist as a nation. Far from being existentially threatened, Israel has enjoyed full recognition of its sovereignty by Fatah and the PA for the past 17 years. The issue lies in Israel's insistence that its statehood be defined on ethno-religious terms. Yet somehow the implications of this definition are utterly lost on Obama. Electronic Intifada founder Ali Abunimah illustrates the point well in two of his recent tweets:

 

Would Obama align himself with the moral argument underpinning either of these assertions? One would hope not. Then why is it somehow permissible to endorse the same position when it comes to Israel? And how can his administration support linking the PA's acceptance of such assertions to Israel's admittedly partial and temporary compliance with standards of international law?

What's more, who could defend Obama as a worthy proponent of peace while he cheers Netanyahu on in his quest to force Abbas into selling out Israel's Arabs, further codifying their second-class status, while at the same time attempting to settle the question of Palestinian refugees' Right of Return prima facie?

To summarize, if the PA were to accept such a deal, Israel would have achieved the following:

• Further military, financial and political support from the United States;
• Formal permission from the PA to continue subjugating Israeli Arabs;
• And nullification of the Right of Return for Palestinian Refugees of the Nakba
 

The PA would achieve the following:

• A temporary "freeze"of settlement construction on what is to become a Palestinian state if talks succeed, one that would presumably not include freezing construction in East Jerusalem (in contravention of international law), nor the construction of current projects including the thousands that began just a few weeks ago, nor  suspending the confiscation of Palestinian property to make room for further construction, just as the last "freeze"did not include these things

 
The United State's endorsement of such an insulting proposal makes clear Obama's complete disregard for Palestinian interests, and his commitment to repeating the mistakes of his predecessors. The authors of The Israel Lobby explain, "As Aaron David Miller, an adviser to six different secretaries of state on Middle East and Arab-Israeli affairs and another key player in the Clinton administration's peace effort, put it during a 2005 postmortem on the failed negotiations: 'Far too often, we functioned...as Israel's lawyer'" (Mearsheimer and Walt 48). How exactly has Obama done anything to improve upon this characterization?

Netanyahu's Seemingly Limitless Arrogance

In the newest development concerning peace negotiations between Israel and the PA, Netanyahu has offered to partially extend the fake settlement freeze in exchange for recognition of Israel's Jewish character. In a startling spectacle of rationality, the PA has rejected the offer in kind. BBC reports:

The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said Mr. Netanyahu was "playing games" with his offer, and that there was no connection between settlements and the national character of Israel.

"I don't see a relevance between his obligations under international law and him trying to define the nature of Israel," he added. "I hope he will stop playing these games and will start the peace process by stopping settlements."

He's right. Settlement activity in the West Bank is illegal under international law regardless of Israel's "Jewishness". Perhaps Bibi Netanyahu forgot this:

Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development [... and] have been established in breach of international law. -International Court of Justice Ruling, July 9, 2004

Or operative paragraph one of UNSC Resolution 242, in which the Security Council unanimously:

...Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of...the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict...

Or UNSC Resolution 446, which affirmed in explicit terms the conclusions of UNSC Resolution 242 (three abstentions) as did UNSC Resolution 452 (one abstention) UNSC Resolution 465 (unanimous), and UNSC Resolution 471 (one abstention)?

Or the portion of UNSC Resolution 252, passed with two abstentions, in which the Security Council:

...Considers that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status; [and] Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem...

Or UNSC Resolution 267, unanimously adopted, which affirmed the conclusions of UNSC Resolution 252, as did UNSC Resolution 298 (one abstention), UNSC Resoluition 476 (one abstention) and UNSC Resolution 478 (one abstention)?

Maybe Bibi forgot that, unlike the General Assembly, resolutions passed by the Security Council are indeed binding?

Maybe he forgot that in 1993 the UNSC approved a report by the Secretary General which concluded beyond doubt that the law applicable in armed conflict as embodied in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Hague Convention (IV) of 18 October 1907 had become part of international customary law, and thus applied even if the other party was not a High Contracting Party (as is the case in Palestine)?

Did he simply imagine that at the end of each of these resolutions is the caveat "if and only if Israel is recognized as a Jewish state," thus exempting Israel from its legal obligations?

Or perhaps Erekat is right, and Bibi really is just playing games. Setting aside the composition of Israel's demand of recognition as a Jewish state (which is ridiculous in and of itself), the mere act of setting preconditions for compliance with international law attests to Netanyahu's seemingly limitless arrogance. He honestly thinks he can shift the blame for the disintegration of peace talks by throwing bones to the PA, which already affirmed Israel's right to exist (sans the racist classification) in 1993. He clearly believes that through slight of hand he can simultaneously eviscerate the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees, and strengthen the codification of Arab subjugation in Israel all in exchange for what exactly? "An additional suspension of building for a limited period of time," says Bibi. Will this be the same kind of "suspension" that still allowed for unhindered construction in East Jerusalem, for the razing of Palestinian villages and confiscation of private Palestinian property, and for continued work on current projects which would most likely include the 3,000 that began as soon as the last "suspension" ended?

Let's just hope this doesn't constitute the kind of gesture Obama promised to prostitute US taxpayers in order to coax out of the Israeli government.

What Obama Hasn't Changed About the Mid East Peace Process

Forgive my cynicism, but you will not see me holding my breath in anticipation of a comprehensive and just conclusion to the Arab-Israeli conflict, not this time around, not even with Mr. Change himself at the helm of negotiations. To illustrate my point, and for the benefit of all of you following along at home, let me recap what hasn’t changed with the most recent incarnation of peace talks:

The Past: Israel has done its best to extort the United States government in exchange for participation in or acceptance of peace initiatives.

For example, in exchange for Israel’s participation at the 1991 Madrid Conference, the United States was forced to instrument the revocation of UN Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism (the ideological foundation of which presumes that Jews as a distinct ethnic group have exclusive and special rights in contrast with other ethnic groups) with racism (the ideological foundation of which presumes that a distinct ethnic group has exclusive and special rights in contrast with other ethnic groups).

In another instance, President Nixon was only able to persuade the Knesset to formally accept UN Resolution 242, which called for withdrawal from the territories Israel captured in 1967 (and to this day still occupies in part, in contravention of international law) by giving “private assurances that Israel would receive additional US aircraft,” according to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. Similarly, “[Israel’s] acceptance of the cease-fire that ended the so-called War of Attrition with Egypt…was bought by a US pledge to accelerate aircraft deliveries to Israel, to provide advanced electronic countermeasures against Egypt’s Soviet-supplied anti-aircraft missiles, and, more generally, to maintain the balance of power.”

In fact, as Mearsheimer and Walt point out:

This pattern continued though the 1970’s, with Presidents Nixon, Ford and Carter pledging ever-larger sums of aid in the course of the disengagement talks with Egypt and during the negotiations that lead to the 1978 Camp David Accords and the 1979 Egypt-Israeli Peace Treaty…In much the same way, , the Clinton administration gave Israel increased assistance as part of the peace treaty with Jordan in 1994, and Clinton’s efforts to advance the Oslo peace process led him to pledge an additional $1.2 billion in military ai to Israel to win Israel’s acceptance of the 1998 Wye Agreement [which Netanyahu promptly suspended].

Before being supplanted by Iraq in 2005, Israel was the number one annual recipient of US foreign aid, followed by Egypt and Jordan respectively. It is common knowledge that Egypt and Jordan receive these US funds with the precondition that they maintain peaceful relations with Israel. In this way, the US essentially picks up the tab for Israeli aggression.

The Present: According to Ynetnews among other sources, Israel’s leading Likud party has demanded concessions and guarantees from the Obama Administration in exchange for extending its settlement “freeze,” despite the fact that the entire international community including the United States regards these settlements as completely illegal. Apparently Obama is taking the bait, though the specifics of his pay-off to the Israeli mob are disputed.  The Guardian reports that Obama sent Netanyahu a letter which requests a “60-day renewal of the freeze. In return, Obama guarantees to demand no further extensions, to ensure that the future of Jewish settlements would become part of final status negotiations, and to veto any United Nations Security Council resolution relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the next year, while talks continue. He pledges to support a continued Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley after the establishment of a Palestinian state. The letter also acknowledges Israel’s security needs and the need to upgrade its defense capabilities, and promises to consult Israel and the Arab states on US policy on Iran.” 

The Past: When carrots don’t work, the US has with increasing rarity attempted to use sticks to incentivize Israeli compliance with US policy objectives. In the past 30 years, Israel has come to understand such threats as purely symbolic gestures, as no president has made good on their harsh words.

Case in point: Mearsheimer and Walt point out, “In 1991, the first Bush administration pressured the Shamir government to stop building settlements and to attend  a planned peace conference by withholding the $10 billion loan guarantee, but the suspension lasted only a few months and the guarantees were approved once Yitzhak Rabin replaced Shamir as prime minister.” While Israel agreed to halt construction of new settlements, it continued to expand the existing blocs and the settlements grew at a rate almost 10 times faster than the natural growth of Israel Proper’s population.

The Present: In the first week of January, under the direction of Obama, Middle East Envoy George Mitchell had stern words for the Israeli government, threatening to withhold aid if the country did not make decisive moves toward peace, including making good on its promise to halt settlement construction. However, just as before, Israel called Mitchell’s bluff, holding the moratorium in word more than deed, as new settlement construction only decreased by 50%, existing blocs grew, and Israel continued to seize Palestinian land. Even as the moratorium has expired, directly resulting in the cessation of negotiations, aid to Israel is not in jeopardy.

The Past: In 1975 President Reagan and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger were becoming impatient with Israel’s “intransigence to disengage with Egypt” as Mearsheimer put it. Both called for a reassessment of US aid to Israel, but were stymied by an AIPAC-sponsored letter penned by 76 senators concerned with maintaining current levels of military and economic support. Reagan and Kissenger were then forced to pursue other methods of negotiation.

The Present: 87 senators have written a letter to President Obama, whole-heartedly supported by AIPAC, urging him to make sure Abbas does not leave the negotiating table regardless of the resumption of Israeli settlement construction. In response Israel News reports the administration is pressuring Abbas “not to quit the talks regardless of whether Israel extends the moratorium or not.”

The Past: Undermining the US’s stated policy objective of achieving nuclear non-proliferation in the Middle East, Israel is currently the only power in the region known to have nuclear and chemical weapons. President Kennedy eventually relegated on his efforts to have IAEA officials properly appraise Israel’s nuclear ambitions, while President Johnson, confronted with the knowledge that the country had in fact acquired WMD, chose to ignore this reality.

The Present: Last month the IAEA failed to pass a resolution aimed at Israel’s WMD program, with 51 mostly Western countries (spearheaded by the United States) voting against it, citing the possibility that the resolution would undermine peace negotiations. Before the incident, Obama explained his strong opposition to singling out Israel on the issue of non-proliferation. The irony is clearly lost on him.

The Past: In December 1982, during a lame-duck session, Congress attempted to provide a $250 million increase in military aid to Israel in the wake of the invasion of Lebanon, the use of cluster bombs, the illegal use of US weapons for offensive purposes, as well as the IDF’s complicity in the massacres at Sabra and Shatila. Following this move, President Reagan and his new Secretary of State George Shultz reinstituted a 1981 Memorandum of Understanding on strategic cooperation in 1983.

The Present: In the midst of Operation Cast Lead, which killed more than 1,400 Palestinians and from which Israel was later found to have committed war crimes as well as crimes against humanity (per the Goldstone Report), on January 16^th, 2009, Congressed signed a Memorandum of Understanding essentially endorsing the operation  and pledging unconditional support for the State of Israel. While vocal on a number of policy issues before his inauguration, Obama said nothing of this development, and has yet to negatively address the MOU.

For those of us concerned with history, it has become increasingly evident that there is nothing new to discuss. Palestinians are still not represented by a competent, unified and truly legitimate leadership. Israel is still employing the same tired tactics. But what’s most disheartening about the latest spectacle is Obama’s handling of the situation. Far from being the beacon of hope and progress he claimed himself to be in Cairo (does anyone remember, “It’s time for these settlements to stop,” or was I just hearing things?), Obama has shown he is no different from his predecessors.

Dissecting the United States Senate’s Hypocrisy:

In a recent letter (PDF) to President Obama, 87 members of the Senate have urged the President to not let Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas walk away from direct negotiations despite the expiration of Israel’s so-called “moratorium” on settlement construction.

The intention of this letter is to no doubt coax President Obama into publicly pressuring Abbas to continue his participation in direct negotiations. Yet, far from being concerned with creating a “meaningful and lasting peace agreement,” the letter does more to wholly shield Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel from any wrongdoing through obfuscation and equivocation, as if to lay the groundwork for pinning the inevitable failure of this endeavor squarely on the Palestinians’ shoulders.

Firstly, the letter does nothing to mention why Abbas would consider leaving negotiations in the first place, Israel’s resumption of settlement construction. However, it must first be noted that at no time during the “freeze” did Israel actually stop building. The freeze itself was only limited to new construction within the West Bank, and thus did not apply to construction in East Jerusalem or on settlements which were already approved. It also did nothing to stop the razing of Palestinian villages to make room for future construction.

According to an Associated Press article: 

“The government's own figures — and the assessments of Israeli peace activists monitoring construction — show building has barely slowed down.

In the third quarter of 2009, before the restrictions were imposed last November, there were 2,790 settlement homes in various stages of construction, according to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics. The number rose to 2,955 in the last quarter of 2009, reflecting a last-minute surge of housing starts in the days leading up to the freeze.

In the first quarter of 2010, with the freeze in full effect, the number stood at 2,517.
That means that even months into the halt, the number of homes under construction had declined by only about 10 percent.”

 The article goes on to say:

“In reality, around 450 new housing units have begun construction since the slowdown went into effect, according to Peace Now. Still, those numbers reflect a drop of about 50 percent in the pace of new home construction.”

Essentially, far from a “moratorium,” Israel has still managed to begin new construction on at least 450 housing units. In a report issued by the Land and Research Center, published by the International Middle East Media Center, “some 1,520 units were built or are currently under construction,” as of the day the freeze expired.

At the same time:

“Israel annexed 5,906 dunams of Palestinian lands during the ‘settlement freeze’, and uprooted 920 dunams of Palestinian farmlands and orchards.

Also during the freeze, Israel demolished 280 homes and structures, and intends to demolish nearly 830 structures.

Israel also prevented the paving of 10 new roads in several parts of the West Bank, while settlers occupied 13 homes and managed to pave 28 settler-only roads.”

Furthermore, the “freeze” itself is a meaningless gesture in the face of international law, under which any settlement of occupied lands is illegal. According to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The complex web of control that always accompanies settlements also violates Palestinian rights in its own respect.

The fact of the matter is, Abbas cannot continue to negotiate for the emergence of a Palestinian state when Israel is doing its best to take over as much of the land that such a state would rest on as possible. Such bad faith on Israel’s part cannot be dismissed.

The letter goes on to praise Netanyahu’s commitment to peace in the face of “enemies of peace that will do anything in their power to derail the direct talks,” referencing recent violence against settlers as well as Hezbollah’s condemnation of the talks from the start.  The letter fails to mention the 12 Palestinians killed by the IDF since the beginning of negotiations including a 14 month-old infant, a 91 year-old man and his grandson, a man extra-judicially executed in his bed, and a man shot while handcuffed among others.

Hezbollah’s denunciation of the peace talks raises an important point, namely, who has the right to cede portions of Palestine, and by implication, make concessions to Israel? The letter fails to recognize the fact that Abbas is not the legitimate president of Palestine (nor is Fayyad the Prime Minister) and that the people of Gaza are not represented by anyone at all, making any peace agreement reached extremely difficult to implement.

The letter also takes a familiar Zionist tactic in trying to shift the blame for the conditions in Palestine on other Arab countries, neglecting to understand that while most Arab nations have a history of playing political football with Palestinian rights, it is Israel that has created the situation the Senate calls on other countries to clean up.

With such intellectually dishonest Zionist propaganda permeating the Senate so pervasively, it is no wonder that the letter does its best to emphasize the “special relationship” the United States has with Israel, one in which Israel is the master and the United States the puppet.