In case anyone needs to know why the Annapolis talks are DOA, the previous statement uttered by Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice should clear up any doubt. This statement was uttered by Ms. Rice in response to the news that after the Palestinian elections she helped to usher in the Hamas faction had won the majority of seats. I remember from my pre-law days the admonition of one of my professors, “Never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to”. You would never schedule a democratic election, if you can’t guarantee the democratic results. Neither should you setup a final peace conference, if you don’t have any final peace agreement.
Nearly seven tumultuous years later, Ms. Rice, as secretary of state, has led the Bush administration to a startling turnaround and is now thrusting the United States as forcefully as Mr. Clinton once did into the role of mediator between the Israelis and Palestinians. The culmination of her efforts occurs this week in Annapolis, Md., as Mr. Bush, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, meet to set the outlines of a final peace agreement before the end of Mr. Bush’s term.[1]
These talks have a snowballs chance in hell of creating any long-term peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Prior to a conference on this scale there has been behind the scenes negotiations that have ironed out the language and details of the agreement, to my knowledge there have been no such meetings. Without the proper groundwork what could she possibly hope to accomplish? The answer of course is nothing this is just another one of this administrations dog and pony shows where there is all sizzle and no substance.
There has been no movement on either side on the major issues that divide both sides, namely the borders and the refugee questions. There has been no movement on the roadmap. You have the majority of Palestinians supporting Hamas who was not invited to the conference, so what can you hope to accomplish without one of the major parties being present? If this weren’t so important and tragic, it would be almost hilarious. Ms. Rice has never been willing to push Israel enough to get a comprehensive agreement with enough concessions to make it palatable to the Palestinians. Just the fact that they are negotiating with a wounded Prime Minister from Palestine shows the desperation of Ms. Rice and this administration to be known for more than the Iraq war debacle.
Many other Middle East experts remain unconvinced as well, particularly since the failure so far of the Israelis and Palestinians to agree on a joint statement to come out of the 40-nation conference has forced Ms. Rice to recast Annapolis as the start rather than the end of negotiations. Critics say she is organizing little more than an elaborate photo opportunity.[2]
So it seems rather than produce any meaningful agreement, this administration in the person of Ms. Rice is content to present a charade for the cameras and the US media. It will give everyone cover for continuing the status quo. We will have plenty of pictures of serious looking diplomats discussing the seriousness of peace in the Middle East, followed by a joint statement of nothingness by all parties, vowing to continue seeking peace. Once the cameras have been turned off, there will be a continuation of business as usual. There is too much invested for all concerned in maintaining the status quo, Abbas has no mandate outside of what Israel and the US gives him, Olmert does not have the political muscle to secure major concessions especially with the Palestinians being fractured, and the US has its hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran on the horizon, the other Arab states just need to look like they are seeking peace and justice for the Palestinians to keep their populations stable. The only ones seeking peace have no power to bring it about.
For Ms. Rice, Annapolis reflects her evolution from passive participant to activist diplomat who has been willing to break with Mr. Cheney and other conservatives skeptical of an American diplomatic role in the Middle East. Mr. Cheney argued with Ms. Rice against a pivotal Middle East speech that Mr. Bush gave in 2002 in the Rose Garden, fought her on a host of other issues, including Iran and North Korea, and today surrounds himself with senior advisers dubious about the Annapolis meeting.[3]
Condoleezza Rice has no serious backing in the administration for this effort. The President is vague and not invested and the Vice-President is totally not onboard. It appears that this is just Mr. Bush offering a token concession to Ms. Rice for her loyalty and their friendship. His position does not appear to have changed from early in his first term, where he did not feel obliged to become entangled in the whole Middle East peace process. Peace and negotiations are messy and tiresome, it’s not the cowboy way. Cowboys kick butt, cowboys do regime change and invasion. Negotiations are for weaklings and sissies, not tough guys like Bush and Cheney.
So let’s give a toast to Condi Rice and all the other dignitaries who will be getting face time on television and the cable news talking heads, but in the end, “oh my goodness, Hamas still won…”
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/washington/26rice.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1196111064-1JAQdjqOZo2fhh95B2WPLA
[2] Ibid.
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/washington/26rice.html?hp
Friday, November 30, 2007
Oh My Goodness, Hamas Won?
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Mickey Mouse Killed By Israeli Interrogator
"Tomorrow's Pioneers" sparked an international furor in April when it began featuring Farfour, the Mickey Mouse look-alike who sounded more like Iran’s firebrand President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than a Disney character.
Mustafa Barghouti, then serving as the Palestinian Authority's information minister, called the show a "mistaken approach" to helping Palestinians and tried unsuccessfully to force the show off the year.
The Israeli government and activists who monitor Palestinian programming accused Hamas of poisoning the minds of young children with the show.
After two months, Farfour was beaten to death on the show by an Israeli interrogator. Nahoul, a larger-than-life bee, is now carrying his message.[1]
Tomorrow’s Pioneers is a weekly television show for Palestinian children shown on the Hamas television network. On the show an 11 year old, Saraa Barhoum takes calls from other Palestinian youth concerning issues they are facing with the occupation. The show provides moral lessons, through stories and cartoons. The children call into the show and talk about how the occupation has affected their lives, they sing songs that deal with liberation, religion, and martyrdom.
While reading this story I was torn for a number of reasons, but because I haven’t actually seen the show my comments are speculative at best. The show has been criticized by Israel and the American Government for inciting anti-Israeli sentiments. While Saraa was being interviewed an Israeli missile exploded in the building next door causing the crew and Saraa to run for cover. So, it isn’t the occupation, assassinations, or indiscriminate violence that is fueling these anti-Israeli feelings among the Palestinians, it is the kid shows. You know I never did trust those damn cartoons, I always thought there were some subliminal messages being sent and now I know.
From what I can tell the show is propaganda, but is it anymore so than say Captain America or Superman; fighting for truth, justice and the American way? And what about all those Disney and WB cartoons during WWII, those were definitely sending a message to support our troops and our vision. So, besides the obvious of the pot and the kettle thing, I do find it a little disturbing when an 11 year old is talking about becoming a martyr. There are so many other things her young mind should be focusing on; instead because of her circumstances she does not have the luxury of dreams and fantasies. For many Palestinian children the dream is as simple as a safe place to grow up in and the opportunity to lead normal lives free from coercion.
Instead of focusing on the programming on the Hamas network, maybe if the Israeli and American governments focused more on changing the apartheid policies being waged against the Palestinian people the Hamas programming would change. How many more Palestinian children have to die before there is a real effort at peace? How many more children will have to give up their future and their dreams before the International community will call Israel on their land grab and refusal to negotiate in good faith?
It’s not the cartoons that are fueling this, it is the results of the cartoon. The mouse dying at the hands of an Israeli interrogator and its real life lessons, this is what is inflaming the Palestinians. Should children be used to promote violence? No, but should children be given the truth of their circumstances and about the perpetrators who are carrying out the policies responsible for these circumstances? Absolutely!
Read more!Tuesday, July 24, 2007
A Palestinian Do-Over
Well ,you know what they say if you don’t get it right the first time try, try again. It appears that this is the philosophy of the Fatah sect of the Palestinian government, the Bush administration, and the Israelis. Unhappy with the results of last year’s Palestinian election, which saw the Hamas faction winning big, it has been decided that those results should be dispensed with and new elections should be held. Now why didn’t we think of that in 2000 and 2004? If you don’t like the results of an election, just call a do-over. Unlike our case we are not talking about an election with contested results, this was an election that was considered fair by all parties.
So what’s the problem? The problem is that the Palestinians don’t understand democracy. They foolishly think that democracy means that the winner of an election is allowed to govern for the term of that election. Wrong, the way democracy really works is that if you have the nerve to elect a government that the powers that be do not like, approve of, or recognize then that election is invalidated. The nerve of these people to think they get to elect their own representatives. After decades of corruption, lack of progress in peace talks, and torture of their own people, the Palestinians decided to go another way from the Fatah monopoly.
Abbas made the announcement ahead of a gathering of the
Hamas trounced Fatah in 2006 legislative elections, setting off more than a year of factional strife that culminated with Hamas' violent takeover of the
Abbas responded by forming an emergency government based in the West Bank.
Hamas has said it would oppose a call for new elections, saying it is being robbed of last year's victory.[1]
So this is the type of democracy that the Bush administration wants to import to the Middle-East? It’s no wonder the rest of the region is not dying to get a part of this. You can’t have open and fair elections and then invalidate the results; it kind of defeats the purpose of open and fair elections; sort of like that whole “fair and balanced” thing with Fox news. It is this type of empire philosophy that is fueling the ire of the world; we know better than you what is right for you. It is not democracy when the results of the election are rigged in advance. It appears that the folks in the White House and in Tele Aviv could use a class in democracy.
Rather than address the true obstacles to peace, let’s focus on the group that the Palestinians have chosen to negotiate for them. Let’s ignore the continued settlement building, the assassinations, and the apartheid regime and act shocked by the fact that these people are frustrated and want new leadership. Why can’t they be fat, dumb, and happy like our democracy has made us? These same politicos that decried the fake elections of Saddam and other dictators have the nerve to claim the moral high ground here. The hypocrisy of this blatant attempt to thwart the will of the Palestinian people is so obvious, I would suggest that the Palestinians should boycott any attempt at new elections. If they will not honor the last elections what makes you think they will honor this one? Maybe, because prior to the next election they plan to release millions of dollars into the economy in an attempt to buy the Palestinians silence and prevent true democracy from taking place.
“Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing” - Edmund Burke
Read more!Monday, June 18, 2007
A Friend Indeed?
The prime minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, said: “I call on my friend Abu Mazen,” referring to Mr. Abbas, who was in Ramallah, to take the opportunity, now that almost the entire world understands the viciousness, the brutality of Hamas, to exercise his authority as the leader of the Palestinian people.”
Israel will do what it can, he said in an interview with The New York Times in Tel Aviv, to “be helpful and supportive of the Palestinian people in every possible way, including economic cooperation and security cooperation.”
It is so refreshing to see that Israel’s prime minister is so willing to help the Palestinian people. As the Palestinians continue to struggle against one another in a push for power between the democratically elected government headed by Hamas and the Fatah party led by President Abbas, the Israeli government is now willing to help.
I think that it is interesting that throughout the “so-called” Middle East peace process the Israeli’s have done everything within their power to undermine Mr. Abbas, that now when faced with the prospect of a Hamas led government they are willing to support him. I am afraid that it is too little, too late for Mr. Abbas. The Hamas led government is a direct result of the foot-dragging and disingenuous negotiations that Israel and the US have been engaged end trying to placate the Palestinians while the Israelis continue to cement their land grab and occupation of lands taken in the 1967 war. If the Israeli’s had bargained in good faith in the past maybe we would not be in the position we are today.
The occupation has not made Israel safer and it has only inflamed the passions of the Palestinians and the Arab world. Before the Hamas victory in elections, Israel had ample opportunity to negotiate with the moderate Palestinians, but instead chose to stonewall the process and continue to build settlements, settlements that violate the letter and the spirit of the peace process. However, due to their lobbying efforts and media domination they have been able to present the occupation as being humane and in the best interest of the Palestinians. The Palestinians are too barbaric to be able to govern themselves and require the benevolent assistance of the Israelis to save them from themselves. This picture will again be played out in the main stream press as the violence intensifies.
Of course throughout this process what won’t be discussed are the efforts of the Israelis and the US to destabilize the Palestinians and to keep them splintered so they cannot mount an effective defense against the media savvy Israelis. Thus allowing them to present the Palestinians as uncivilized and therefore unworthy of having a place at the bargaining table. This has allowed the Israelis to continue to fortify their positions and settlements in the occupied territory. The Israelis and the US will disavow any complicity in the violence that is now taking place in Gaza, not accepting that this violence is in direct response to the fact that the lawfully elected government is being kept from governing by the interference of Washington and Tele Aviv.
Am I a fan of Hamas? Certainly not. But I am not a Palestinian and so my vote doesn’t count for anything in this struggle. I do know that you cannot create an environment that fosters frustration, hopelessness, and fear and not expect some backlash. You cannot restrict the daily movements of a people and interrupt their interactions with their families and then be shocked when they respond. Let’s not forget that for a long time this land belonged to them as much as it did to Israel, if not more. Are they also entitled to self-determination? Are they not entitled to their own state?
So what is there to do? We can continue to play the blame game and the retaliation mess or we can try something novel and maybe talk to all parties. If we continue to marginalize and isolate those who we disagree with we only continue to foster their beliefs that we are insensitive to their needs. We open the door for even more radical elements, because the moderates have shown little, if any gains. Hamas is a creation of the corruption of the Fatah party and the frustration at the lack of progress for the average Palestinian. In a conflict of this magnitude, one that runs this deep there are only two options: either we make peace and sacrifice for that peace or we kill all of them. Because as long as they are there, there will be no peace. There will be no peaceful co-existence. So either sit down with all parties and negotiate in good faith or stop the “snipe hunt” and let the killing begin…
Read more!Wednesday, June 6, 2007
What Happened in Israel in 1967?
Can the turmoil in the Middle East be traced back to the events in 1967? There are many who believe that they can be. It was at that time, 40 years ago that the Israelis were beginning and ending the Six Day war. Some say it was at this moment that the fate of Israel and the Palestinians were both sealed with the fateful decisions made following this war. Have those decisions led to a safer Israel? That is hard to say, but what we do know is that those decisions have fed an ongoing cycle of violence that has no end in sight.
Although there were lots of discussions concerning the disposition of the newly occupied territory, one that is not mentioned in the all the papers is the legality of it. So, either it wasn’t discussed or was removed from the archives. However, there was a legal opinion given which until now has remained secret.
“By September, Eshkol was seriously considering settlements in the Golan and Kfar Etzion. He was no doubt influenced by the Khartoum Arab summit which had responded to the Israeli Cabinet's secret offer, agreed within a fortnight of the war, of a negotiated withdrawal from most of the territories, with a resounding "no" to talks. In hindsight, it is possible to see the Khartoum declaration as a heavily coded concession to some form of indirect negotiation on recognition, in return for withdrawal from the territories occupied in the war. But Israel, whose position was anyway hardening, wanted direct negotiations and explicit recognition if it was going to pull back.
In all the debate – within the public and, it appears, in Cabinet – one highly significant aspect of settlement policy was barely, if at all, discussed: whether it was legal. Since then Israel has never accepted the argument, ratified by successive UN resolutions, that civilian settlements violated international law. Which makes it all the more interesting that Theodor Meron, the then-36-year-old legal adviser at the Foreign Ministry, was asked to deliver an opinion on just that issue. Meron, a Holocaust survivor, had been a member of Israel's delegation to the UN during the June war. "It was a very traumatic period because in New York things looked terribly ominous," he recalls today.
But the secret memorandum he wrote three months later – initially only for the eyes of his boss, the Foreign Minister Abba Eban, but then sent to Eshkol's office – was clearsighted and unequivocal. The document, written after the Khartoum summit when he knew settlement in the Golan and the West Bank was very much in the air, was unknown until it was unearthed from the Israel State Archives and brought to light by Gorenberg last year. In it, Meron wrote that "my conclusion is that civilian settlement of the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention." The Convention prohibits deportation or transfer by the occupying power of its own civilian population into the territories it occupies. The official Red Cross commentary explains that this prohibition was "intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonise those territories." Meron's crisp recommendation was that the prohibition was "categorical and aimed at preventing colonisation of conquered territory by citizens of the conquering state." That was not all. Even when establishing military posts, Israel, he was clear, had also to respect the 1907 Hague Convention on Laws and Customs of war on land, which stated that "Private Property cannot be confiscated" . This has been little discussed in the Israeli-Palestinian context but its lasting pertinence was underlined last November when Peace Now, on the basis of leaked data from the military's Civil Administration in the West Bank, revealed that 15,000 acres, or 40 per cent of the West Bank settlements, were on privately owned Palestinian land, often by military order.
This could be dismissed as no more than an interesting historical footnote, except for one thing. Theodor Meron, now an American citizen, went on to become one of the world's most eminent international jurists, if not the most eminent. Until 2005 he was president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Moreover, as a law professor at New York University, he published much of the theoretical work which led to the establishment of the tribunal, on which he now sits as an appeals judge, and of the International Criminal Court. The Government was not choosing to ignore the opinion of some obscure legal maverick.”[1]
So, it appears that the Israeli government which has since the war’s end refused to accept international law concerning the occupied territories and settlements, has known from the beginning that the settlements were illegal. So why would they continue to build settlements and occupy the land knowing that it is illegal? The answer lies in the desire of many in the government and religious movements who wanted to see Israel expanded to the Mediterranean Sea. With the ease at which the Arabs were defeated many were heady with the taste of victory and I’m sure had attributed their victory to the Divine Will of God. Hadn’t God promised them this land?
The decisions on the disposition of these lands, has led to 40 years of strife and occupation and have made Israel no safer. Israel has gone from a fledgling democracy supported by most of the international community to a pariah. Because of this occupation they have lost any moral high ground they may have received from the holocaust. That doesn’t stop them though from continuing to portray themselves as the victims in a global anti-Semitism conspiracy. The occupation and settlements of these lands was illegal and wrong then and it still is today. Israel has a right to exist, but so do the Palestinians. It is time to stop the cycle of violence that has fueled the Middle East powder keg for all these years. It is time for all peace loving people to embrace peace. A good place to start is the Saudi peace plan, give peace a chance…
Read more!Thursday, April 19, 2007
Who Is In Charge Here?
I am about to broach a subject that has always been a contentious one, yet one I can no longer ignore. The question I have to ask is who is in charge of our foreign policy?
At the risk of ruffling the feathers of the Israeli lobbyist and their American minions and being painted with the anti-Semitic brush which by the way seems to be getting larger and larger, I can’t help but wonder who decides how our foreign policy decisions are made and implemented. Do not get me wrong I am for continued support to the state of Israel and its viability as an ally. However, at some point our foreign policy has to be ours. There are times when our goals and Israel’s goals are not the same. Even with the closest of married couples there are times when their interest diverge.
For years we have reports of Israel protesting and vetoing our foreign policy initiatives in the Middle East giving the other players in the region the impression that our brokering is one sided and heavy handed.
“…Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.”[1]
The question we must ask is, “Are the US interest and the Israeli interest identical?” Let’s look at some empirical data that may help in finding the answer to this very important question.
“Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.”[2]
So we are subsidizing each individual Israeli to the tune of $500 a year. The problem with this is that there are other states that are having a lot worse time right now than Israel and could use that money. Remember, there is only so much foreign aid dollars to spread around. There are countries that are a lot more impoverished that could use some of that money. Could we agree that Israel could begin to take on a larger share of its own defense and economy?
Let’s take a look at what all this money is buying, surely it is buying us unfailing support from our ally.
“A final reason to question Israel’s strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building settlements and to refrain from ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders). Israel has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China, in what the State Department inspector-general called ‘a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorized transfers’. According to the General Accounting Office, Israel also ‘conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally’. In addition to the case of Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material in the early 1980s (which it reportedly passed on to the Soviet Union in return for more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in 2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official called Larry Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value.”[3]
Here is an example of how they undermine our goals: Ms Pelosi went to Syria with the assurance that Israel sought peace with Syria and yet when she arrived to pursue that stated goal we get the double talk.
“Shortly afterward, however, Mr. Olmert’s office issued a clarification of his message, insisting that, “although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the axis of evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East.”
To begin serious peace negotiations, the Israeli statement said, Syria must end its support of terrorism and its sponsorship of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations; refrain from providing weapons to Hezbollah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon; stop its support of terrorism in Iraq; and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the government in Iran.”
Loyalty is a two-way street and it appears that “our ally” is only loyal when it fits in with their strategic goals, not when it meets ours. In our efforts to return our country to the position of global leader, we should begin to look at all of our strategic alliances, not just the one with Israel. We should look at our relationships with dictators, despots, and other assorted characters we now find ourselves in bed with. Either we want to promote democracy or we don’t. Either we will apply our foreign policy evenly or we will not. We as a nation must decide this and then stick to it. Gone are the days of the cold war acceptance of any and all partners. The days of your enemy is my friend and vice versa. There are many opportunities around the world where we could lead the way towards freedom and tolerance, but these opportunities require something that recently has been in short supply, diplomacy and engagement. Are we peacemakers or not? This is the question that will determine the “soul” of America.
Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God….
Read more!
Stumble It!