"International law is not an empty promise" - except for Palestinians
President Obama's General Assembly speech called on the international community to mobilize behind the U.S.-led "peace process." He called on the Palestinians to "reconcile with a secure Israel" and waxed eloquent on the illegality of killing Israeli civilians. He called on the Palestinians' friends to implement the Arab Peace Plan's proposed normalization with Israel without ever mentioning the plan's clear understanding that ending Israel's 1967 occupation must come first. And he called on Israel to - talk nicely.
Obama did say that Israel's partial settlement moratorium "should" be extended, but carefully went on to urge that the talks "press on until completed" with no linkage between the two goals. Not to mention that what he calls a "moratorium" has consistently allowed continued building throughout Arab East Jerusalem, continued construction on homes already approved or begun, and work on huge infrastructure projects throughout the settlements.
Obama pretty much ignored any substantive role for the United Nations in the "peace process," but he lectured the General Assembly, noting that "many in this hall count themselves as friends of the Palestinians." (He didn't, apparently, include himself in that category.) From those friends, he demanded "tangible steps towards normalization" with Israel, ignoring the fundamental basis of the Arab Peace Initiative that makes clear normalization comes after, not before, an end to Israel's occupation.
And he condemned the "slaughter of innocent Israelis," but said not one word about Israel's 2008-09 assault, which used U.S. arms to kill 1,400 Gazans--more than 900 of them civilians and more than 300 of them children. Let alone any mention of the nine killed (including a U.S. citizen) and 50+ injured in the Israeli assault on the Turkish ship in the international humanitarian flotilla a few months ago.
The speech made clear that support for the moment, the endless "peace process" is, for Washington, a perfectly appropriate alternative to holding Israel accountable for any violations of human rights or international law. The Goldstone Report, UN and other efforts to hold Israel accountable for the illegalities inherent in its occupation and apartheid policies, or even the extreme violations like the Gaza war or the flotilla assault, must be sidelined or squashed entirely - because they could undermine the peace talks, whether or not those peace talks have any hope of succeeding. It is the exact opposite position as that taken by Obama's UN Ambassador Susan Rice regarding Darfur. Rice was one of the strongest voices insisting on full implementation of the International Criminal Court indictment of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir regardless of the dangers it posed to the fragile Sudanese ceasefire because accountability must come first, insisting that justice comes before peace.
But not, apparently, when it comes to Israel-Palestine.
Obama made a vitally important point when he said that "international law is not an empty promise." Unfortunately he said that only in regard to imposing sanctions on Iran. After that, when he began to speak of Palestine and Israel, the phrase "international law" was never seen again.
In all his discussions of the peace talks and their importance, and even in his description of the arguments of "the cynics," Obama never acknowledged the most important reason why this round of talks will almost certainly fail to bring about a just, comprehensive and lasting peace: because they are not based on international law and the UN Charter and resolutions. The president said that the cynics' view is that Israelis and Palestinians don't trust each other, that both parties are divided internally, that "the gaps between the parties are too great." But he never acknowledged that "the parties" do not come to the table as equals, that this is not a border dispute between Peru and Ecuador. These are talks between an Occupying Power, which happens to be the 23rd wealthiest country in the world and by far the strongest military and nuclear weapons power in the region, backed by the strongest and most powerful country on the globe, facing an impoverished and dispossessed occupied population. When talks are based on accepting that inequality as a given, when the arbiter of the talks is the main backer of the stronger party, and when international law is ignored, the talks cannot succeed.
So far, the Obama administration seems to be saying that "no change" is the only change we can believe in when it comes to U.S. policy on Israel-Palestine.
This post originally appeared on Huffington Post.
Obama is an extremely eloquent speaker and a complete fraud. The resounding emptiness of his words is shameful and embarrassing. He makes an excellent “humanist”.
“Empty Promises” should be the motto for his presidency
The president also appealed to the Arab “street” to pressure their leaders to back the so-called peace initiative. He couldn’t have been serious, because he must know that had they not feared the “street’s reaction to their their selling out on justice for Palestine, Arab leader’s long ago would have caved to U.S. insistance that they do just that. And even though our president insists that he wants an end to the Mideast conflict, one has to wonder about his sincerity. After all his remarks, double standard and hypocrisy laden as they are, if they have any effect in the Mideast, it’ll be to further inflame the Arab world against U.S. supported Israeli aggression. Meanwhile, for those who yet count on our president to be even-handed in regards to the Mideast conflict, one thought – BDS!
more empty words with no teeth behind them. an american president needs to go to Israel you have this amount of time to get your act together or we mess you up.
Newsflash
South African Academics Call for Boycott of Ben Gurion University
link to pulsemedia.org
Telltale signs of Obama’s vision of justice:
link to aliabunimah.posterous.com
It makes me sad. I agree with Bennis’ top level analysis, but still see a difference between the macro political level and the activists on the ground. The peace process is mostly a sham, but supporting the peace process in the Israeli and Palestinian context is still a worthy option for those fighting worse, more violent alternatives.
Something like, fight against the fake peace process held aloft by Obama as if the alternative was better. Fight against opponents of the peace process in Israel and Palestine because those opponents generally offer worse alternatives.
I’m reminded that pro peace opponents of Oslo in the 90s had two options: help destroy the peace process, or carp ineffectually from the sidelines. Hamas took the first route, PFLP took the second. Neither avenue looks like it produced good results. What if they had worked with the PLO to box in the Israelis instead of making it easier for the Israelis to box in the Palestinians? We’ll never know.
Opponents of the peace process are overwhelmingly either supporters of Hamas or supporters of the Israeli right wing. The voice of left, principled opponents screaming about international law are doing exactly what they did when the Oslo steamroller was going by. Will it work any better as a political strategy today?
One of the voices I respect the most from those days are Challenge, the former Nitzotz folks. They supported the two state solution while opposing Oslo, seeing in advance that it was unlikely to work as promised. (Not that I’d vote for Da’am or anything….)
Worse for whom? The Oslo Accords have resulted in Palestinians experiencing more anguish, oppression and suffering, while having their freedom of movement restricted and more land stolen.
Unfortunately, you’re delusional. It’s as if you live on Mars, when in essence as you claim, you live in Israel. It is actually beneficial that you continue to post here so that others can see for themselves the cocoon in which the average Israeli lives. Yeah, “Box in”. I think you’ve watched too many episodes of Starsky and Hutch. Meanwhile, Israel is building more settlements and the Shabak is working overtime recruiting agents and informants by extorting those who need medical care.
I think the Hamas vision is worse for both Israelis and Palestinians. Hamas ideology sees all of Palestine as holy Waqf (religious endowment) land that Palestinians are safeguarding for all Muslims. As such, it’s a solution that fails to take into account the needs of Israeli Jews very well, along with Palestinians who fear an Islamist governing authority.
The PFLP vision is more benign. There is also a record of working together with Israelis, as embodied by the Alternative Information Center. My main critique there is that the PFLP vision for a Palestinian future isn’t that popular. Some have said that the Palestinian left, as a political force, sort of ended when many of the cadres moved to take staff positions at various NGOs.
So in terms of opposition, we have a mostly spent force (PFLP) and a strong force with a vision that excludes both Israelis and Palestinians who oppose living in an Islamicized society.
Saying that these are politically unattractive options is not a defense of Oslo.
You know Avi, word for word you seem more focused on insulting me (as someone you disagree with) than in responding to what’s written. Which is fine in a way. But… you don’t know me. I don’t know you. Don’t you think the ease with which these comment threads degenerate into ad-hominem attacks are a problem?
“I think the Hamas vision is worse for both Israelis and Palestinians. Hamas ideology sees all of Palestine as holy Waqf (religious endowment) land that Palestinians are safeguarding for all Muslims. As such, it’s a solution that fails to take into account the needs of Israeli Jews very well, along with Palestinians who fear an Islamist governing authority”
You are indeed delusional. Had has supported a 2 state solution
since 2006, while Israel’s leaders are moving toward official apartheid.
“The PFLP vision is more benign. There is also a record of working together with Israelis, as embodied by the Alternative Information Center. ”
Benign as in lying prostrate before Israel’s wishes.
“My main critique there is that the PFLP vision for a Palestinian future isn’t that popular.”
Both among the Palestinians and Israelis.
“So in terms of opposition, we have a mostly spent force (PFLP) and a strong force with a vision that excludes both Israelis and Palestinians who oppose living in an Islamicized society.”
Clearly that is false, but also clear is that you are impervious to facts or reality.
“Saying that these are politically unattractive options is not a defense of Oslo.”
Bibbi has already admitted on tape that he personally sabotaged Oslo, so he and Hamas are on the same page.
“You know Avi, word for word you seem more focused on insulting me (as someone you disagree with) than in responding to what’s written.”
Actually, he’s managed to both simultaneously.
“Don’t you think the ease with which these comment threads degenerate into ad-hominem attacks are a problem?”
The problem begins when Israeli propagandists bring their worn out talking points to the debate and refuse to accept reality.
When you come on here and start making comments to the effect that minorities are very much “desired” in Israel, I have to call you out on that. You weren’t even making the case that Israel is using these minorities as cheap labor. No. Instead, you simply left it at “desired”, as if Israelis are hiring Palestinians from both sides of the Green Line faster than the IDF can slaughter 400 children.
I don’t see Jewish Israel embracing any non-Jews, certainly not the children of foreign workers, Palestinians from the occupied territories or Palestinians in Israel. That struck me as disingenuous on your part.
Then yesterday or the day before you made the claim that the demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state was a Likud only demand. You didn’t mention Kadima’s demand for the same recognition. Instead, you claimed that such a demand does not represent Israel the state and then went on to describe how that demand is merely used by the Likud party to pressure the Left.
Why even bother making such a statement when you know that every Israeli government in the last decade, at least, has demanded Palestinians recognize Israel as Jewish?
It’s pure nonsense.
So, when you advance such claims with the type of language that is only fitting of someone like Mark Regev — he’s the Israeli government’s spokesperson. Call him Baghdad Bob if you want — you come across as a dishonest, deceptive snake oil salesman.
What am I supposed to do then, give you a hug?
Stop pretending to be the victim.
Avi,
I don’t need your honey or your sting. This week, you’re the guy appointed to go after someone who doesn’t adhere to some strange, not quite articulated MondoWeiss orthodoxy.
The demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people dates from 2007, not a decade ago. How would I ‘know’ that the demand is at least a decade old? If I didn’t include Kadima in my description, it’s not from some effort to fool anyone (like I’m a shill for Kadima davka). If you get the dates wrong, does that mean you are being dishonest or selling snake oil?
I did not write or imply that Israelis ‘love’ minorities or treat them well. I wrote that the State of Israel has consistently integrated them into the economy, in contrast to the view that left wing Israelis support a Jews only ethnic state. It’s kind of absurd – you aren’t even arguing with what I said, but with what you assume I must mean by it. It’s all about the ‘as if.’
An outside observer might conclude that you find it more useful to attack a person expressing views you disagree with than argue with the positions actually stated.
Do you think that the Israeli leftists who support two states are in favor of an ethnically pure state?
Do you think that the Israeli state has tried to prevent the use of foreign, non-Jewish labor inside Israel, in an effort to make the population Jewish only?
Do you think that the outrageous demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state has no electoral utility for the Likud (and Kadima)?
If you say yes to any of these questions then we disagree. Otherwise, you’re just venting.
It’s not a matter of disagreement, it’s a matter of you pretending as though the facts on the ground are subject to interpretation. As if we’re standing in front of the painting of the Mona Liza. One says, “She looks like she’s smiling,” while the other says, “Ummm, it kind of looks like she’s sad”.
No. That’s not it. This is a simple matter of, “The earth is round, not flat”.
Do you understand the analogy and the metaphor?
But, then you put forth a ludicrous argument and expect to have someone hold your hand while he academically debates you on the fine differences between organic and non-organic tomatoes. It’s as though this is mere entertainment for you. That’s what’s enraging. And don’t claim that I’m putting words in your mouth or that, “I never said that”. It won’t work because you seem incapable of seeing the sum of all your comments.
Here’s what you wrote on the 22nd:
Why were they no longer “desired”? I know the answer, but I want to hear it from you. Explain.
You went on:
Do you see where you’re splitting hairs? You wrote: “It is only hostile to equality of non-Jews”.
Big deal. If there is no equality, then the social and political margnialization will lead to an ethnically pure state as it will allow the state to institute harsher and more stringent policies. It’s an inevitable by-product. It has happened before throughout human history and it will happen again. You claim to be this and that, and yet seem unable to grasp a simple concept.
And that’s the second point I made regarding ethnic and racial supremacy. A point you chose to ignore as if it never happened. Well, it didn’t go away and neither did I. Just like the disenfranchised third class citizens and the Palestinians under occupation are not going away. If you want to solve the problem you’ll have to face up to the real issues, head on.
In other words, if these laborers are “desired”, but are granted very little rights, if any, then what’s the difference between wanting an ethnically pure state and a state which has two classes of human beings, masters and slaves? Do you think it’s a clever distinction?
The division is still based on ethnic supremacy and the economic disparity that was created by that racism feeds into the cycle.
You want to put lipstick on a pig, go ahead. But you’re not fooling me.
So, while you may find it convenient to make that distinction, you fail at realizing that the two conditions are in a symbiotic relationship. That is to say, if these laborers lived in a state where everyone were equal, they won’t have to rely on their Jewish masters for their daily bread. The Palestinains were a useful underclass until those same laborers started turning on their masters, or when Israeli Jews were too scared or too racist to even employ an Arab to pick up the garbage.
Like I said, the two are perpetuating one another. But, you’re sitting there playing with semantics, one minute you say Israel is racist, and the next you say the workers are “desired”, but then you jump back to the fact that they simply don’t have equal rights.
And despite my clear explanations in my previous post on the 22nd, you came back today with the same nonsense. If you plan on continuing to argue like some obtuse and dense hypocrite, so be it. There are plenty more who keep everyone entertained, RW and WJ come to mind. But, you’re not even trying to make a valid argument. All you’re doing is whining, “Oh stop picking on me. Why are you picking on me? Is it because you simply disagree with me? Wahhh waaahh”.
You’re better off calling yourself a radical Israeli settler. At least then, you won’t raise everyone’s expectations only to disappoint a few moments later.
Read my responses from the Segregation thread again. You might have an epiphany, if you’re honest that is.
link to mondoweiss.net
Incidentally, if you cared about the Palestinians more than you did about saving your own society’s reputation and sensibilities, perhaps you’d realize that holding a solidarity demonstration in Tel-Aviv was as good as a one finger salute to the Palestinians. No one is asking you to cross an ocean. No one is asking you to quit your day job. But, you’re behaving as though the Palestinians are not your problem. As if you’re doing THEM a favor. That’s the image you project.
Don’t you get it? This isn’t about the Israeli left, this is about an underclass of human beings which you, from your ivory tower, continue to treat as if they are asking too much. God forbid some shmuck had to get a babysitter for the kids so as to be able to attend a demonstration in Jerusalem. If you can’t make that minuscule a sacrifice — an inconvenience, actually — then don’t bother at all, certainly, don’t call yourself an Israeli lefty as it makes you seem Tzavua.
Read this speech as part of his re-election bid. He needs the money from the friends of Zionist Israel to be re-elected. I have made it a point to never listen to his speeches and only read them. In “black and white” his words, when compared to his performance or his behaviors, well “fraud” is a strong word, so I’ll settle for whatever is just a little bit less worse than fraud.
Have not listened to Obama’s speech yet. Have listened to Ahmadenijad’s. You should listen for yourselves. What I was in shock about (again) is NPR’s description and spin on his speech at the UN. Ripped it up this morning. So neutral (cough)
Looking for the slam. Not finding it must have been one of those inserts that they do not put up for going on record. Called the speech “anti-semitic” and slammed it hard. Not one good thing said. And in my opinion there was a lot of good in his speech. Not like NPR has an agenda. I have heard Talk of the Nations host allow guest in particular John Bolton repeat all of the unsubstantiated claims about Iran, Fresh Air’s host has not only allowed guest to repeat “Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map” Terri Gross has repeated these false claims herself often. I have also heard Scott Simon repeat these claims on his Saturday program. Diane Rehm has not been much better. While she has not repeated them herself. She has allowed Reuel Marc Gerechet and a few others to repeat this hooey.
NPR has been helping set the state for a pre-emptive strike on Iran for 7 years. They never challenge these claims. NEVER
here is their coverage on Obama’s speech. The complete slam on Ahmadenijad’s speech may be here
link to npr.org
Hints of appeal to the street are hints of a plebiscite to come and presumably of some confidence of winning the vote for a plan for which he will claim credit.
Let alone any mention of the nine killed (including a U.S. citizen)
And that says it all.
But apparently it isn’t a big deal for Obama either. And the Congress? It did think it was a big deal to pass a strongly worded resolution calling for Gilad Shalit’s (that IDF thugs) release.
Far more likely would be that Obama fears the little Red Heifer will kick the sh*te out of the china shop if bought to book by withdrawing the oh so precious US Veto vote in the UNSC. Especially given Israel’s complete disregard and disdain for (in HasbaraSpeil it translates to ‘we dispute’) the law and the number of wars it has started.
Yes folks, preemptive wars are started by the preemptor. A preemptive war actually gives casus belli against the preemptor. There has never been a declaration of a preemptive war submitted, approved or supported by the UNSC/UN. Which is why Israel has never bothered to seek the help of UNSC/UN forces. (HasbaraSpeil ‘no-one came to help us’ [GWBushSpeil 'coalition of the willing'])
Ironically, if after negotiations Israel annexes territory, we will see just how much territory WAS NEVER Israel’s, contrary to the outrageous claims we’re treated to. Not that it will matter to the people now making those claims, they don’t give a sh*te, their only interest is in what their twaddle serves to achieve.
Unfortunately the more generous the Palestinians are in giving away their rightful territory in order to have peace, the more likely it is that it’s ‘peace loving’ neighbour will grow into an even worse spoiled brat the UN parent is currently afraid of. If it were a human in any civilized society, it would likely have been confined to a padded cell long ago. If it were a horse, it would have been glue by now.
Justice, equality, human rights – all of these are a necessary condition for peace. Imagining that ‘peace’ can be imposed with some meaningless aspirational talk, and then the desirable results will just ‘flow’ from this is ridiculous. Any serious negotiator would demand that a commitment to justice and equal human rights for all is necessary before anybody can talk about peace. Otherwise, if either party does not recognise it, then they cannot possibly be committed to peace, since it means that they consider the other as less than human, insofar as human rights go. Talking of two states and peace is a complete distraction. There is only one dialogue worth having first – the recognition that all who live in Palestine/Israel (a contiguous and inseparable region) are entitled to equal treatment, equal rights and privileges, equal representation and the democratic right to vote. If that is denied, there is no reason to continue talking.
Indeed j w p .
Contrary to the ‘drive the Jews into the sea’ drivel we’re treated to by those who support a Greater Israel at any cost (even murdering Rabin), the following excerpt is from the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine, submitted on 15th May 1948 by the Arab States and accepted by the UNSC as valid casus belli. ” in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed.”
The full document can be read at link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org It does not threaten Israel, Israel was no longer a part of Palestine on May 15th 1948. It outlines the legal basis for invading Palestine. The UNSC accepted the Arab Declaration as valid which is why there is no UNSC Resolution condemning “five Arab States attacking Israel”. They attacked Jewish forces already OUTSIDE of Israel.
Here’s the deal. Obama would like a just settlement, but the Lobby has already complete control of the chips (i.e., the US congress). Obama is unable to force a settlement because if Israel didn’t approve of it, it would ask via the Lobby that Congress (both Republicans and Demcrats) reject it, which it would. Obama’s hands are tied and will be for the foreseeable future. It’s the Lobby, stupid!