NOVANEWS

 
“The old game is over fellows, this is a whole new game now and it is going to be Israel once again, and like it or not, who will set the new rules. And as the United States had annexed Texas back in 1845 Israel simply followed in her footsteps and annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem, big deal.” says Benjamin Netanyahu.

“At this point and as the ticking seconds seemed like ages for Obama, it was clear that Mr. Netanyahu was slapping Obama in the face in public and for the whole world to see.”
 

Dr. Ashraf Ezzat

Obama and Bibi

 
Carried away by his, on the rise, presidential approval rating following his legendary triumph over Osama Bin Laden, the prince of darkness whose image and recorded video-tapes have been made to haunt the American collective psyche as the destroyer of America president Obama thought it was time to indulge himself with some rhetoric about the Middle East’s chronic crisis and it’s so called peace process.
I cannot blame the man for obviously he was basking in the ecstasy of his political victories. I mean with the monstrous Gulf oil spill overcome and now behind him as history, the health care legislation passed and hailed as a big victory, the boys are out of the Iraqi swamp and soon out of the Afghani poppy fields and with the notorious Bin Laden shot in his bed room and given the most dignified burial ceremony before he was dumped in the bottom of the sea, one thing that would make Obama worthy of his controversial Nobel peace prize remained missing and unaddressed, namely the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, The only hot issue on the US foreign policy that defied any sort of promising outlook.
And since he was all geared up for his second term in office, especially after he had easily shoved away that showy billionaire, Trump by exhibiting a small piece of paper and since Sara Palin has been politically self-decaying by the virtue of her God- given clueless mentality Obama thought that with the presidential elections, a process made to believe controlled by the Zionist lobbies, coming next year why not while rolling out the red carpet for Netanyahu, try and appease the pro-Israeli lobbies in America like, AIPAC, J Street, AFSI, ..etc, and announce that the United States stands firm behind ironclad Israeli security alongside a non-militarized and feeble Palestinian state as an acceptable prerequisite for any negotiations with the Palestinians.

 
Jewish activists in New York denounce Obama’s call for a return to Israel’s pre-1967 borders. But the US president declared his ‘unshakeable support’ of Israel and did not condemn its illegal settlement building

In his Middle East speech Obama carefully refrained from mentioning the Palestinian refugee Issue nor did he mention how the East Jerusalem file would be tackled but he came out explicitly and without a flicker of hesitation and declared to the whole world that the United States strongly believes that the future state of Palestine should be based on the pre-1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps with Israel,… and this is where his luck ran out on him.
With The United States being a member of the diplomatic quartet on the Middle East the Obama statement subsequently meant that this is where also the United Nations, European Union and Russia probably stood on this thorny matter of the Palestinian borders.
Obama’s speech created a buzz on the mainstream media and on the web and certainly made him go to sleep that Thursday night feeling good about himself and thinking what a splendid speech he gave that surely made everyone happy in North Africa and the Middle east. … Well, maybe not the whole Middle East.
Obama thought, may be the Norwegian Nobel prize committee that granted him the Nobel peace prize had been right all along, a committee of that caliber could not be mistaken, they are all men of good judgment and great expertise and he must be that world peace maker they all agreed he is. He must be the one who could get the job done in the Middle East conflict.
That Thursday must have been one of Obama’s lucky days and it could have stayed so hadn’t it been for the following day visit of Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime minister of the state of the chosen people of Israel.

Bibi’s knock out

 

 
Receiving his esteemed guest in the oval office and after showing cordiality before the cameras and world press Netanyahu put on his iron gloves and began to punch, the unprepared and still ecstatic from last night, Obama where it really hurts.
Netanyahu with his monotonous and metallic voice and with the aid of his body language began to grab every statement Obama has made on the hoped for Israeli-Palestinian agreement and literally tore it apart and threw it into some shredder machine right in front of Obama’s eyes.
Netanyahu declared that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, only he didn’t say what those compromises would be, it cannot go back to the 1967 borders because those borders are indefensible.”
Indefensible, a new word in the vocabulary the Zionist machine is bound to utilize in the coming years and may be decades and to be added to the dictionary of Israel’s most popular words such as anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, Israel-hater, Israel’s right to exist, Israel’s right to defend itself, chosen people and of course the promised land.
Netanyahu looked Obama in the eyes; and referring to his worldwide admired Middle East speech told him “A peace based on illusions will crash upon the rocks of Middle Eastern reality” in other words Netanyahu was saying that Obama, the diplomatic Quartet, the Arab league and the Palestinians they all have been deluded and living in a world of fantasy land and it was he who would take upon himself the arduous task of waking them up to the world of reality.
In a blunt display of arrogance, Netanyahu even went so far as to address, audaciously, unexpectedly and publicly, the highly delicate issue of the Palestinian refugees and their long deliberated upon right to return and declared “It’s not going to happen. Everybody knows it’s not going to happen, and I think it’s time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly it’s not going to happen.”
At this point and as the ticking seconds seemed like ages for Obama, it was clear that Mr. Netanyahu wasslapping Obama in the face in public and for the whole world to see.
Obama with a look in his eyes that reflected mixed feelings of amazement, bewilderment and subjugation listened intently, his hands cupping his chin and part of his cheek as if he was feeling the pain and the humiliation and at the same time dodging any more slaps across his face.

New game, new rules

It’s not going to happen

Now the whole discourse was taking a dramatic change, as Mr. Netanyahu was lecturing Obama and the United States about the new Israeli geo-political realities on the ground, the Palestinian ground that is, or rather the used to be.
“The old game is over fellows, this is a whole new game now and it is going to be Israel once again, and like it or not, who will set the new rules. And as the United States had annexed Texas back in 1845 Israel simply followed in her footsteps and annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem, big deal. It’s all part of this new game of demographic changes and if America got away with it I can see no reason why we cannot” that was the message Netanyahu was giving and impudently declaring between the lines.
Also between the lines there was a lot more to read than just this slap in the face, UN  resolution 242 and the different interpretation of the Israeli-Palestinian borders issue; there was a clear indication as to who was really pulling the strings in the white house.
This historically awkward moment revealed beyond doubt the true influence Israel and its brigades of Zionist lobbies wield over the white house and the American policy. An old story but this time aired live in a new world edition that will cover, beside the oval office spectacle, the finale scene as Netanyahu speaks triumphantly at the annual policy meeting of AIPAC.
As Obama was hosting Netanyahu In the oval office, the holy of the holies of the American diplomacy, and with the whole world watching, it was not clear which one of them was the real president of the United States and which one was the guest of honor, I mean with this eternal and unbreakable bond between the United States and Israel it has always been kind of hard to tell who is who and which is which.
Clearly that Israeli display of public defiance and contempt for the United States policy and its president raises a lot of comments and questions but on top of which the one question that has been long begging for an answer“is a second term in office, or the first for that matter, worth sacrificing the pride and the interests of the world superpower?”
This hard to die question really needs to be answered, ont by Obama but the Americans themselves, for it is one burdening issue that could not be easily terminated, gotten rid of and dumped in the bottom of some sea.
 

NOVANEWS

A NOTE TO AMERICAN VETERANS, FREEDOM ISN’T BINGO GAMES

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

The world is quickly changing and too many Americans who consider themselves freedom loving patriots are silent.  All around the world, thousands are dying for freedom.  This is what our generation, those who grew up after World War 2, lived for, it is happening now in nation after nation and many Americans, many veterans are actually on the wrong side.

If I didn’t know better, I would think they were communists.

There are several fights for freedom right now, where Americans should be hitting the streets, demanding their government take a stand.  We took a stand in Libya against Gaddafi.  It divided us in strange ways with John McCain and Barak Obama on one side and Wall Street on the other.

There should have been a lesson there.  Anyone with eyes to see and a television set watched the people of Egypt throw off their Nazi dictatorship.

What did Egypt teach us?

We learned that Muslims, young people, don’t want crazy religious governments after all.  We learned the American press, the lying American press, had been working to support these criminal dictatorships for years.  We learned more than that.

We learned that Israel wasn’t afraid after all.  We learned they were tied to Mubarak and Gaddafi and the rest of the gang of Arab hucksters and puppets and had been playing games with the United States for years.

Let’s talk about the term “false flag.”

This is old news for real Americans, the ones who fought for civil rights, who fought for change, for workers rights, for clean air and water, for real freedoms.  False Flag terrorism has been used in American many times.

Every time a union would go on strike, police would come.  A paid informant from the factory owners would shoot a cop or throw a molotov cocktail and the killing would start.  Time after time, the Army, the National Guard or the American Legion were called in to crush freedom loving Americans.  It all started with a “false flag.”

Swastika’s on synagogues are now passe.  Whenever someone is caught, it is always a member of a Jewish defense organization.  They can’t keep it out of the news though they try.

9/11 was one of these as was 7/7 in Britain.  It has been proven beyond any doubt though no major paper will ever report it.  Fox News did.  Jesse Ventura did.  When they did, American veterans, the ones who play bingo, sat silently.  3000 Americans were murdered by their own government and millions of Americans did nothing.

We have always known about “false flag.”  Remember the McGovern election?  Remember the signs, “Faggots for McGovern,” or “Commies for McGovern?”  The Republican National Committee hired “rat f%$er” Donald Segretti, convicted Watergate conspirator to run what they called a “dirty tricks” campaign.

Last week, there was a trial in Britain.  Someone came forward and proved, totally and absolutely that the British government hired security personnel to hold a “drill” to test whether bombs could be found on subways (the underground) or buses.  In reality, the company the government hired used real bombs and killed 56 people.  The government tried to send the man who told the truth to prison.  A jury stopped them.  Britain has laws and decent people.  If it were America, he would have been found in a garbage dump with his head bashed in.

Who was John Wheeler?

This man, this veteran, was murdered, this prominent veteran was murdered and the bingo games continue.  Who was John Wheeler?  Ask around.

Begin the trail to American freedom.  It starts with 9/11.

We’re going back to discussing those Arab’s again and how they are supposed to matter to Americans.  When I went to school, I was taught that freedom and decency were American values and that honor and courage were gauged by our actions.

Innocent people are being shot down in the streets by murderous dictators.

Hundreds have died in Syria, thousands in Libya, more in Bahrain.

Bahrain, oh, we can’t talk about that.  America has bases there. The papers are saying the demonstrators are all Iranian secret agents or Al Qaeda ‘whatevers.’  I don’t believe in Al Qaeda, but, hell, what do I know.  I don’t even play bingo.

Gaddafi has been indicted and is now a wanted war criminal.  Assad in Syria is worse, and has killed more.

Another one, as bad as Assad, actually sent attack helicopters our last week to kill demonstrators, rocketing and strafing unarmed civilians.  We were there and filmed it. The war criminal responsible is Benjamin Netanyahu.  The helicopters were American Apache helicopters firing rockets and depleted uranium rounds into women and children on a peaceful march.  Snipers were firing into the crowds too, same as in Libya, the same snipers that got Gaddafi indicted as a war criminal.

Netanyahu is in Washington, not under arrest but meeting with bingo playing veterans groups.

This is why we are discussing “false flag” today.  It turns out that the false flag terror attacks in London, if you followed the link, were tied to Mr. Netanyahu.  A little study puts his name on the 3000 dead from 9/11 as well.

Now he is killing pro-democracy demonstrators, depending on support from American veterans and church goers who have forgotten about freedom and honor.

One of the reasons some back him is because, every time he snaps his fingers, almost magical terror attacks happen on command, “Palestinian terrorists” fire rockets or bomb school buses or churches or hospitals or whatever target seems best when reported in the newspapers.

What we are seeing again is a nastier version of Donald Segretti.  What we are seeing is street theatre with real blood.

After awhile, “W’s” phony terror alerts became high comedy.  Skits about phony terror alerts and bin Laden threats were almost as fun as bingo.  We never stood up to Bush for his manipulation, for his torture, for his criminal acts, but we laughed at them.

Many still act as though they believe Benjamin Netanyahu and his magical Palestinian terror act.

Considering the threat Obama made against him this week, we can expect a hospital or school bus to explode on cue.  He has done it before.

In the interim, he and his very good friend Gaddafi will be killing.

His very very good friend Mubarak is awaiting trial and,perhaps, execution.

Is a streak of honor, intelligence and decency awaiting you or more bingo?

Perhaps another false flag attack, this one on your town, may wake you up.

It’s coming.

NOVANEWS

Roundtable with author Norman Finkelstein, Palestinian Human Rights Lawyer Noura Erakat, and Jeremy Ben-Ami, Head of Lobby Group J Street

by Democracy Now! Videos

Obama’s Mideast Speech 1-4 A U.S. Shift on Israel-Palestine?

Obama’s Mideast Speech 2-4 A U.S. Shift on Israel-Palestine?

Obama’s Mideast Speech 3-4 A U.S. Shift on Israel-Palestine?

Obama’s Mideast Speech 4-4 A U.S. Shift on Israel-Palestine?

U.N. Panelist Desmond Travers Challenges Goldstone’s Recant

TRANSCRIPT

JUAN GONZALEZ: President Obama is set to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today at the White House one day after Obama became the first U.S. president to explicitly call for Israelis and Palestinians to seek a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. Obama made the remark during a major speech at the State Department on the recent uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, not by the United States, not by anybody else. But endless delay won’t make the problem go away. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples—Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people—each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition and peace. So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel.

The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves and reach their full potential in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself, by itself, against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

AMY GOODMAN: President Obama’s decision to put the United States formally on record as supporting the 1967 borders drew cautious support from Saeb Erekat, the top aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

SAEB EREKAT: Mahmoud Abbas expresses his appreciation to the efforts being exerted, the continuous efforts being exerted, by President Obama with the objective of resuming the permanent status talks in the hope of reaching a final status agreement on all core issues, including Jerusalem and refugees.

AMY GOODMAN: But Obama’s comments drew sharp criticism from Israel.

YIGAL PALMOR: Prime Minister Netanyahu, in his visit in Washington, will hope to hear a reaffirmation of the commitments made by the U.S. to Israel in 2004 and which were overwhelmingly supported by both houses of Congress. These commitments refer to the absolute necessity to solve the Palestinian refugee problems within—exclusively within the borders of the future Palestinian state and the non-viability of the ’67 borders as such.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Israeli foreign ministry spokesperson Yigal Palmor.

In his speech, Obama also laid out a U.S. strategy toward the Middle East and North Africa. He unveiled new billion-dollar economic aid packages for Egypt and Tunisia and took a harder line against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Obama also voiced support for opposition leaders in Bahrain while reaffirming the U.S.’s commitment to Bahrain’s security. The President denounced Iran’s nuclear program and accused it of sponsoring terror.

Obama did not once mention Saudi Arabia during his speech. The country is a major U.S. ally in the Middle East. It’s staved off the widespread popular protests that have swept across the region since January.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, to further discuss Obama’s speech, we’re joined by three guests.

Noura Erakat is a Palestinian human rights attorney and activist. She’s a professor of international human rights law in the Middle East at Georgetown University and the legal advocacy coordinator for the Badil Center for Palestinian Refugee and Residency Rights. She’s speaking at the “Move Over AIPAC” conference in Washington this weekend.

We’re also joined by Norman Finkelstein, author of several books on the Israel-Palestine conflict, including This Time We Went Too Far: Truth & Consequences of the Gaza Invasion.

AMY GOODMAN: And in Washington, D.C., we’re joined by Jeremy Ben-Ami, founder and president of J Street, a nonprofit advocacy group based in the United States that lobbies for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Jeremy, let’s begin with you. Your reaction to President Obama’s address?

JEREMY BEN-AMI: Good morning, Amy and Juan. It was a terrific speech by the President. And as you’ve pointed out, it broke new ground in putting the United States officially on record as recognizing that the resolution of this conflict, for the benefit of both the Israeli and the Palestinian people, is going to be two states based on the ’67 lines with adjustments. It’s something that 99 percent of the world understands and accepts and has recognized for quite some time, and it’s really unfortunate to see the Israeli government reacting in this way and unable to accept that this is the basis of their own long-term security interest, recognizing their own borders with their neighbors and finally getting international recognition of their right to self-defense.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Norman Finkelstein, I’d like to ask you about this question of new ground. As you’ve pointed out, President Bush, over three years ago, made a similar speech, and I want to quote from his. He said that “There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. [An] agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people.” And Bush went on to say, “These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent.” And, “It is vital that each side understands that satisfying the other’s fundamental objectives is key to a successful agreement.” So, Bush said that you needed security for Israel and viability for the Palestinian state, that were in the mutual interest of both parties. How different is what Bush said three years ago from what Obama said yesterday?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, if you were to juxtapose the two speeches, you would see not only is there no difference in content, but there’s actually no difference in form. It’s the same wording: mutually agreed land swaps based on the June 1967 borders. That’s basically been the position of the United States since, you could say, the last 20 or 25 years. There was no new ground in President Obama’s speech. And frankly, there’s no recipe there, there’s no formula there, for resolving the conflict.

The formula has to be exactly as the International Court of Justice said in July 2004 and as the U.N. General Assembly says every year with near-unanimous support. The Palestinians have the right to self-determination in the whole of the West Bank, the whole of Gaza, with East Jerusalem, the whole of East Jerusalem, as its capital. That’s the Palestinian right. That’s not subject to negotiations. Rights are enforced; they are not negotiated. The moment you say it has to be mutually agreed upon means Israel has a veto over Palestinian rights.

Secondly, Mr. Obama said that the withdrawal of Israeli troops has to be mutually agreed upon. That means Israel can say that, “OK, we’ll withdraw from the Jordan Valley,” as they’ve said in the past. “We’ll withdraw in 20 years.” And if the Palestinians say no, we’re at an impasse again. It’s not mutually agreed upon.

Thirdly, President Bush—excuse me, President Obama said that Jerusalem is a separate issue. He calls it an issue that remains. But that’s not the law. The International Court of Justice ruled that the whole of the West Bank, as they put it, comma, including Arab Jerusalem, is occupied Palestinian territory. If you say you want to return to the June ’67 border, how can you exclude Jerusalem? Jerusalem wasn’t part of Israel in June 1967. Jerusalem has the exact same status under international law as the West Bank and Gaza. In the words of the International Court, it is occupied Palestinian territory. To talk about a Palestinian state without East Jerusalem is to talk about an Indian reservation or a bantustan. There can’t be a state without Jerusalem as its capital.

AMY GOODMAN: Noura Erakat, did you have any hope—take, draw any hope from what President Obama said yesterday? Did you think there was anything new in it?

NOURA ERAKAT: I thought that his affirmation of self-determination for all peoples, the right to dignity, as they apply in Tunis, in Egypt, in Yemen, in Bahrain, was inspirational.

I think that what he said in regards to Palestine and Israel, unfortunately, was more of the same, and perhaps even worse. He had indicated that there are numerous Palestinians living to the west of the Jordan River. Well, those happen to be the Palestinians, the indigenous population, that have been living under occupation since ’67, including the refugees who were displaced in 1948.

Additionally, the things that were also of concern is that he described moving to the 1967 borders and qualified that immediately by referencing land swaps. But if we’re referencing land swaps, essentially what we’re discussing is the potential transfer of the Palestinian citizens of Israel into the West Bank. And that transfer is forbidden, or should—I mean, is prohibited by international law.

Finally, he did say, whereas Bush described Israel as a Jewish homeland, Obama went one step further to describe it as a Jewish state, which hasn’t been discussed by Bush before. And this is very troubling, because to describe it as a Jewish state, not a Jewish homeland, is detrimental to those 1.2 million Palestinian citizens of Israel who are Christian and Muslim, who therefore will be relegated to second-class citizenship, as a matter of fact, in institutionalization.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And the need that the President felt, Noura, to make this speech just before the meeting with Netanyahu, is that, in essence, reflecting the changed condition on the ground that’s going on now? Obviously, with the revolution in Egypt now, you’ve had Egypt brokering an agreement between Fatah and Hamas, and Egypt agreeing to open up Rafah now to end the isolation of Gaza.

NOURA ERAKAT: I think that what—by Obama making this speech when he made it, he is trying to be ahead of the curve, in order to demonstrate to the Palestinians that they need not move to diplomatic fora and multilateral institutions like the U.N. to achieve self-determination that the U.S. can deliver. Unfortunately, the U.S. has been unable to deliver for the past 18 years, definitely more, but at least during the tenure of Oslo. And this does very little to increase their credibility.

AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy Ben-Ami, this weekend AIPAC is having its major meeting in Washington, and there is major counter-meetings that are taking place. Explain what your organization, J Street, is.

JEREMY BEN-AMI: We are the voice of what I would consider to be the passionate moderates in the American Jewish community, because we are deep believers in the concept of a national home for the Jewish people, and we are also passionate believers in the concept of a national home for the Palestinian people. And we believe that each is dependent on the other. We can only have a state that is in fact the home of the Jewish people if there is one for the Palestinian people, as well. And contrary to Professor Finkelstein, we would support reasonable compromises that would allow some of the built-up settlement areas along the border of Israel to be retained within a state of Israel that is at peace with a Palestinian state, provided that equal land has been transferred from the state of Israel to the new Palestinian state. And again, for Noura Erakat, no one is talking about, at least in the pro-peace camp, is talking about swaps that would include actual citizens of Israel. It wouldn’t include people; it would be land. And there’s been land identified that is available. It’s been subject to negotiation for a decade now, that would be available for such a swap. So, I like to think that we represent the center of the debate between those who see Israel as always right and those who see Israel as always wrong. We recognize there’s two sides to the story, and there’s two peoples with two rights and two sets of wrongs, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to come back to this discussion. We have to break. Our guests are Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street; Norman Finkelstein, author; Noura Erakat, human rights attorney and activist. This isDemocracy Now! Back in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking about “what now?” President Obama just gave a major address yesterday. Today he meets with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House. Our guests are Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street; Noura Erakat, Palestinian human rights attorney; and Norm Finkelstein, author who’s written a number of books on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Norm Finkelstein, on this issue of land swaps, is it feasible to have land swaps for the goal of a contiguous state?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Of course it’s feasible to have land swaps. The question is whether the borders are subject to mutual agreement. Now, Jeremy says that he represents the moderate center versus the extremes, and I’m one of the extremes. But my position is the position of the International Court of Justice. The Court ruled in July 2004 that the whole of the West Bank, the whole of Gaza and the whole of East Jerusalem are occupied Palestinian territories, which are the designated unit for Palestinian self-determination. Just as Israel’s borders are not subject to mutual agreement, neither should the borders of the Palestinian state be subject to Israeli acquiescence.

If, when they sit down in negotiations, Israel presents a reasonable offer and it says, “We want to keep, say, 1.9 percent of the settlement—1.9 percent of the West Bank, and we’ll give you land of equal value and equal size in Israel,” well, the Palestinians are free to say yes or no. But if the Palestinians choose to say no, because they don’t want the settlement of Ma’ale Adumim going all the way from Jerusalem to Jericho and bisecting their country, or they don’t want the settlement of Ariel going all the way across and bisecting the northern half of the West Bank, they have to be free to say no. Otherwise, there’s not going to be a settlement. And that’s exactly what’s not allowed for.

At least Jeremy said “equal size.” He didn’t say “equal value.” But let’s say “equal size.” Obama was very careful not to say that. He just said “mutually agreed land swaps.” That can be a ratio of five to one. It can be a ratio of seven to one. That’s not a basis for a settlement. That’s a basis for Israeli veto over the size and shape of a Palestinian state. And that’s unacceptable.

But I have to emphasize that’s not the extreme position. Every year, 165 countries in the United Nations reiterate what I say, or to put it more accurately, I’m reiterating what they say. Jeremy’s position is the position of the United States, Israel, Nauru, Palau, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Australia. Those are the dissenters. I’m very smack in the middle on this debate.

AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street?

JEREMY BEN-AMI: Well, actually, the position that I’m outlining is the position of the Quartet, which represents the U.N., the E.U., Russia and the United States, which is that the agreement needs to be one that is negotiated and accepted by both parties. The basis of conflict and war is when two sides stand on their high ground and say, “Well, we have rights to this, and you don’t,” and then they fight it out. The only hope for an end to this conflict, and the reason for diplomacy, is to explore the art of the possible and how do we get both sides to relinquish what they both view as their right. And I think this is the only way that we’re going to avoid a Third Intifada, the only way that we’re going to avoid an explosion in the region, is if we will agree that there’s going to have to be a mutual agreement, because that’s how we will get both sides to recognize each other and put this conflict to rest forever.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, let me—

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Jeremy, are Israel’s borders subject to Palestinian agreement? Are Israel’s borders subject to Palestinian agreement? Or, was a precondition for negotiations that the Palestinians had to accept Israel in its pre-’67 borders? Which was it? Is it subject to negotiations?

JEREMY BEN-AMI: Well, at the moment, the unfortunate truth for the state of Israel and for those of us who support the state of Israel is that Israel doesn’t have internationally recognized borders. It’s one of the reasons why—

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: No, it certainly does. The World Court says it does. The International Court of Justice says it does. The United Nations General Assembly says it does.

JEREMY BEN-AMI: But the world doesn’t recognize those.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: No, the world does.

JEREMY BEN-AMI: The world generally does not accept those borders. And if you try to draw—

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: That’s not true, Jeremy. Jeremy, that’s simply not true.

JEREMY BEN-AMI: You can shout. You can try to—

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, let me bring—let me bring Noura into the conversation. Specifically, I wanted to ask you about the—because President Obama was very clear that whatever happens at the United Nations this fall is going to have, from his perspective, no bearing on how things are negotiated between the Palestinians and Israel. Your sense of the upcoming United Nations vote on recognizing a Palestinian state?

NOURA ERAKAT: Sure. I just want to comment also on this discussion that’s happening about borders and not borders. What Israel has been doing is trying to create its own de facto borders, and therefore not recognizing that there is an armistice line. There is a green line, and that’s exactly what Norman is referring to, that the ICJ has referred to, as well.

What we are debating is whether or not the state will be viable as outlined by Obama. But I think that that is a false premise. It’s not about whether or not the states will be a viable state for Palestinians. Palestinians are looking and seeking and demanding—and are entitled to—self-determination, equality, freedom, dignity. And their call is the same as their Arab brethren in the region. That’s why the statehood strategy is also not going to be sufficient, because even if a state was declared, even if it was recognized by a two-thirds majority that’s able to overturn a Security Council veto to challenge it, that won’t suffice to offer sovereignty and dignity and liberty for Palestinians.

AMY GOODMAN: Noura, I want to get you to respond to President Obama speaking yesterday, where he rejected Palestinian efforts to have the United Nations recognize Palestine as an independent state.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: For the Palestinians’ efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

AMY GOODMAN: President Obama yesterday. Noura Erakat?

NOURA ERAKAT: It’s quite unfortunate, again, the reference to Palestinians pursuing a path that’s not tenable. This is precisely the path that we should be on. That the U.S. has siphoned this discussion and isolated it, so that it created a tension between human rights, international law and politics, is precisely what has undermined the Palestinian platform to achieve any semblance of self-determination. And I think that by returning to this multilateral platform, where might doesn’t equal right, but there is a point of departure—and that point of departure is international law—is a positive step.

AMY GOODMAN: And the Move Over AIPAC meeting that’s taking place this weekend, explain it.

NOURA ERAKAT: Move Over AIPAC is really a precedent-setting meeting in that it’s going to challenge the Israel lobby, which was wonderfully articulated by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer in their book, in their manuscript. And what it will do is to bring constituents to Washington to be able to demonstrate their constituent support for a different policy on the Middle East, on Israel and Palestine, to their lawmakers, who, by the way, behind closed doors lament that there aren’t more voices that can support them in taking a more critical stance.

AMY GOODMAN: And Jeremy Ben-Ami, how does J Street relate to AIPAC?

JEREMY BEN-AMI: Well, there’s a lot that we have in common; there’s a lot that we disagree with them on. You know, we are supporters of the relationship, the special relationship between Israel and the United States. We do support Israel’s right to self-defense, and we support efforts by the United States to support Israel in that regard. However, at the same time, we don’t support an Israel right or wrong foreign policy for the United States.

There’s an American national interest in bringing about an end to this conflict, a reasonable two-state solution as articulated by the President. And I think while there are some who are worried about the reception for the President at AIPAC and whether or not he’ll find support in that organization, he should know that the majority of Jewish Americans, the majority of the organizations in the American Jewish community—Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee and others—do support his two-state vision, that he outlined yesterday, and came out with statements of support.

So we are differing with AIPAC on a number of its particulars. We’re supportive of the general mission of a strong and robust relationship between the United States and Israel. And, of course, we’re big proponents of a two-state solution and the right of the Palestinian people to freedom and self-determination, as Noura Erakat is saying, within a two-state solution.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Norm, I’d like to ask you—Jeremy mentioned before the involvement of the Quartet, but there have been increasing fissures within that group, as well. Israel attempted to—or is withholding the tax revenues of the Palestinian Authority after the reconciliation with Hamas, and immediately the Europe Union has announced that it is increasing its aid to the Palestinian Authority, because they see this reconciliation as a positive move forward.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: The Quartet is an ad hoc body consisting of the Russian Federation, the United States, the European Union and, I guess—and Tony—well, Tony Blair’s—I can’t recall right now the fourth. There are—

JEREMY BEN-AMI: The U.N.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: The U.N. There are—no, not the United Nations.

JEREMY BEN-AMI: Yes, the United Nations.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: The U.N., every year, has this resolution called “Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question.” It’s every year in the United Nations, in November of each year. And every year they outline the principles for resolving the conflict. We don’t need Mr. Obama to conjure up new principles any more than we needed President Bush to conjure them up. We have the platform or the basic principles based on international law. And those principles have been ratified every year not only by the U.N. General Assembly; they’re ratify every year by all 22 members of the Arab League. They’re ratified—they were ratified by the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

And I regret to say that, contrary to what Jeremy is saying, those principles are explicit: recognition of Israel in its June ’67 border. Incidentally, the Islamic Republic of Iran every year votes with the majority in the U.N. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. They ratified the two-state solution on the June ’67 border. There is no dispute about this. There is no denial of Israel’s right to its June ’67 border. The only question is the right of the Palestinians to their border of the whole of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. That’s the only issue that’s open, because of Israel and the United States.

Now, one last point. Jeremy says he supports a reasonable foreign policy for Israel. Your next guest is going to be one of the people who was on the Goldstone mission. Now, J Street has said that politically it’s closest to Kadima, the Israeli coalition Kadima, which is headed by Tzipi Livni. Tzipi Livni said, during the Israeli assault on Gaza, that Israel—now I’m quoting her—”Israel went wild in Gaza, which is what I demanded.” She also said, the day after Israel withdrew, she went on Channel 10 news, and she said that “I demanded real hooliganism in Gaza.” “I demanded real hooliganism in Gaza.” She went on to say, “I have no regrets about any of my decisions during the invasion of Gaza, and I’m proud of those decisions.” Now, Jeremy says his organization—or his organization has said they are closest to Kadima, headed by Tzipi Livni. So I have to ask him, Jeremy, is “going wild” and “real hooliganism” your idea of a moderate foreign policy?

JEREMY BEN-AMI: You know, it’s fun to be on a program with you, Norman. We’ve never met, and I’ve heard a lot about you. But it’s interesting that, you know, the question that was asked was whether or not Israel had withheld tax revenue and the Europeans had increased their aid. And I thought I’d just answer the question rather than attack you.

The question, Juan, is correct. Initially, the Israeli government did withhold tax revenue. It has subsequently released that tax revenue. So that issue is now off the table. What the Europeans agreed to do was to advance aid that was otherwise already committed in order to make up the cash flow problems that were facing the Palestinian Authority.

And that’s the kind of, you know, reasonable answer that I think a question like yours demands. I don’t think there’s any need to engage in this kind of attack questions, Professor Finkelstein.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: That’s not an attack question.

JEREMY BEN-AMI: Of course we don’t support—

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: It’s clarity about your position, Jeremy.

JEREMY BEN-AMI: Since we’re here to discuss—but I’m just curious. Since we’re here to discuss President Obama’s speech, we’re here to discuss the way forward, we’re here to discuss a way to avoid another war, how to achieve peace and security for both peoples, I don’t quite understand what the point of your question is.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, I think you were asked to define what—you were asked to describe what J Street’s position was, how it compared with AIPAC. And so, I think as a point of clarity, what do you consider an Israeli reasonable foreign policy? Is it “going wild” and demonstrating “real hooliganism” in Gaza? Is that your idea of a reasonable Israeli foreign policy? Because that’s what Tzipi Livni said. I can’t change her words. That’s what she said.

JEREMY BEN-AMI: Last I checked, I’m not—last I checked, I’m not Tzipi Livni’s spokesperson, and I’m not American Friends of Kadima.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: You said—

JEREMY BEN-AMI: I represent—I represent—let me finish a sentence. I represent the organization J Street, that is a lobby for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans. We believe in Israel’s right to exist. We believe in the right of the Jewish people to a national homeland of their own. We believe in the right of the Palestinian people to a national homeland of their own. We define being pro-Israel as being, as well, pro-Palestinian. And we’re tired of this pro and anti dynamic. We’re tired of this either-or, right-or-wrong dynamic, because this is an issue that has shades of grey, which you seem incapable of absorbing or expressing. So, yes, Israel does have a right of self-defense when rockets are rained down on its citizens and school buses are blown up. It does have the right to strike back against those who perpetrate terror in the interests of pursuing their own interests.

NOURA ERAKAT: And it also has an obligation—

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Does a right—

JEREMY BEN-AMI: However, we believe that there have to be limits to those, and we don’t believe that any country has the right to “go wild” and inflict excessive damage on a civilian population. So there’s a middle ground here, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: Noura Erakat, we’re going to end with you.

NOVANEWS

He is a man locked into the rhetoric of the past, honed over decades by Israeli propagandists and Israel’s many friends in the US.

The Obama speech was both a missed opportunity and a sad failure.

by James M. Wall

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu returned to Washington this weekend for his annual love fest with AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is holding its annual Policy Committee meeting Sunday through Tuesday.

President Obama is also speaking to AIPAC in a follow up speech to hisArab Spring presentation at the State Department, Thursday, May 19.

That speech ran for 45 minutes.  Most of it was a brief overview of the changes now sweeping the Arab world.  Late in his speech Obama turned to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Unfortunately, in linking the changes emerging from the Arab Spring to the future of the Palestinian Territory, the President was playing with a very bad hand.

He is a man locked into the rhetoric of the past, honed over decades by Israeli propagandists and Israel’s many friends in the US.

The President is a terrific orator. But his rhetoric in this speech needs a careful exegesis to bring out its blatant contradictions.

It is not easy to please Israel’s many friends in the US while attempting, rather desperately, to balance the suffering and the hopes of Israel and the Palestinians. He did not succeed.

Consider his first reference to the suffering of the two “sides”:

For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them.

For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own.

Note carefully how he illustrates the “two sides”, trying, unsuccessfully to balance the suffering of an occupier with that of the occupied. The Israeli suffering he cites is that of children who live in fear of dying. His example of Palestinian suffering is more abstract, the humiliation of occupation and the quest for nationhood.

The bombing of Israeli buses is from the past; the suffering of Palestinian children, which the president does not specifically mention, is existential, ongoing, constant and a daily threat with no end in sight.

President Obama said he would talk about “security and territory”. He would “put off” the sensitive issues of refugees and Jerusalem, the same sensitive issues negotiators have “put off” for decades.

President Obama also dutifully followed the Zionist line that the “two parties” should negotiate between themselves.  Any involvement by the United Nations is merely symbolic and is harmful to Israel. Here is his specific complaint:

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

“Delegitimize Israel”? How does recognizing a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders “delegitimize Israel?”

And what is “symbolic” about the UN recognizing a Palestinian state? It is not “symbolic”; it is a legitimizing action on behalf of the Palestinians just as much as the UN’s creation of the Israeli state in 1948 was a legitimizing action.

The President continued:

Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

The President was talking about UN recognition before he moved quickly into the issue of Hamas which he insists on calling a “terrorist” organization.

The trouble with tossing in the “right to exist” phrase, is that Obama ignores the fact that nations do not have the “right to exist”. They simply exist within borders that their neighbors accept as legitimate because of historical circumstances. There are no “rights” involved.

It is embarrassing for our president to allow himself to be dragged into using the Zionist “right to exist” shibboleth (See Judges 12 for the term’s origins.).

And while we are reflecting on President Obama’s embrace of traditional Israeli-American propaganda language, these two short sentences do not sound like Obama; rather, they sound like something lifted from a White House manual on “How to Speak Israeli”:

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable.

What exactly is this “shared history” and what exactly are our “shared values”?

Modern Israel’s history begins in 1948.  Aside from pushing the UN to recognize the state, and selling it arms, what have we shared? OK, we did share the pragmatic belief that Israel was our bulwark against communism in the Middle East.

In his report on the White House Friday meeting between Netanyahu and Obama, blogger Richard Silversteinincludes an incisive reminder of what “shared values” now mean to American politicians, from the far religious right to the Obama White House:

Obama again, in remarks after the two-hour meeting, noted that Israel was a “Jewish state” making no reference to the fact that it was also composed of a significant minority of non-Jewish citizens. It would be as if a foreign leader congratulated the US. for being a Christian nation. It sure would make John Hagee happy.

When Obama bragged, in his speech, about the US killing of Osama bin Laden, he was providing a further example of the values that Israel and the US share. Our Navy Seals killed an unarmed man who could have been sedated and delivered to the American judicial system. Was that option even considered in advance?

A trial for Osama bin Laden would have been more consistent with our American values than the practice of assassinating enemies, a standard we learned from  our Israeli friends, who have long killed their opponents by assassinations.

In his speech, Obama asserts that “every state has the right to self-defense”.

Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security.

Makes sense. No nation wants to be without the ability to defend its own citizens. But, then Obama adds this remarkable exception:

The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state.

This is a convoluted sentence that could be construed to suggest that when Israel withdraws its military forces from the Occupied Palestinian Territory, it will continue to provide “security” for the new sovereign state of Palestine, which will not have its own military forces.

Or, does the sentence say that Palestine will be left with no defenses? Difficult to tell from this sentence in what was reported to be some frantic, last minute speech revisions.

Whatever it was intended to say, the defense exception for Palestine is a stunningly ugly example of Obama’s embrace of Zionist–as in, whatever is best for Israel–values.

Three days before Obama’s speech, President Mahmoud Abbas wrote a guest column for the New York Times. He began with a story:

Sixty-three years ago, a 13-year-old Palestinian boy was forced to leave his home in the Galilean city of Safed and flee with his family to Syria. He took up shelter in a canvas tent provided to all the arriving refugees.

Though he and his family wished for decades to return to their home and homeland, they were denied that most basic of human rights. That child’s story, like that of so many other Palestinians, is mine.

President Abbas linked his personal story to the decision of his government to request international recognition as a state along the 1967 borders. That request will also ask that the new state of Palestine be “admitted as a full member of the United Nations.” Abbas added:

Many are questioning what value there is to such recognition while the Israeli occupation continues. Others have accused us of imperiling the peace process. We believe, however, that there is tremendous value for all Palestinians — those living in the homeland, in exile and under occupation. . . .

Palestine’s admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice.

Our quest for recognition as a state should not be seen as a stunt; too many of our men and women have been lost for us to engage in such political theater.

We go to the United Nations now to secure the right to live free in the remaining 22 percent of our historic homeland because we have been negotiating with the State of Israel for 20 years without coming any closer to realizing a state of our own.

The Barack Obama who said in his May 19 speech that the US “will oppose an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others”, is not the Barack Obama who dismisses the Palestinian appeal to the UN General Assembly as merely a “symbolic action” designed “to isolate Israel”.

The Obama speech was both a missed opportunity and a sad failure.

Image credits: The picture of the Palestinian woman with a flag and the picture of Mahmoud Abbas, are from Intifada-Palestine website. The picture of the Palestinian demonstration is from BBC website.

Source:Wallwritings

NOVANEWS

The following remarks were delivered to the International Conference on Global Alliance Against Terrorism for a Just Peace in Tehran, Iran, on May 15

By Cynthia McKinney

How wonderful to be at a Conference where the word “love” is used; we are here because we love humankind. We are here from all corners of the earth; we are against terrorism; we want peace. However, we must clarify peace. What kind of peace do we want?

President John F. Kennedy answered his question by saying: “. . . not a Pax Americana” imposed on the world by weapons of war. He went on to say that the kind of peace we want is the kind of peace that makes life worth living–peace for all men and women for all time.

No Justice, No Peace. No Truth, No Justice!

But, today, U.S. policy is rooted in lies, injustice, and war. And at home, the people of the U.S. suffer.  Racism is acute, despite and maybe because of President Obama; hatred is rampant with hatred of Muslims, incarceration of Palestinians, targeting of immigrants, the lynchings of Blacks, disappearances of Latinos, and the pauperization of the people. People inside the U.S. are under attack in the realm of policy:

• poor education opportunities–some communities experience 50% high school dropout rates;

• poor health care–Americans pay the most and get less; according to the Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook, the US is 50th in the world in life expectancy and if that is not bad enough, it picks on countries like Iraq (ranked 145th in the world), Pakistan (166th), Gaza (111th), Libya (58th), and Cuba (57th). In infant mortality, the US is worse than the European Union and Israel.

The U.S. used to be a wealthy country with much to give to the world, but now the country is being plundered and the economic policies now promote the oligarchization of our country.

The country is coming apart at the seams even as it terrorizes the world and applies the death penalty to whole countries. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said that we are a country of guided missiles and misguided men. Today, that is still true. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. also said that the U.S. was the greatest purveyor of violence on the planet and sadly, that is still true, too.

But, there is some good news, too. And that is, despite the tightly controlled U.S. media, despite the deceptive political structure that is not now–if it ever was–democratic, the core American people who are the true peace people, are beginning to see the truth. We cannot bring our country to peace and respect for human dignity without the solid foundation of the truth.  Those in the service of hatred, war, Zionism are being seen for what they are.

Former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney at International Global Alliance Against Terrorism Conference

So now, our challenge is what to do with this awakening. The answer, I believe, is whose revolution gets funded. I personally know the importance of this.  During the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S., Black people were able to erase bad laws and write better ones. They didn’t have a lot of money, but they had enough. And what they lacked in finance, they made up for in unity and strategy. Therefore, it is at this moment, when things appear so bleak that we must redouble our efforts and not give up. We must believe that we can remake the world in a more peaceful reality.

Finally, I am saddened as an American at what my country is doing to the world. I am saddened that our first African-American President presents a false perception of the Black political consensus in the U.S. when he participate in war crimes and global death and destruction.

These wars constitute a crime against humanity, crimes against the peace, and crimes against our planet. I believe the people are ready, but now we have to organize ourselves in Revolutionary Love, as Malcolm X said, “by any means necessary.”

Thank you all for caring about justice, peace, and human dignity.