How US bankrolling Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinians destroys all hope of peace


by michaellee
Will Americans ever acknowledge their government’s active role in destroying the chances for a just and lasting peace between Palestine and Israel?
The top recipient of U.S. foreign aid over the past three decades isn’t some impoverished land filled with starving kids, but a wealthy nation with a per-head gross domestic product on par with the European Union average, and higher than that of Italy, Spain, or South Korea.
This top recipient of such aid — nearly all of it military since 2008 — has been busily engaged in what looks like a nineteenth-century-style colonization project. In the late 1940s, our beneficiary expelled some 700,000 indigenous people from the land it was claiming.  In 1967, our client seized some contiguous pieces of real estate and ever since has been colonizing these territories with nearly 650,000 of its own people. It has divided the conquered lands with myriad checkpoints and roads accessible only to the colonizers and is building a 440-mile wall around (and cutting into) the conquered territory, creating a geography of control that violates international law.
“Ethnic cleansing” is a harsh term, but apt for a situation in which people are driven out of their homes and lands because they are not of the right tribe. Though many will balk at leveling this charge against Israel — for that country is, of course, the top recipient of American aid and especially military largesse — who would hesitate to use the term if, in a mirror-image world, all of this were being inflicted on Israeli Jews?
Arming and bankrolling a wealthy nation acting in this way may, on   its face, seem like terrible policy. Yet American aid has been flowing   to Israel in ever greater quantities. Over the past 60 years, in fact,   Israel has absorbed close to a quarter-trillion dollarsin such aid. Last year alone, Washington sent some $3.1 billion in military aid, supplemented by allocations for collaborative military research and joint training exercises.
Overall, the United States covers nearly one quarter of Israel’s defense budget — from tear gas canisters to F-16 fighter   jets. In their 2008-2009 assault on Gaza, the Israeli Defense Forces made use of M-92 and M-84 “dumb bombs,” Paveway II and JDAM guided “smart bombs,”   AH-64 Apache attack helicopters equipped with AGM-114 Hellfire guided   missiles, M141 “bunker defeat” munitions, and special weapons like   M825A1 155mm white phosphorous munitions — all supplied as American   foreign aid. (Uniquely among Washington’s aid recipients, Israel is also permitted to spend 25% of the military funding from Washington on weapons made by its own weapons industry.)
Why is Washington doing this? The most common answer is the simplest:   Israel is Washington’s “ally.” But the United States has dozens of   allies around the world, none of which are subsidized in anything like   this fashion by American taxpayer dollars. As there is no formal treaty alliance between the two nations and given the lopsided   nature of the costs and benefits of this relationship, a far more   accurate term for Israel’s tie to Washington might be “client state.”
And not a particularly loyal client either. If massive military aid   is supposed to give Washington leverage over Israel (as it normally does   in client-state relationships), it is difficult to detect. In case you   hadn’t noticed, rare is the American diplomatic visit to Israel that is   not greeted with an in-your-face announcement of intensifiedcolonization of Palestinian territory, euphemistically called “settlement expansion.”
A Dishonest Broker
Nothing is equal when it comes to Israelis and Palestinians in the   West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip — and the numbers say it   all. To offer just one example, the death toll from Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s 2008-2009 assault on the Gaza Strip,   was 1,385 Palestinians (the majority of them civilians) and 13   Israelis, three of them civilians.
And yet mainstream opinion in the U.S. insists on seeing the two   parties as essentially equal. Harold Koh, former dean of the Yale Law   School and until recently the top lawyer at the State Department, has   been typical in comparing Washington’s role to “adult supervision” of “a playground populated by   warring switchblade gangs.” It was a particularly odd choice of   metaphors, given that one side is equipped with small arms and rockets   of varying sophistication, the other with nuclear weapons and a   state-of-the-art modern military subsidized by the world’s only   superpower.
Washington’s active role in all of this is not lost on anyone on the   world stage — except Americans, who have declared themselves to be the   even-handed arbiters of a conflict involving endless failed efforts at   brokering a “peace process.” Globally, fewer and fewer observers believe   in this fiction of Washington as a benevolent bystander rather than a   participant heavily implicated in a humanitarian crisis. In 2012, the   widely respected International Crisis Group described the “peace process” as “a collective addiction that serves all manner   of needs, reaching an agreement no longer being the main one.”
The contradiction between military and diplomatic support for one   party in the conflict and the pretense of neutrality cannot be explained   away. “Looked at objectively, it can be argued that American diplomatic   efforts in the Middle East have, if anything, made achieving peace   between Palestinians and Israelis more difficult,” writes Rashid   Khalidi, a historian at Columbia University, and author of Brokers of Deceit: How the U.S. Has Undermined Peace in the Middle East.
Fake Peace Process, Real War Process
Today, Secretary of State John Kerry is leading a push for a renewed   round of the interminable American-led peace process in the region that   has been underway since the mid-1970s.
It’s hardly a bold prediction to   suggest that this round, too, will fail. The Israeli minister of   defense, Moshe Ya’alon, has already publicly mocked Kerry in his quest for peace as “obsessive and messianic” and added   that the newly proposed framework for this round of negotiations is “not   worth the paper it’s printed on.” Other Israeli high officials blasted   Kerry for his mere mention of the potential negative consequences to   Israel of a global boycott if peace is not achieved.
But why shouldn’t Ya’alon and other Israeli officials tee off on the   hapless Kerry? After all, the defense minister knows that Washington   will wield no stick and that bushels of carrots are in the offing,   whether Israel rolls back or redoubles its land seizures and   colonization efforts.
President Obama has boasted that the U.S. has   never given so much military aid to Israel as under his presidency. On   January 29th, the House Foreign Affairs Committee voted unanimously to upgrade Israel’s status to “major strategic partner.”   With Congress and the president guaranteeing that unprecedented levels   of military aid will continue to flow, Israel has no real incentive to   change its behavior.
Usually such diplomatic impasses are blamed on the Palestinians, but   given how little is left to squeeze out of them, doing so this time will   test the creativity of official Washington. Whatever happens, in the   post-mortems to come there will be no discussion in Washington about the   role its own policies played in undermining a just and lasting   agreement.
How much longer will this silence last? The arming and bankrolling of   a wealthy nation committing ethnic cleansing has something to offend   conservatives, progressives, and just about every other political   grouping in America. After all, how often in foreign policy does   strategic self-interest align so neatly with human rights and common   decency?
Intelligent people can and do disagree about a one-state versus a   two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. People of goodwill disagree   about the global BDS campaign. But it is hard to imagine what kind of   progress can ever be made toward a just and lasting settlement between   Israel and Palestine until Washington quits arming one side to the   teeth.
“If it weren’t for U.S. support for Israel, this conflict would have   been resolved a long time ago,” says Josh Ruebner.  Will we Americans   ever acknowledge our government’s active role in destroying the chances   for a just and lasting peace between Palestine and Israel?

Leave a Reply

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