Dorothy Online Newsletter

NOVANEWS

 

Dear Friends,

 

8 items below, 2 of which (5 and 6) are somewhat different from my usual fare, but think that you might find them interesting.

 

Item 1 reports that Israel’s High Court has refused to rule on the legality of the Nakba law.  Why?  Because since it has not yet been put into practice, and can be variously interpreted, it supposedly would be putting the cart before the horse to rule on it now.  However, I agree with attorney Dan Yakir that the law might well act as a deterrent to organizations and institutions afraid to have their funding reduced, or to be otherwise punished.

 

Item 2 reports that a segment of the wall to be built will leave the nuns on the West Bank side, the monks on the Israeli side.  Separation walls are problematic just by their very existence.  This one cuts the children off from their school.  Imagine that your children had to submit to having their bags checked by soldiers on the way to school!

 

Item 3 relates one of the sad happenings of the so-called Cast Lead military operation in Gaza and the impact that it has had on a survivor.  The story is part of a PCHR series that relates the experiences that families underwent during those horrid 3 weeks of death and destruction.

 

Item 4 is the OCHA Protection of Civilians weekly report

I could not agree more with item 5, “The more we talk of war with Iran, the more likely it becomes”.  Very scary not only the talk but also the US sending troops to Israel purportedly for military exercises.  I hope it goes no further than that, but am not betting on it.  One slightly positive event is that the EU is not yet applying the latest sanction, that of not purchasing oil from Iran http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,807329,00.html .  Don’t know how long that will last, though.

 

Item 6 informs us that Obama has said that the US can no longer fight the world’s battles.  I wish I knew how this coincides with the latest US sanctions on Iran, which are about the same as the sanctions placed on Iraq prior to the incursion—mainly a war against a civilian population from the sanctions on.  So also, by hitting the central bank Obama, et al obviously know that this will harm the Iranian population.  And how does this pronouncement by Obama coincide with the military exercises that it is planning with Israel?  Will it mean that if Obama is re-elected that the US will stop furnishing Israel with $3 billion in military aid?  Probably not, unfortunately.

 

Item 7 states that ‘Israel must prioritize effort to rekindle support on US campuses and Jewish communities.’  Well, the  positive aspect of this opinion piece is that Israel’s image is not what it used to be in America.  If the author had thought this out, he would have realized that Israel’s image is tarnished because of its acts.  Thus, to in any way improve the image, Israel has to change its ways.  And that is what the priority should be rather than another propaganda campaign!

 

Item 8, “The Middle East Peace Process in 2011: Hopes and Disillusionment” still opts for 2 states.  Apart from the fact that I prefer a single secular state with equal rights for all citizens regardless of religion, ethnicity, color—a state in which the beach is not the private property of one segment of the population, where freedom of movement really is free, where civil rights are for all, etc etc etc—anyone who goes to the West Bank or who sees a map of it and how it has been sliced into pieces with colonies surrounding Palestinian villages, whose lands have been stolen, and with ½ a million colonists in the West Bank, not to mention Gaza being split from the WB—I just don’t see how anyone can imagine 2 states arising from this mess.

With this thought, I leave you in peace to read.

 

Dorothy

+++++++++++

 

1 Haaretz

Friday, January 06, 2012

High Court refuses to rule on legality of Nakba Law

Justices say they cannot rule until gov’t tries to enforce law against ‘catastrophe’ commemoration.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/high-court-refuses-to-rule-on-legality-of-nakba-law-1.405729

By Tomer Zarchin

Tags: Palestinians

The High Court of Justice yesterday rejected a petition against the so-called Nakba Law, which imposes financial sanctions on state-funded bodies that commemorate the Nakba, but said it might revisit the issue once the law actually starts being applied.

The law allows the finance minister to slash the state funding of any organization that either rejects Israel’s existence as a Jewish and democratic state or marks Israel’s Independence Day as a day of mourning.

Nakba – literally, “catastrophe” – is the Arabic term for Israel’s creation in 1948, and Palestinians and Israeli Arabs observe Nakba Day as a day of mourning every year on May 15, the date Israel was established according to the Gregorian calendar.

The petition charged that the law infringes unduly on freedom of expression, as well as on the Arab minority’s right to cultivate its own historical memories and narratives, and that it thereby discriminates against this minority. It also argued that commemorating the Nakba is not tantamount to denying Israel’s right to exist; Nakba Day simply recalls the historic tragedy that befell the Palestinians at that time.

The court agreed that the law raises important questions, but said the petition was premature, as so far, no organization has actually been sanctioned under the law, making it impossible to tell how the law will be applied in practice.

The law lays down a multistage process that must be followed to deprive organizations of their funding. This includes preparing a legal opinion, holding a hearing for the affected organization and obtaining the consent of the minister whose ministry oversees the agency in question.

The state, in its response to the petition, noted that this process has never yet been applied; thus the petitioners were assuming worst-case scenarios that might never come true.

Justices Miriam Naor, Dorit Beinisch and Eliezer Rivlin concurred, and therefore rejected the petition as premature without discussing any of the constitutional issues it raised.

“I’m not expressing any opinion at this stage about the process laid down in the law or the constitutionality of the law,” Naor wrote for the court. “But at this stage, in which the law and the process it stipulates have not yet been applied, we shouldn’t, in my view, engage in guesses and speculations about how the law will be applied.”

In a concurring opinion, Beinisch wrote that “the law’s constitutionality depends to a great extent on how its instructions are interpreted, and that will become clear only once it is applied.”

But attorney Dan Yakir of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, which was one of the petitioners, charged afterward that the court ignored the law’s chilling effect – the fact that organizations are likely to censor themselves out of fear of running afoul of the law. “Because the law’s wording is so broad and vague, there’s a serious fear that state-funded organizations will practice self-censorship to avoid this risk,” he said.

+++++++

2 Forwarded by Ronnie B

 

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/new-segment-of-west-bank-security-fence-may-separate-nuns-from-monks-1.405542

 

 05.01.12

New segment of West Bank security fence may separate nuns from monks

The separation fence could divide the nuns from the monks at the Cremisan monastery, giving new meaning to gender segregation.

By Oz Rosenberg

The monks and nuns of the Cremisan monastery, on a pastoral ridge opposite Har Gilo, have been living peacefully, side by side, since the place was built in the 1960s. But a new segment of the separation fence Israel is building will not only bisect the Cremisan’s verdant terraces, but could also separate the inhabitants of this Salesian order, leaving the nuns on the West Bank side of the barrier, and the monks on the Israeli side. That, at least, is the solution the Defense Ministry recently proposed to the members of the Catholic monastery.

The fence hasn’t physically split the men from the women yet, but it has already caused a rift between them.

The Cremisan is located on the slopes of Walaja, a Palestinian village, that will eventually be surrounded by the separation fence. The monastery, which straddles the West Bank and Jerusalem, was originally slated to be entirely on the Israeli side once the fence is completed in September, according to the Defense Ministry.

For the monks, who earn their livelihood producing and selling wine, mainly in Israel, that’s good news. But for the nuns who operate a Catholic school for Palestinian children from nearby West Bank villages, it’s bad news. The fence will prevent their pupils from reaching their school, or at the very least, make it difficult for them to do so.

Since 2006, when the monastery was informed of the impending construction of the fence around Walaja, there has been tension between the men and women of the monastery.

“The monks make wine, and for them it’s great. They’re interested in producing wine and this enables them to send it to Israel, where their customers are located,” said the Mother Superior, Sister Adriana, this week. “For us it’s not good at all. If the fence passes here and they put us on the Israeli side, the children won’t be able to reach us. There’s only one road to the monastery. The fence will create a checkpoint here with soldiers.”

Sister Adriana would prefer not to have a fence built at all. This may be the only point about which the nuns and monks agree. About a month ago, in an attempt to calm things down, the administration of the monastery published a guarded condemnation of the fence, presenting the monks’ view: “The monastery never asked to move over to the Israeli side,” it said. “The entire route of the fence, including the part that directly affects the lands of Cremisan, was decided by the Israeli authorities alone.” But the announcement did not impress Sister Adriana. “We and the monks have very different opinions regarding the fence here,” she said, adding that she preferred not to elaborate.

The difference in the actions of the monks and nuns also attests to the dispute regarding the route of the fence. Aside from publishing the condemnation, the monks took no action to stop the construction of the barrier. On the other hand, the nuns turned repeatedly to the Latin Patriarch in Israel to request his help in their struggle. Then, in March 2010, they turned to an Israeli court to ask that the monastery remain under West Bank jurisdiction. With the help of the Catholic human rights center Saint Ives, they asked to join the petition of the residents of Walaja, who challenged the fence, which will surround their village. The residents lost their petition to the High Court of Justice in August. But the nuns of the Cremisan are still contesting the exact route of the fence. “The petition itself is still under deliberation,” explained attorney Manal Hassan Abusini, who represents the nuns in the case.

In response to the nuns’ protests over the last four years, the Defense Ministry has proposed various solutions. In the latest proposal, Abusini says that the ministry suggested having the separation fence run through the monastery in such a way that the nuns would remain in the West Bank, while the monks would be in Israel.

But the nuns oppose that proposal. It’s not the physical separation from the monks that is the problem. They say the proposed route will cause serious damage to the land of the Salesian order, some of which is used by them and their students. Sister Adriana and the other nuns in the order were planning to submit their declaration of opposition to the proposal, which was to be discussed in the Tel Aviv Magistrate’s Court this week.

Meanwhile, the school was empty during the week because of the Christmas vacation. Ordinarily, there are almost 300 children aged 4-16 in the complex. They easily fill the paved square that stretches opposite the large stone building that houses spanking clean classrooms. Most of the children come from Walaja. “Our only work is educating the children,” says Sister Adriana. “When they come here we have to heal their hearts too.”

Sister Adriana and the other nuns tried to broadcast business as usual as they prepared to welcome the students back to school in a few days. But a cloud was hanging over the monastery. Sister Adriana sat in a nicely furnished room, calmly explaining her world view. A minute later, she found herself outside the monastery fence conducting a lively debate with a group of soldiers and a Defense Ministry contractor who were examining the site – a preliminary stage before building the fence.

At the end of a short discussion the contractor handed her a demolition order for two old buildings in the courtyard of the monastery, where the fence is supposed to pass. “We are against this dispute,” she said, alluding to the rift with the monks. “Here we say: ‘Walls do not make good neighbors.'”

The monks’ administration at the Cremisan monastery preferred not to respond.

+++++

3.

PCHR
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights

 

6 January 2009: Al-Dayah family

 

“The bodies of nine of those killed were not found, including the bodies of my wife and my children. I tried my best with the civil defense personnel to find their bodies. All we found were pieces of flesh that were unidentifiable.”

Mohammed al-Dayah (31) with his daughter Qamar (1.5)

 

On 6 January 2009, at approximately 05:45, an Israeli aircraft bombed the al-Dayah family in the Zeitoun neighborhood of Gaza City. 22 people, including 12 children and a pregnant woman, were killed. Only one of the family members inside the house at the time of the attack, Amer al-Dayah (31), survived. Amer, two brothers who had not yet returned home from Morning Prayer at a nearby mosque, and two sisters who live elsewhere with their husbands and children are the only surviving members of the al-Dayah family.

 

Mohammed al-Dayah (31) recalls the day of the attack: “after I finished praying, I stood beside the mosque, talking to our neighbor, waiting for the sound of the airplanes and bombardments in the area to decrease. Then I heard a very powerful explosion. Shrapnel landed where I was standing. I immediately rushed home. When I reached it, I only found a pile of rubble. I began screaming and calling out for members of my family, but there was no reply. They were all under the rubble. Dead.”

 

Mohammed was not able to bury his wife Tezal (28), daughters Amani (6), Qamar (5), Arij (3) or his son Yousef (2). “The bodies of nine of those killed were not found, including the bodies of my wife and my children. I tried my best with the civil defense personnel to find their bodies. All we found were pieces of flesh that were unidentifiable,” he says. Tazal was 8 months pregnant with a boy when she was killed.

 

“At the moment I cannot imagine ever being happy again, or celebrating a happy occasion. It reminds me of the old life I used to have with my family. Before, I used to go to many parties. I always danced dabke, together with my extended family in Zeitoun. I led the dancing. Whenever we had a chance to celebrate, we would. Now I cannot bear the sound of party music, of celebrations. It makes me too sad. Whenever there is a party in the neighborhood, I have to leave the house and go somewhere else,” says Mohammed. The holidays are the most difficult time of the year for him: “during Ramadan and the Eid holidays I suffer and think of them even more than usual.”

 

His brother ‘Amer pushed Mohammed to remarry. “At first I didn’t want to but I was alone and I had to somehow rebuild a life,” says Mohammed.  Now Mohammed is remarried and has two daughters, Amani (4 months) and Qamar (1.5 years old), both named after his daughters who died in the attack. “I didn’t make a party when I remarried. Neither did my brothers for their weddings. We simply do not feel like celebrating anything.”

 

Mohammed works as an electrician with the Ministry of Health, but has had difficulties at his work since he lost his family. “I am not able to sleep at night. The night time is the most difficult part of the day for me as I cannot fall asleep. I have tried everything. Even medicine, but that only made me dizzy. So, at night I just stay up and keep myself busy; eating, taking a walk, sitting in the cemetery, going for a run. Only after sunrise I fall asleep for a few hours, exhausted. Then, how can I go to work in time? I can’t. My boss has given me 10 warnings so far but at the same time I know that he understands and has sympathy for my situation.”

 

The three brothers rebuilt a house on the same place as the old building. All three of them insisted to return to the same location. “It is where we grew up,” says Mohammed. “The Ministry of Works assisted us in constructing the base and first floor of the house, but the bomb left a seven meter deep hole under the building which affected the foundation and ground water. It took us 3 months to fix the water problem, before we could even start construction of a new building.” However, Mohammed still notices that there are problems with the foundation of the building. “Every time there is a bombing, I feel the house move. It wasn’t like that before. The house is not steady. The base was destroyed by the bomb.”

 

As Mohammed tries to rebuild a life and a future, he has no hopes that he will see those responsible for the death of his family being held accountable. “I expect nothing from Israeli Courts. They [Israel] prepare a plan and justification first and then carry out their attack. The war crimes are justified before being committed. Crimes could happen anytime again.”

 

PCHR submitted a criminal complaint to the Israeli authorities on behalf of the al-Dayah family on 18 May 2009. To-date, no response has been received.

Public Document

**************************************

For more information please call PCHR office in Gaza, Gaza Strip, on +972 8 2824776 – 2825893

PCHR, 29 Omer El Mukhtar St., El Remal, PO Box 1328 Gaza, Gaza Strip. E-mail: pchr@pchrgaza.org, Webpage http://www.pchrgaza.org

If you got this forwarded and you want to subscribe, send mail to  request@pchrgaza.org

and write “subscribe” in the subject line.
-++++++++

4 OCHA Protection of Civilians weekly report

http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_protection_of_civilians_weekly_report_2012_01_05_english.pdf

5  The Independent

Thursday, 5 January 2012

 

Adrian Hamilton: The more we talk of war with Iran, the more likely it becomes

The frightening thing is that so many discuss war as if it was perfectly rational

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/adrian-hamilton/adrian-hamilton-the-more-we-talk-of-war-with-iran-the-more-likely-it-becomes-6284980.html#

Adrian Hamilton

All winter long the drums of war have been beating. At first it was reports, taken seriously by even hardened observers of the Middle East scene, that Israel was planning to use the Christmas holiday period to launch an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Then Iran in its turn ratcheted up the tensions as the New Year approached with a threat to close the Straits of Hormuz to oil shipping in the event of further sanctions from the US and Europe.

Neither event has so far happened and current wisdom would still suggest that they won’t. The consequences would be almost too terrible to contemplate. Which is why, for the moment at least, you hear senior naval and other figures in Iran declaring that the country does not intend to close the Straits and why senior figures from Israel’s security forces have openly talked of restraining the government of Benjamin Netanyahu from sending the bombers to Iran.

But these voices are very much in the minority. The really frightening thing about the situation is not so much the military preparations but that so many are ready to discuss war as if it was a perfectly rational, and indeed likely, possibility.

The pressures for war are there and growing. The right-wing governing coalition in Israel is publicly in favour of it. The military are advising that now is the time, before Iran progresses any further with its nuclear enrichment facilities. At the same time, the US administration of President Obama – which had been acting as a restraint on Israel – now appears weaker and weaker against the voices demanding confrontation with Iran.

When the so-called centrist contender for the Republican leadership, Mitt Romney, can say, as he did this week, that, “the greatest threat that Israel faces, and frankly the greatest threat the world faces, is a nuclear Iran”, you know that the election is not going to allow the President to adopt a statesmanlike position where Israel is concerned.

Indeed Obama is not, signing into law as one of his last acts in 2011, a clause added on to the 2012 Defence Authorisation Bill, stopping any company working in the US from dealing with the Iranian Central Bank.

Sanctions, once considered a non-violent alternative to military action, have now become an act of aggression in themselves, targeting, for the first time, Iranian civilian society and ordinary trade instead of being limited to the activities of particular groups and individuals in Iran. And the EU, which meets later this month to consider further sanctions on the country, is set to follow with a ban on all purchases of Iranian oil.

Little wonder that Iran, the subject of intensifying factional struggles itself, a collapsing currency and severe economic difficulties, has responded by issuing threats and holding military exercises to show what it could do in response.

This is a madness in which every principle of diplomacy and every knowledge of consequences is simply being cast aside in pursuit of what? A nuclear Iran does not offer the existential threat to Israel to justify war (as the Mossad chief, Tamir Pardo, said only last week). There is no overriding economic or strategic interest for the US or Europe to go down this vicious cycle of sanction, counter-threat and tighter pressure until something – probably peace – breaks.

If one had one single wish for 2012 it would be that sanity returns, that the EU calls a halt to ever-tighter sanctions, that President Obama has the courage to say what he clearly feels – that military action is off the table – and that Iran and the international community return to the table. It may be a vain hope but you don’t have to look very far into the recent past to know what will happen if we don’t stop the train now.

Hungary’s new law is more than just a matter of politics . . .

a.hamilton@independent.co.uk

+++++++++
6 Independent

Friday, 6 January 2012

 

Obama: the US can no longer fight the world’s battles

President plans to cut half a million troops and says US can’t afford to wage two wars at once

[see also NYTimes editorial on same subject, but with some differences in opinion   http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/opinion/a-leaner-pentagon.html?_r=1&ref=global ]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-the-us-can-no-longer-fight-the-worlds-battles-6285629.html#

Rupert Cornwell

 

The mighty American military machine that has for so long secured the country’s status as the world’s only superpower will have to be drastically reduced, Barack Obama warned yesterday as he set out a radical but more modest new set of priorities for the Pentagon over the next decade.

Click HERE to view ‘America’s shrinking military’ graphic

After the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that defined the first decade of the 21st century, Mr Obama’s blueprint for the military’s future acknowledged that America will no longer have the resources to conduct two such major operations simultaneously.

Instead, the US military will lose up to half a million troops and will focus on countering terrorism and meeting the new challenges of an emergent Asia dominated by China. America, the President said, was “turning the page on a decade of war” and now faced “a moment of transition”. The country’s armed forces would in future be leaner but, Mr Obama pointedly warned both friends and foes, sufficient to preserve US military superiority over any rival – “agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats”.

The wider significance of America’s landmark strategic change was underlined by British Defence Secretary Philip Hammond, who used a visit to Washington to warn that America must not delay the production of US warplanes bound for British aircraft carriers. The US strategy is expected to make a drawdown of some of the 80,000 troops based in Europe.

“We have to look at the relationship with Americans in a slightly different light,” Mr Hammond told Channel 4 News. “Europeans have to respond to this change in American focus, not with a fit of pique but by pragmatic engagement, recognising that we have to work with Americans to get better value for money.”

But there is little doubt that Europe will be a much-reduced priority under the new scheme. The blueprint’s status as the president’s own property, after a first three years in office dominated by wars he had inherited from his predecessor, was underlined by his rare personal appearance at the Pentagon flanked by Defence Secretary Leon Panetta and other top uniformed officials.

Henceforth, Mr Obama underlined, the priorities would be maintaining a robust nuclear deterrent, confronting terrorism and protecting the US homeland, and deterring and defeating any potential adversary. To these ends, the US will also boost its cyberwarfare and missile defence capabilities.

At the same time, iIf all goes to plan, the centre of gravity of the US defence effort will shift eastwards, away from Europe and the Middle East. The focus will be on Asia and – both he and Mr Panetta made abundantly clear without specifically saying so – in particular on an increasingly assertive China, already an economic superpower and well on the way to becoming a military one as well.

The specifics of the new proposals, set out in a document entitled “Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense”, have yet to be fleshed out. But they are likely to entail a reduction of up to 490,000 in a total military personnel now standing at some 1.6 million worldwide, as well as cuts in costly procurement programmes – some originally designed for a Cold War environment.

The “Obama Doctrine” reflects three basic realities. First, the long post-9/11 wars are finally drawing to a close. The last US troops have already left Iraq, while American combat forces are due to be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014 (though a limited number may stay on as trainers and advisers).

Second, and as the President stressed in a major speech during his recent visit to Australia, America’s national interest is increasingly bound up with Asia, the world’s economic powerhouse, and where many countries are keen for a greater US commitment as a counterweight to China.

Third, and most important, are the domestic financial facts of life, at a moment when government spending on every front is under pressure. For years the Pentagon has been exempt – but no longer, as efforts multiply to rein in soaring federal budget deficits.

At $662bn, Pentagon spending for fiscal 2013 will exceed the next 10 largest national defence budgets on the planet combined. Even so, that sum is $27bn less than what President Obama wanted, and $43bn less than the 2012 budget.

++++++

7.  Ynet

Thursday, January 5, 2012

     Burning Israeli flag in Nabi Saleh Photo: Reuters

     Is Israel losing the battle?

Op-ed: Israel must prioritize effort to rekindle support on US campuses, at Jewish communities

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4171353,00.html

Steve Rubin

The de-legitimization of Israel is being perpetuated by the Jewish state’s lack of a concrete plan to counter a new generation of anti-Israeli attitudes amongst both the American Jewish community and on college campuses.

With regards to college campuses, this is not an issue of bigoted anti-Semitism; rather, it is a case of educated and intelligent young adults who have been easily and convincingly swayed by an overwhelmingly powerful Palestinian narrative.

Even more troubling is that these well-educated, anti-Israel activists are the future of America and its leadership. This is a new generation that is no longer enamored with the State of Israel; rather, it is increasingly angry and cannot comprehend how America can maintain such steadfast support for the Jewish state.

It is this same generation that will be leading America over the next 50 years – a period that will prove to be ever so critical in terms of Israel’s prolonged survival.

As for the American Jewish community, there has been an increased disillusionment with the State of Israel’s policies. No longer is Israel the mighty David that defeated the Arab Goliath in a fight for its survival. Rather, it has become an added headache in trying to explain and understand Israel’s prolonged policies in a way that connects to their “American-Liberal” perspectives.

Own worst enemy

Although the majority of these American Jews may still profoundly support the conceptual idea of Israel, they are mentally exhausted in having to defend her, while at the same time feeling underappreciated as a bastion of support by Israel and its policymakers. It could be said that Israel is already losing the battle within future generations of non-American Jews; however, it still has the opportunity to positively influence the hearts and minds of the Jewish community.

The existential threat that Iran poses to Israel is not nearly as threatening as is the one coming from those that will eventually be influencing American foreign policy and its policies towards Israel. In this sense, Israel is its own worst enemy, slowly fulfilling a self-professing prophecy of an “existential threat” by not having the proper resources in place to educate some of America’s youngest and brightest minds.

The battle for Israel will not be won by its superior military capabilities. Conversely, it will be achieved via the media, on American college campuses and by a tailored rapprochement with the disenfranchised American Jewish community.

The author holds an MA in Diplomacy from Tel Aviv University and works in Tel Aviv as a journalist and linguistic editor

++++++++

8.  Forwarded by Sam B

The National Interest

January 6, 2012

 

The Mideast Peace Process in 2011: Hopes and Disillusionment

 

By Henry Siegman

 

This past December, four European countries—the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Portugal, all members of the UN Security Council—harshly faulted Israel for its violation of international law and the rights of the Palestinian people by continuing the expansion of illegal settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Israel’s intemperate response to that criticism exposed for all to see the moral and political obtuseness of its settlement policy, telling these European countries to mind their own business instead of interfering in Israel’s “internal” affairs.

The Israeli notion that the Occupied Territories beyond the 1967 border are “internal,” allowing Israeli governments to do with them as they please without regard for the rights of the Palestinian people or for international law, has not just “complicated” the peace process, as the United States and other governments have often put it. It has turned the peace process into a farce, for it exposes the strategic choice of Israel’s current and previous governments of territory over peace, and leaves no doubt that the goal of Israel’s settlement project is the prevention of Palestinian statehood.

Mostly ignored or forgotten is the fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ran on a Likud party platform that explicitly opposed Palestinian statehood; later, after he made his speech claiming to have been converted to acceptance of a two-state solution, key members of his government established the “Entire Land of Israel” parliamentary caucus whose official goal is the prevention of a Palestinian state anywhere in the West Bank. It is the largest of the Knesset’s many caucuses. There is no record of Netanyahu ever having criticized this caucus or having ordered members of his government to leave it.

Even as Netanyahu proclaims how desperately he wishes to renew peace talks with President Mahmoud Abbas, his government distributed hateful and defamatory accusations against Abbas, describing him as a “radical” who glorifies and perpetuates violence and terrorism—this of the man who not only publicly opposed the violence of the second intifada but whose collaboration with Israeli security forces put an end to violence and terrorism in the West Bank. A “circular note” issued to foreign governments by Israel’s Foreign Ministry in October 2011 reaches the “inescapable” conclusion that “no agreement will ever be possible [with the Palestinians] as long as Mahmoud Abbas leads the Palestinian Authority.”

In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September, President Obama asserted that Palestinians can achieve statehood only through direct negotiations with Israel, effectively subjecting the Palestinian right to national self-determination to Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman’s veto. If Netanyahu and his government choose to present Abbas terms for an agreement that no Palestinian leader could conceivably accept—which, by insisting on Israel’s annexation of all of Arab East Jerusalem is exactly what they have done—they will be able to keep the West Bank and its population under permanent subjugation.

Before demanding that Palestinians return to bilateral talks with Israel, and certainly before punishing Palestinians for refusing to do so, President Obama had an obligation to answer a simple question: What would he have done if Palestinians acceded to his demand and resumed bilateral talks, but continued to encounter Netanyahu’s refusal to negotiate territorial issues from the 1967 border, or to limit changes in that border to territorial swaps? Would he then have allowed the Security Council to address Israel’s rejection without resorting to a veto? His September speech left little doubt about the answer to that question.

So as 2011 ended, the Middle East peace process became history. Despite the U.S. administration’s rhetorical objections to Israel’s settlements and its equally rhetorical support of Palestinian statehood, Obama’s rejection of international intervention and his insistence that a Palestinian state can come about only as the result of a bilateral Israeli-Palestinian agreement sent a clear message to Netanyahu’s government. For all practical purposes, a Palestinian state is no longer on America’s political horizon.

But for this very reason, 2011 was the year in which the international community, including America’s most important European allies, realized the groundlessness of their long-standing belief that the United States is uniquely positioned to leverage its unprecedented support for Israel into pressure to accept a just and balanced peace accord. The international community now sees that the United States is uniquely preventing an agreement, repeatedly using its Security Council vote, or the threat of a veto, to shield Israel from international pressure that might have changed its cost-benefit calculations.

It is this new awareness of an intolerable American bias that provoked four European members of the Security Council to drop the pretense that their governments believe Netanyahu is committed to a two-state solution. Following a closed meeting of the Security Council at which its members received a briefing on Israel’s newly announced construction plans, which would effectively exclude a Palestinian state from any part of East Jerusalem, and therefore rule out a two-state solution, these key European governments described Israel’s continued territorial confiscations as sending “a devastating message” about Israel’s intentions. One senior European official who did not wish to be identified [3]said [3], “We don’t know where this government is leading Israel to, or what its position is regarding the peace process.” That is diplomatic-speak for “We know where this government is leading Israel and what its position regarding the peace process is, and it can no longer count on our complicity.” India, Brazil and South Africa also condemned Israel’s behavior, as did Russia’s UN envoy.

As long as the peace process was based on the illusion that Israel was always ready to return the Occupied Territories in exchange for Palestinian and Arab recognition, and that America would use its leverage to bring Israel into line if it failed to do so, there was no chance that the peace process could lead to a two-state solution. Now that Netanyahu and Obama have put an end to these two illusions, international sanctions fairly applied to both parties for illegal and predatory behavior are no longer inconceivable. If such intervention were now pursued by an international community no longer willing to accept an American Middle East peace policy that is hostage to its Israel lobby, a Palestinian state living in peace alongside an Israel reconciled to its internationally recognized borders may yet be achievable.

Henry Siegman, president of the U.S./Middle East Project, is a non-resident research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Program, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

 

Source: bit.ly/yIsuaD

ePalestine Blog:

http://www.epalestine.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *