women reporting on their first serious political experiences, present a
clearly honest, insightful and non-dogmatic view of the people they met
and the situation, via powerful, wide-ranging slides and discussion. Ergo,
the fresh eyes.
Ed
Fresh Eyes on Gaza
A Report Back
Adele Wallace and Susan Philips invite you to come and hear Dara
Wells-Haijar and Shae Popovich talk about their recent trip to Gaza this
past year. They participated in one of the international peace delegations
organized by Code Pink, Women for Peace. Dara and Shae will share stories
and pictures and tell us what we as Americans can do to bring an end to the
occupation.
When: Sunday, December 6, 2:00-4:00
Where: At the home of Art Goldberg and Susan Philips
2470 Silver Lake Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90039
Please RSVP to:
Awallace2@earthlink.com Or Sphilips4@aol.com
***
From: "Sid Shniad" <shniad@gmail.com>
http://www.buffalonews.com/367/story/870103.html?imw=Y
Mideast peace prospects dim
Obama is embracing failed policies of past, making two-state solution
unlikely. When Obama's U. N. representative slagged the Goldstone Commission
Report, Israel's ambassador to the United States was so pleased with the US
position he said it "could have been drafted in Tel Aviv, it was so
wonderful."*
By Jerome Slater
The Buffalo News: November 22, 2009
It seems evident President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because
of what he hopes to do on behalf of peace—especially in the Middle East, the
most dangerous region to U. S. national security and regional peace—rather
than for what he has actually accomplished.
The contentious Iranian issue aside, there are currently two main threats to
peace in the Middle East: the Taliban/al-Qaida threat in Afghanistan and
Pakistan, which almost certainly is not amenable to a peaceful solution, and
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which might be, but only with strong U. S.
leadership.
It is widely agreed that the only hope for a stable settlement of that
conflict is a "two-state solution," meaning the creation of an independent
and viable Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem,
living side by side with a secure Israel. The primary obstacle to such a
settlement is not the Palestinian government of Mahmoud Abbas in the West
Bank, which desperately wants an agreement. The central problem is that
Israel directly occupies or otherwise controls all the territory that would
be allotted to a Palestinian state.
If anything, Israeli policies, behavior and attitudes have hardened in the
last few years. Consequently, in the absence of sustained and serious
pressure by the United States— the only country taken seriously by
Israel—there is no chance Israel will end the occupation and agree to
Palestinian independence in the context of a two-state settlement.
Obama either does not understand these realities or is unwilling or unable
to pay the domestic price that serious U. S. policy changes would assuredly
entail. To be sure, in the early days of Obama's presidency there were some
promising signs—his apparent commitment to strong U. S. leadership to bring
about a two-state settlement, his appointment of the highly respected George
Mitchell as his representative in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and his
Cairo speech last March, in which he not only reached out to the Muslim
world but specifically criticized Israeli policies in the occupied
territories.
Since that promising beginning, however, Obama has been in full retreat from
any political confrontation with Israel and its U. S. supporters— the
consequence of which assuredly will be the collapse of his efforts to bring
about peace in the Middle East.
There are a number of signs that Obama is essentially continuing the failed
policies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and other previous presidents.
First, most of his appointments have gone to down-the-line supporters of
Israeli policies, including Vice President Biden and Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, whose future political ambitions make it unlikely that she
will want to take on the "pro-Israel" forces.
Second, despite Obama's repeated campaign rhetoric about the need to engage
in diplomacy with one's adversaries, he is following Israel's lead in
refusing to talk to Hamas. Not only is it the case that there can be no
Israeli-Palestinian settlement without the concurrence of Hamas, there is
evidence and expert opinion that the organization — in practice, though not
always in rhetoric—is moderating its positions and will accept, de facto at
least, a two-state settlement.
Third, it appears that the administration has given up on its efforts to get
Israel even to take the first step toward peace-ending settlement expansion,
let alone removing the existing settlements. The government of Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stonewalled Obama, and won. Indeed, it is
stepping up new construction in the occupied territories, especially in Arab
East Jerusalem, which it bluntly states will never be turned over to the
Palestinians. If not, there is no chance for a two-state solution.
Finally, the administration has rejected out of hand the factual findings,
conclusions and recommendations of the Goldstone Commission, which recently
issued a long report (bitterly contested by Israel's supporters) that
blisteringly criticized Israeli behavior in its attack on Gaza last December
and January, and called on the United Nations to consider taking Israeli
"war crimes" to the International Criminal Court. Effectively stopping any
international action, Obama's U. N. representative termed the Goldstone
Commission Report "unbalanced, one-sided and basically unacceptable."
Israel's ambassador to the United States was pleased, saying that the
American position "could have been drafted in Tel Aviv, it was so
wonderful."
What is the Goldstone Report? After last year's attack on Gaza, the U. N.
Human Rights Commission appointed Richard Goldstone to head an
investigation. Goldstone is one of the world's most prestigious jurists, who
had led the legal fight against apartheid in his native South Africa and
later was the chief prosecutor for the U. N. International Criminal Tribunal
in the war crimes trials against leading Serbian and Rwandan officials. In
addition, Goldstone is Jewish, regards himself as "a Zionist who loves
Israel" and has a number of ties with that country, including service as a
trustee of Hebrew University — where in 2000 he gave a speech pointing out
that "bringing war criminals to justice stems from the lessons of the
Holocaust."
The concept of the "just war" is the dominant Western philosophy concerning
the complicated efforts to subject warfare to moral constraints. The theory
distinguishes between just causes to go to war — principally, self-defense —
and just methods in warfare. Contrary to repeated charges in Israel and the
United States, the commission in no way challenged Israel's proclaimed
cause, its right to respond to Hamas rocket or suicide attacks, but focused
exclusively on its methods of "self-defense."
The commission heard extensive testimony, conducted 188 interviews with
officials, witnesses and victims in Gaza, examined thousands of pages of
documents and photographs, held many public hearings, reviewed the extensive
reports and findings of other international — and Israeli — human rights
groups and made numerous on-site field visits in Gaza. As the commission
noted, it also sought to learn the Israeli side of the story, but the
Israeli government refused to meet with it or cooperate in the
investigation.
Here are the commission's main findings about actions in Gaza:
• It estimated that between 1,300 and 1,400 Palestinians were killed in the
attack; it accepted the general assessment of various Israeli and
international human rights groups that at least half of them were civilians,
up to 40 percent of whom were women and children. Most of these casualties,
the report found, were the consequence of "systematically reckless" and
indiscriminate attacks (artillery barrages, white phosphorous antipersonnel
shelling, etc.) in densely populated areas of Gaza.
Prior to the attack on Gaza, top Israeli military officials had publicly
announced a revised military doctrine that, in the Goldstone Commission's
words, "explicitly admits the intentional targeting of civilian targets as
part of the Israeli strategy." The commission's conclusion: "Statements by
political and military leaders prior to and during the military operations
in Gaza leave little doubt that disproportionate destruction and violence
were part of a deliberate policy."
Still, one might argue, the demonstrable fact that Israel deliberately chose
disproportional or indiscriminate military methods does not demonstrate that
civilians were deliberately targeted. Sadly, though, even that argument is
problematic: the commission provided highly detailed and convincing
discussions of 11 incidents in which Israeli forces launched attacks that
intentionally killed a number of civilians.
• The Goldstone Report concluded that the Israeli attack was deliberately
designed to "inflict collective punishment" on the people of Gaza, by
striking at the economy and "the foundations of civilian life."
After the free election of a large Hamas majority in parliamentary elections
in Gaza in January 2006, Israel began what has widely been termed "the siege
of Gaza." It radically cut Gazan trade and commerce with the outside world
and repeatedly bombed and shelled Gaza's roads, bridges, factories,
electrical networks, farms and olive orchards. In early November 2008,
Israel drastically intensified the siege and (as one expert put it) "sealed
all crossing points into Gaza, vastly reducing and at times denying food
supplies, medicines, fuel, cooking gas and parts for water and sanitation
systems."
During the attack that began on Dec. 27, the Goldstone Commission reported,
Israel "deliberately and systematically" engaged in extensive and "wanton"
attacks, destroying private homes, schools, police stations, government
institutions (among others, the Gaza Parliament was leveled), hospitals and
ambulances, factories and industrial facilities, fuel depots, water and
sewage plants, water storage tanks and various food production systems
including orchards, greenhouses and fishing boats—all "for the specific
purpose of denying them for their sustenance to the population of Gaza."
After the attack, Israel continued its blockade of Gaza. Consequently,
according to a number of international reports, unemployment is at least 50
percent, 80 percent are estimated to live below international poverty lines
and 75 percent suffer from malnutrition.
• Goldstone accepted his appointment only after being assured that his
mandate included an investigation into violations of international law and
possible war crimes by Hamas, as well as by Israel. Accordingly, the
commission's report does discuss and condemn "the impact on civilians of
rocket and mortar attacks by Palestinian armed groups on southern Israel,"
as well as Hamas' repression and violence against internal Palestinian
opponents of its rule over Gaza.
These sections of the report are far briefer than those that deal with
Israel, and there is no doubt that the commission considered Israeli
policies and behavior to be far worse than those of Hamas. Moreover, the
commission found "no evidence" that Hamas combatants deliberately exposed
Palestinian civilians to attack or used them as "human shields," or that
they used hospitals and ambulances for military activities.
The overall conclusion was that the "systematic and deliberate nature of the
activities described in this report leave the mission in no doubt that
responsibility lies in the first place with those who designed, planned,
ordered and oversaw the operations" — meaning the Israeli government and
military leadership. The commission recommended that unless the Israelis
(and Palestinians) carry out serious internal investigations within six
months, the U. N. Security Council should consider referring the matter to
the International Criminal Court for possible criminal proceedings against
those who committed (in the commission's words) "war crimes" or possibly
even "crimes against humanity."
How credible is the report? The conclusions, language and recommendations of
the Goldstone Commission are, by the usually bland international standards,
unsparing or even harsh. Even so, if its report is factually accurate, it is
hard to see what else the commission could have concluded. As the
award-winning Israeli journalist Amira Hass wrote, "The Goldstone
Commission's findings are in line with what anyone who didn't shut his or
her eyes and ears already knows."
That is, its report confirmed previous reports by leading European, U. S.
and Israeli journalists and newspapers before, during and after the Israeli
attack, as well as the investigations and reports of international human
rights organizations (including the Red Cross, CARE, Oxfam, Physicians for
Human Rights, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and a number of U.
N. agencies) and those by a number of Israeli human rights organizations,
including B'tselem and Israeli Physicians for Human Rights. Finally, since
the end of the attack some 30 Israeli soldiers who participated in it have
confirmed and provided new details of the Israeli violations of
international law and accepted moral restraints, as published in the
appropriately named Israeli document, "Breaking the Silence."
So, what now? There is little chance that the commission's recommendations
will be implemented. The Israeli government and military already have
"investigated" their own actions and concluded that they were appropriate,
indeed that they have "the most moral army in the world." To be sure, there
is talk in Israel of a new investigation, if only to fend off facing an
international criminal tribunal. However, the likelihood that the government
will accuse itself of war crimes seems small.
Nor, in light of U. S. opposition, will the United Nations be able to act,
let alone the International Criminal Court. In essence, then, Obama is
rapidly returning to traditional U. S. policies, which amount either to
essentially unconditional U. S. support of whatever Israel does or, at most,
weak hand-wringing — for example, "the settlements are an obstacle to peace"
— unaccompanied by any firm measures and therefore routinely disregarded by
Israel. Indeed, Obama already has made it known that U. S. diplomatic and
military aid to Israel will not be used as leverage to get the Netanyahu
government to agree to end the occupation and allow the creation of a
Palestinian state. Therefore, there is no chance that it will.
What accounts for Obama's reversals? The most obvious explanation is that
Obama is giving priority to his ambitious domestic agenda and rightly fears
that real pressure on Israel would backfire in Congress, where it is likely
that some key members would, in effect, hold their support for Obama's
domestic programs hostage to his Israeli policies. While this is
understandable, the consequences for a negotiated settlement of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict are dim indeed.
Jerome Slater, professor emeritus of political science at the University at
Buffalo, has taught and written professionally about Israeli policies for
more than 40 years. He has close personal ties with Israel and is a former
Fulbright lecturer at Haifa University. In 1970, following three years as an
anti-submarine warfare officer on a U. S. destroyer, he offered to serve on
an Israeli destroyer should war break out with Egypt, but Israel declined.
_______________________________________________
Rad-Green mailing list
Rad-Green@lists.econ.utah.edu
No comments:
Post a Comment