Trending Topics:

US feels the heat on Palestine vote at UN

US Politics
on 49 Comments

The floodgates have begun to open across Europe on recognition of Palestinian statehood. On Friday the Portuguese parliament became the latest European legislature to call on its government to back statehood, joining Sweden, Britain, Ireland, France and Spain.

In coming days similar moves are expected in Denmark and from the European Parliament. The Swiss government will join the fray too this week, inviting states that have signed the Fourth Geneva Convention to an extraordinary meeting to discuss human rights violations in the occupied territories. Israel has threatened retaliation.

But while Europe is tentatively finding a voice in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, silence reigns across the Atlantic. The White House appears paralysed, afraid to appear out of sync with world opinion but more afraid still of upsetting Israel and its powerful allies in the US Congress.

Now there is an additional complicating factor. The Israeli public, due to elect a new Israeli government in three months’ time, increasingly regards the US role as toxic. A poll this month found that 52 per cent viewed President Barack Obama’s diplomatic policy as “bad”, and 37 per cent thought he had a negative attitude towards their country – more than double the figure two years ago.

Reporting on the Ground

US Secretary of State John Kerry alluded to the White House’s difficulties this month when he addressed the Saban Forum, an annual gathering of US policy elites to discuss the Middle East. He promised that Washington would not interfere in Israel’s elections.

According to the Israeli media, he was responding to pressure from Tzipi Livni, sacked this month from Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, triggering the forthcoming election, and opposition leader Yitzhak Herzog, of the centre-left Labor party.

The pair recently made a pact in an effort to oust Netanyahu. Their electoral success – improbable at the moment – offers the White House its best hope of an Israeli government that will at least pay lip service to a renewal of peace negotiations, which collapsed last April. They have warned, however, that any sign of backing from the Obama administration would be the kiss of death at the polls.

US officials would like to see Netanyahu gone, not least because he has been the biggest obstacle to reviving a peace process that for two decades successfully allayed international pressure to create a Palestinian state. But any visible strategy against Netanyahu is almost certain to backfire.

Washington’s difficulties are only underscored by the Palestinians’ threat to bring a draft resolution before the UN Security Council as soon as this week, demanding Israel’s withdrawal by late 2016 to the 1967 lines.

Given the current climate, the Palestinians are hopeful of winning the backing of European states, especially the three key ones in the Security Council – Britain, France and Germany – and thereby isolating the US. Arab foreign ministers met Kerry on Tuesday in an effort to persuade Washington not to exercise its veto.

The US, meanwhile, is desperately trying to postpone a vote, fearful that casting its veto might further discredit it in the eyes of the world while also suggesting to Israeli voters that Netanyahu has the White House in his pocket.

But indulging the Israeli right also has risks, bolstering it by default. That danger was driven home during another session of the Saban Forum, addressed by settler leader Naftali Bennett. He is currently riding high in the polls and will likely be the backbone of the next coalition government.

Bennett says clearly what Netanyahu only implies: that most of the West Bank should be annexed, with the Palestinians given demilitarised islands of territory that lack sovereignty. The model, called “autonomy”, is of the Palestinians ruling over a series of local councils.

The Washington audience was further shocked by Bennett’s disrespectful treatment of his interviewer, Martin Indyk, who served as Obama’s representative at the last round of peace talks. He accused Indyk of not living in the real world, dismissively calling him part of the “peace industry”.

Bennett’s goal, according to analysts, was to prove to Israeli voters that he is not afraid to stand up to the Americans.

Given its weakening hand – faced with an ever-more rightwing Israeli public and a more assertive European one – Washington is looking towards an unlikely saviour. The hawkish foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman used to be its bete noire, but he has been carefully recalibrating his image.

Unlike other candidates, he has been aggressively promoting a “peace plan”. The US has barely bothered examining its contents, which are only a little more generous than Bennett’s annexation option, and involve forcibly stripping hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Israel of their citizenship.

Lieberman, however, has usefully created the impression that he is a willing partner to a peace process. At the weekend he even suggested he might join a centre coalition with Livni and Herzog.

Lieberman is cleverly trying to occupy a middle ground with Israeli voters, demonstrating that he can placate the Americans, while offering a plan so unfair to the Palestinians that there is no danger voters will consider him part of the “peace industry”.

That may fit the electoral mood: a recent poll showed 63 per cent of Israelis favour peace negotiations, but 70 per cent think they are doomed to fail. The Israeli public, like Lieberman, understands that the Palestinians will never agree to the kind of subjugation they are being offered.

The Israeli election’s one certain outcome is that, whoever wins, the next coalition will, actively or passively, allow more of the same: a slow, creeping annexation of what is left of a possible Palestinian state, as the US and Europe bicker.

A version of this article first appeared in The National, Abu Dhabi.

Jonathan Cook
About Jonathan Cook

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His new website is jonathan-cook.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

49 Responses

  1. just
    just
    December 16, 2014, 12:03 pm

    In 1948, the “world” gave away what was not theirs to give.

    “The Israeli public, due to elect a new Israeli government in three months’ time, increasingly regards the US role as toxic.”

    95% of Israelis supported the slaughter of innocent men, women and 500+ children in Gaza.

    ante up, America. Do it this time, by voting with humans and not against them~ take the responsibility and try to save lives, dignity, freedom and create some justice. Stop rewarding Israel’s noxious/toxic behavior.

    We might just be able to save ourselves in the meantime…

    • CloakAndDagger
      CloakAndDagger
      December 16, 2014, 12:32 pm

      @ Just

      We might just be able to save ourselves in the meantime…

      There it is – enlightened self-interest – the path to the American soul!

      While all arguments may fail with our citizenry, the fact that what is good for the Palestinians is also good for us, is the way to the hearts and minds of the somnambulent citizenry. The zionists have played this masterfully in the past by touting “Israel is just like us” and “the enemies of Israel are the enemies of the US”.

      It is time to turn the tables by stealing a page from their book.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      December 16, 2014, 12:34 pm

      If Europe does get the balls to stand up to Zionism it’ll be noticed in the US.
      Zionism is a creature of the night- it hates light and the bots are always scared of Dick and Jane joining the dots.

      • amigo
        amigo
        December 16, 2014, 12:54 pm

        “Zionism is a creature of the night- it hates light” seafoid

        Well , zionism is holding the stake to it,s own chest, so who has the hammer.

      • just
        just
        December 16, 2014, 12:56 pm

        Do Zionists ever look at the stars and dream of being better people?

        You know, people filled with empathy and kindness and joie de vivre for others as well as themselves?

      • amigo
        amigo
        December 16, 2014, 1:13 pm

        “Do Zionists ever look at the stars and dream of being better people?” just

        They are the stars.

      • just
        just
        December 16, 2014, 1:21 pm

        rotflmao. so they say and think…

        Thanks, amigo.

      • just
        just
        December 16, 2014, 1:45 pm

        Here are some real stars:

        “Edward Snowden, whistleblower
        ‘You have inspired an angry public’

        Happy birthday, Chelsea Manning. I thank you now and forever for your extraordinary act of service and I am sorry that it has come with such an unbelievable personal cost.

        As a result of your courageous act, the American people are more informed about the workings of our government as it positions itself for endless war. You have inspired an angry public to demand a government that is accountable for its perpetration of torture and other war crimes, for the true costs of its wars, and for conspiring in corruption around the world.

        The distinguishing strength of democracy is self-correction – that no matter how bad things get, the public in partnership with a free press can detect and correct mistakes of public officials. You valiantly renewed this self-correcting, self-determining American tradition of governance. For this, we all thank you. Happy birthday, Chelsea.”

        http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/16/-sp-dear-chelsea-manning-birthday-messages-from-edward-snowden-terry-gilliam-and-more#comment-45062226

        and:

    • just
      just
      December 16, 2014, 1:46 pm

      link:

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        December 16, 2014, 3:04 pm

        I’ll see your Losing my religion and raise you this

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfwWKCRth_A

        the Jewish state doesn’t deserve to exist when all it means is brutality and cruelty

      • just
        just
        December 16, 2014, 4:46 pm

        Simply gorgeous.

        Yann Tiersen is so giving and gifted.

    • Kay24
      Kay24
      December 16, 2014, 8:38 pm

      “The White House appears paralysed, afraid to appear out of sync with world opinion but more afraid still of upsetting Israel and its powerful allies in the US Congress.”

      What? the world’s greatest superpower is afraid of “upsetting” a nation already disliked and looked upon as a rogue nation?

      The time is now to help the Palestinians get back their basic rights and freedom, which was rudely snatched from them when these transgressors were given a place to plant themselves when homeless. We will forever be notorious for being the obstacle for Palestinians achieving their rights and dignity, by this continuous protection of Israel, and aiding and abetting it’s war crimes. The WH should disregard the whining from zionist servants in congress, and get in step with the rest of the world.

  2. a blah chick
    a blah chick
    December 16, 2014, 12:10 pm

    “The Washington audience was further shocked by Bennett’s disrespectful treatment of his interviewer, Martin Indyk…”

    And there you have it, my friends, what REALLY irks the Zionist establishment in the U.S. It’s not the treatment of the Palestinians or the stagnation of the “Peace Process” but the fact that some of those Israeli politicians do not give due deference to the people who have had their backs for years..and they talk smack about our president! Not only that but rather than confine their racist statements to cocktail parties or power lunches they insist upon giving interviews and not mincing words about what they intend to do if given the chance.

    It’s hard to maintain plausible deniability when you keep saying exactly what you think.

  3. amigo
    amigo
    December 16, 2014, 12:14 pm

    “The Israeli public, like Lieberman, understands that the Palestinians will never agree to the kind of subjugation they are being offered.”

    But they will vote for those positing just that which they know will fail.Proof positive that Israel,s Jews are no better than those who are leading them into hell,s abyss.

    Collective National suicide.Go figure.

  4. Maximus Decimus Meridius
    Maximus Decimus Meridius
    December 16, 2014, 12:41 pm

    ” The Israeli public, like Lieberman, understands that the Palestinians will never agree to the kind of subjugation they are being offered.”

    Do they though? I think that would require a level of perception and sensitivity which most Israelis seem to lack. I don’t think most Israelis even think Palestinians are being ‘subjugated’ at all. They reckon Palestinians are doing OK for themselves – or would be if they weren’t foolish enough to vote for ‘terrorists’ – and should be grateful to Israelis for allowing them to exist on ‘Jewish land’ at all.

    I think the Israeli public, like Moshe Dayan, are happy enough to live with the solution of no solution. They would happily continue with the current situation indefinitely – ie, with the Palestinians more or less under control, the occasional outburst aside, and with the rest of the world wagging their fingers, but doing nothing of substance to rein in Israel. For your average Yossi, what’s not to like? I think most of them refuse to ask themselves any hard questions, such as how long can such a situation endure. History would suggest not very long, but Yossi prefers to see himself as a victim, tell himself that the Iron Dome is more than an expensive US funded toy, and that all is well.

    It isn’t.

  5. John Douglas
    John Douglas
    December 16, 2014, 1:03 pm

    RE: “The White House appears paralyzed, afraid to appear out of sync with world opinion but more afraid still of upsetting Israel and its powerful allies in the US Congress.”

    The White House has a card to play that will shut-up all but the most fanatical Congressional Zionists, a card they’ve toyed with but, typically for Obama, never openly.

    It is to state that the international costs to the US for its unflagging support for Israel are too great, and in particular that backing Israel’s actions right or wrong has incited terrorism against the US and costs American lives, both military and civilian. It takes courage to take this tack, a quality that this administration does not have in great abundance.

    • lysias
      lysias
      December 16, 2014, 5:06 pm

      What does Obama stand to lose if he stops protecting Israel at the UN with his veto? The cushy jobs he hopes to get once he leaves office?

      • just
        just
        December 16, 2014, 5:33 pm

        President Obama and the American people have nothing to lose but a bad habit.

        “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk”!

      • John Douglas
        John Douglas
        December 16, 2014, 5:41 pm

        What does Obama have to lose? Probably nothing personally. But for the party it’s similar to what LBJ said when he decided to move dramatically on Civil Rights, namely that it would lose the South for Democrats. And it did. If Obama got LBJ’s courage and the Dems in Congress didn’t nullify it, it’s a lot of Lobby cash to lose to the other side.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        December 16, 2014, 5:42 pm

        Well, I think you may have that right, lysias. On the one hand cushy jobs and a Blair-millionaire lifestyle, on the other hand the slightly pale, disowned by successors, existence of a Jimmy Carter.

      • lysias
        lysias
        December 16, 2014, 5:51 pm

        But what kind of person would prefer the post-office life of Blair to the post-office life of Carter? I don’t think there can be any doubt about which of the two is happier.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        December 16, 2014, 8:09 pm

        Blair and Carter work in the Post Office?

      • just
        just
        December 17, 2014, 5:23 am

        The $3+++ billion that we give to Israel annually would make a lot of people more secure/happy/healthy in the US… even in the South.

        All that President Obama needs to do is to explain it ~ destroy the myth straight up and straight out from the Oval O.

  6. James Canning
    James Canning
    December 16, 2014, 1:17 pm

    European countries appear more and more willing to accept that they need to force Israel to end its occupation of the West Bank.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      December 16, 2014, 1:43 pm

      There is less Jewish money in European politics.

      • Kay24
        Kay24
        December 17, 2014, 6:26 am

        You are right, they are lucky their political systems are not infested with zio money. That is why many Parliamentarians in Britain are able to stand up and blast Israel without fear.

        Our Congresspeople would rather cut off their hands than do that.

  7. David Doppler
    David Doppler
    December 16, 2014, 1:29 pm

    “The White House appears paralysed, afraid to appear out of sync with world opinion but more afraid still of upsetting Israel and its powerful allies in the US Congress.” Perhaps Obama can go suck on a cigarette to derive momentary escape from his dilemma: he’s sought and obtained the highest office of the most powerful country in history, but he’s too weak to confront anyone over anything.

    Or he could pencil out the speech he could go down in history for, confronting evil where he finds it in Israeli policy, while outlining a pathway forward out of the wreckage created by a long history of Israeli actions. A pathway for two peoples. He could even outline American principles and how they apply to this latest conundrum, the pathway forward that they suggest.

    “Bennett’s goal, according to analysts, was to prove to Israeli voters that he is not afraid to stand up to the Americans.” Some ally. Some president who’s earned the disrespect of the Israeli people while enabling their worst behavior.

    Unless he comes up with something new, he’ll go down in history as particularly craven.

    • amigo
      amigo
      December 16, 2014, 1:44 pm

      “Or he could pencil out the speech he could go down in history for, confronting evil where he finds it in Israeli policy” David doppler

      I just finished watching him on BBC world and he referred to Israelis having to live with the fear of Hamas emerging from those terror tunnels and kidnapping them.He mentioned the murder of the Rabbis in the synagogue and the two Israelis that were stabbed and one other crime I have temporarily forgotten.He said no one should have to tolerate this .
      He then, in passing mentioned the “death” of the Palestinian Minister.

      He is s–t scared of the goi , whatever they have on him.

  8. seafoid
    seafoid
    December 16, 2014, 1:49 pm

    The US media betray the people in their coverage of Israel. Americans are on the whole fairly decent people who play fair and expect others to do the same.
    Israel is grotesque, a small minded country where cruelty is the currency of daily life beyond the Green Line. Americans don’t know any of that.

    • Kay24
      Kay24
      December 16, 2014, 8:42 pm

      They are under the illusion that Israel is the victim in all this, and that the Palestinians are ALL terrorists, because the zionist media keep implying it. Let’s face it, those who watch the Kardashians and Honey boo boo, are not interested in finding out the truth.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        December 17, 2014, 9:48 am

        The Nazis also had the victim mentality down to a tee.

  9. amigo
    amigo
    December 16, 2014, 2:14 pm

    This is very telling and must have nietanyahu in a tizzy.

    “WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State John Kerry would not guarantee the US will veto unilateral Palestinian actions at the United Nations, speaking to reporters on Tuesday.

    “We’ve made no determinations about language, approaches, specific resolutions, any of that,” the secretary told the press in London. “This isn’t the time to detail private conversations. or speculate on a UN Security Council resolution that hasn’t even been tabled.”

    Tabled yet or not, Jordan and France have publicly declared their intentions to move forward with resolutions that would set a UN-mandated timeline for Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank, without approval or consultation with Jerusalem. The Obama administration, following its predecessors, has long opposed any actions on the Middle East peace process that fail to include the consent of both parties.”

    http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Kerry-A-solution-to-the-Israeli-Palestinian-conflict-cannot-be-imposed-from-the-outside-384836

    • Kay24
      Kay24
      December 17, 2014, 7:16 am

      Apparently they need 9 out of the 15 votes at the UN to pass this. This may force the US to make some move, but we know it will always do Israel’s bidding and show once again, it is isolated along with Israel. A NYT’s article said that the Palestinians have a better chance of winning this after January 1, when Malaysia, Venezuela, and Spain, joins the Security Council.

      The Palestinians are timing this well, just when the world has not forgotten the massacre in Gaza, and Israel’s brutality still fresh in their minds.

  10. Boomer
    Boomer
    December 16, 2014, 3:25 pm

    I wonder how much “heat” elected officials in DC really feel. I haven’t seen much evidence of that. The heat all seems to come from AIPAC and associated sources. I would like to hope that Obama would abstain from more vetoes and veto threats on behalf of Israel, but having been disappointed so often, I don’t dare to hope.

    • just
      just
      December 16, 2014, 4:50 pm

      I feel your pain, Boomer.

      “U.S. willing to back UN resolutions on Palestinians, if ‘no unilateral moves’ included

      Kerry said earlier Tuesday that the U.S. hadn’t made any final determinations regarding the proposals expected to be submitted to the UNSC this week”

      http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.632235

      What does that mean, anyway?

      • Boomer
        Boomer
        December 16, 2014, 7:10 pm

        just, I don’t know what the article you linked to from haaretz means, but if the ynetnews report that Sycamores linked to below is correct, I imagine that it means “no state for you, Palestinians . . . you can continue in the future as you have in the past: being oppressed and dispossessed by Israel with the assistance of the U.S.A.”

      • Walid
        Walid
        December 16, 2014, 10:56 pm

        “What does that mean, anyway?”

        Just, it means that the US is threatening to veto unless the language is watered down to the point of making the resolution inconsequential.

  11. RoHa
    RoHa
    December 16, 2014, 5:43 pm

    “The Israeli public, due to elect a new Israeli government in three months’ time, increasingly regards the US role as toxic.”

    Does the US recognise the danger? Israel could decide to impose sanctions on the US. It could refuse to accept the $3bn and the free weaponry. It could try buying weapons from China and Brazil. (Have to pay cold hard cash – not $US – for them, but sacrifices have to made for principle.) It could cut off the supply of cherry tomatoes.

    Could the US survive that?

    • Walid
      Walid
      December 16, 2014, 11:02 pm

      ” The Israeli public, due to elect a new Israeli government in three months’ time…,”

      What better reason to keep the issue on the back burner until then? And then another 3 months for the new government to get its bearings, and so on, and so on.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      December 17, 2014, 9:46 am

      “The Israeli public, due to elect a new Israeli government in three months’ time, increasingly regards the US role as toxic.” –

      Israeli discourse is toxic.
      the US is just behaving normally.

      Over the waterfall , Israel

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w25UA7YxwJs

      See the Zionist European pine
      The West Bank hills as old as time
      Sabras to be put to the test
      To be whipped by the winds of the west

      Stands on shifting sands
      The scales trashed in their hands
      The IDF brainwashed whip Palestinians and wail
      And get their fill up of hasbara

      She’ll carry on whining through it all
      She’s going over the waterfall

  12. Sycamores
    Sycamores
    December 16, 2014, 6:02 pm

    US to veto Palestinian resolution ‘to end occupation’

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4604469,00.html

  13. OyVey00
    OyVey00
    December 16, 2014, 9:42 pm

    US officials would like to see Netanyahu gone

    Correction, it should be: “US officials who don’t have Israeli citizenship”.

    Gotta make this distinction nowadays.

  14. amigo
    amigo
    December 17, 2014, 4:47 am

    “Correction, it should be: “US officials who don’t have Israeli citizenship”.

    Gotta make this distinction nowadays.”oy vey

    You are really a hoot.Everyone knows Obamas official are almost all Israel firsters with dual citizenship.If you or your spouse do not have Dual citizenship ,then do not apply .

    So are you saying that Obama is surrounded by advisors who support occupation and colonialist oppression and land theft.No wonder we cannot get a peace partner.

    Long Live Palestine and end the scourge of zionism.

  15. just
    just
    December 17, 2014, 7:46 am

    Beinart gets it right:

    ““If thought corrupts language,” wrote George Orwell, “language can also corrupt thought.” Take the Israeli government’s rhetoric about Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ effort to get the United Nations Security Council to endorse a timetable for Palestinian statehood. The United States must veto such a resolution, a senior Israeli official told reporters this week, because “the consistent American policy for the past 47 years has opposed such unilateral steps.”

    Note the corruption of language. According to Google, a “unilateral” action is one taken “without the agreement of another or others.” But the Palestinian effort is entirely dependent on the agreement of others. The Palestinians are asking the countries on the UN Security Council to vote to end Israeli control of the West Bank. (Formally, in fact, they’re not even the ones asking. Since the Palestinians don’t have a seat on the Security Council, Jordan will introduce the resolution). Israel, by contrast, is asking one country – the United States – to veto the resolution irrespective of how the other Security Council members vote. Which side, then, is advocating unilateral action?

    Besides, why is Israel suddenly so offended by unilateralism? The Gaza disengagement was unilateral. So was building the separation barrier. It’s hard to think of anything more unilateral than settlement expansion: Virtually the entire world opposes it, and yet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does it anyway. In fact, unilateralism – the idea that Jews should rely on themselves rather than the tender mercies of the gentile world – is deeply ingrained in Israeli political culture. As David Ben-Gurion famously said, “What matters is not what the goyim say, but what the Jews do.” As recently as last month, while speaking about Iran, Netanyahu proclaimed his unilateralism proudly. Israel, he said, “reserves its right to defend itself by itself.”

    The Palestinians, by contrast, are too weak to do almost anything unilaterally. That’s one of the costs of not having a state. For decades, they’ve been locked in a bilateral struggle against a far more powerful adversary. For decades, Palestinian leaders have hoped the United States would balance the scales. And for decades, the United States has refused. Even during the 1990s, writes former Clinton administration peace processor Aaron David Miller, “Not a single senior-level official involved with the negotiations was willing or able to present, let alone fight for, the Arab or Palestinian perspective.”

    U.S. President Barack Obama surely knows all this. Given his personal experience in Kenya and Indonesia, he identifies with the colonial subjugation Palestinians suffer in the West Bank. And given his personal experience with left-leaning Jews in Chicago, he identifies with a liberal Zionism that can only be preserved if the occupation ends. Again and again during his presidency, he has abandoned his own moral instincts under domestic political pressure. And as a result, he may well go down in history as the president who presided over the two-state solution’s death.

    Now, in the autumn of his presidency, the Palestinians are no longer asking Obama to save them. They’re merely asking him to get out of the way. It makes sense for the United States to try to influence the terms of a UN statehood resolution: Such a resolution should spur serious negotiations, not substitute them. But if the United States vetoes, and thus denies the Palestinians any leverage over Israel, it will be condemning them to a bilateral “peace process” that its own officials admit has become a sham.

    “The arc of the moral universe is long,” Obama likes to say, quoting Martin Luther King, “but it leans toward justice.” But that’s not quite right. It only leans when people bend it. On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this may be Barack Obama’s last chance.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.632338

    • just
      just
      December 17, 2014, 7:54 am

      I should have said: “Beinart gets it mostly right”.

      1S1P1V! I can put heaps of blame on every President from Truman until now~ the West gave away something precious that was not theirs to give.

    • amigo
      amigo
      December 17, 2014, 9:59 am

      Just, the video is not working for me so maybe Beinarts Headline is covered there.Apologies for posting it here .I thought it is very worth mentioning.

      “Why is asking the United Nations to endorse a Palestinian state more unilateral than building settlements to destroy one?”.Beinart.

      Says it all.

  16. amigo
    amigo
    December 17, 2014, 6:35 pm

    Another War Crime in the making!!.

    “Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon has ordered the army to evacuate two bases over the Green Line to allow for settlement expansion. “.

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.632335

    Someone correct me if I am wrong but does not the 4th GC prohibit the use of Land expropriated for military needs ( that is allowed)in occupied territory to build settlements on.

Leave a Reply