www.aljazeerah.info
Opinion Editorials, January 2017
Archives
Mission & Name
Conflict Terminology
Editorials
Gaza Holocaust
Gulf War
Isdood
Islam
News
News Photos
Opinion Editorials
US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)
www.aljazeerah.info
|
Palestine 2017: Time to Bid Farewell to Washington and Embrace the Globe By Ramzy Baroud Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, January 4, 2017 |
 |
 |
|
There is no doubt that the UN Security Council condemnation of Israel on Friday, December 23, was an important and noteworthy event.
True, the United Nations’ main chambers (the Security Council and the General Assembly) and its various institutions, ranging from the International Court of Justice to the UN cultural agency, UNESCO, have repeatedly condemned the Israeli occupation, illegal Jewish settlements and mistreatment of Palestinians.
In fact, unlike the December 23 resolution 2334, the past UN condemnations were far stronger - for some resolutions did not just demand an immediate halt of illegal Jewish settlement construction, but the removal of existing settlements as well.
There are up to 196 illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land, in addition to hundreds of settler outposts. These settlements host up to 600,000 Jewish settlers, who were moved there in violation of international law and, in particular, the Fourth Geneva Convention.
But what makes this particular resolution important?
First, the US neither vetoed the resolution nor threatened to use its veto power; nor did it even seriously lobby, as it often does to soften the wording in advance.
Second, it is the first decisive and clear condemnation of Israel by the UN Security Council in nearly eight years - almost the entirety of President Barack Obama's terms in office.
Third, the vote took place despite extraordinary Israeli pressure on the current US administration, on the forthcoming administration of Donald Trump and successful pressure on Egyptian President, Abdul Fatah al-Sisi. Indeed, Egypt delayed the vote, which was scheduled a day earlier, before New Zealand, Senegal, Malaysia and Venezuela stepped up and put the resolution to a vote, a day later.
Doubtless, the UN resolution - like all others - remains rather symbolic as long as there are no practical mechanisms to ensure the enforcement of international law.
Not only will Israel not respect the United Nations’ will but is, in fact, already accelerating its settlement activities in the Jerusalem area, in defiance of that will.
The Jerusalem municipality had announced that 300 housing units will be built in the illegal settlements of Ramat Shlomo, Ramot and Bit Hanina while the Security Council members were preparing for the vote on the 'legal invalidity' of the Jewish settlements.
The Palestinian National Authority, on the other hand, is already celebrating another symbolic 'victory', which is readily being marketed to unamused Palestinians as a major step towards their freedom and their independent state.
The UN resolution was, indeed, keen on ensuring the two-state illusion is perpetuated further, which is all that the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas has needed to continue to push for an unattainable mirage.
With all this in mind, there is a lesson - and a valuable one - that must be registered at this moment: without US backing, Israel, with all of its might, is quite vulnerable and isolated in the international arena.
The outcome of the vote was quite telling: 14 Security Council members voted 'yes', while the US abstained. The vote was followed by a rare sight at such meetings, a sustained applause, where countries that hardly agree on much, agreed full-heartedly on the justness of Palestinian aspirations and the rejection of Israeli practices.
Think about this for a moment: the relentless efforts by Israel and the US to intimidate, coerce and bribe UN members, so as to sideline the international community from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is failing utterly.
All it took is a mere US abstention from the vote to expose the still solid international consensus regarding Israel's illegal actions in Palestine.
In an emblematic sign of hope, the vote brings to a close the year 2016, which has been a harsh one for Palestinians. Hundreds of Palestinians were killed during this year in clashes in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza; hundreds of homes have been partly or wholly demolished and damaged; thousands of acres of land have been confiscated by Israel, and countless olive trees toppled.
The next year hardly promises to be any kinder, as the new US administration under Trump exhibits all the signs that suggest US support of Israel will remain steadfast, if not take an even darker turn.
Rightly so, as the appointment of pro-settlement hardliner, David Friedman as the new US ambassador to Israel carries with it terrifying prospects.
Friedman and his ilk have no regard for international law or any respect for US current foreign policy regarding the Israeli occupation, the illegality of the settlements (considered an ‘obstacle to peace’ under various administrations) and is eager to relocate the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
All of this is quite ominous, and the freshly passed resolution should not advance the illusion that things are changing.
Nonetheless, there is hope.
The resolution is a further affirmation that the international community is unconditionally on the side of Palestinians and, despite all the failures of the past, still advocates the respect of international law.
This reminder takes place at a time when the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is moving from strength to strength, galvanizing civil societies, campuses and trade unions all over the world to take a stance against the Israeli occupation.
While the rights of Palestinians do not register in the slightest in the radar of US foreign policy interests (which sees its alliance with strong Israel as far more important than the needs of disjointed Arab countries), Palestinians can still forge a new strategy that is predicated on the strong support they continue to garner from the rest of the world.
Israel can be blamed for much, but Palestinians deserve much of the blame, too, for their own disunity, infighting and corruption.
They must not expect their efforts, however sincere, to yield freedom and liberation when they are incapable of forming a united front.
This should be done by overhauling the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and bringing all Palestinian factions under one single platform that caters to the aspirations of all Palestinians, at home and in ‘shatat’ (diaspora).
The Palestinian leadership needs to understand that the age of ineffectual American leadership is over. No more lip service to peace and handouts to the PA, while bankrolling the Israeli military and backing Israel politically. The next administration is pro-Israeli administration, absolutely.
This may be the clarity Palestinians need to understand that begging and pleading for American compassion will not suffice.
If a united Palestinian leadership does not seize the opportunity and regain the initiative in 2017, all Palestinians will suffer.
It is time to move away from Washington and to embrace the rest of the world.
- Dr. Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for over 20 years. He is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His books include “Searching Jenin”, “The Second Palestinian Intifada” and his latest “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story”. His website is www.ramzybaroud.net.
***
Stifling the Debate on Israel: For Palestinians, Zionism Only Means One Thing
By Ramzy Baroud
The British government of Theresa May officially adopted on December 12 a new definition of anti-Semitism that includes legitimate criticism of Israel.
The definition was adopted earlier in the year by a pro-Israeli group IHRA, although it was considered but abandoned by the European anti-racism agency in 2005.
It is also a rather dangerous move which will most likely lead to an expanding chasm between British civil society and Britain’s political elite.
Israeli and pro-Israeli groups in the West have always been keen on conflating genuine racism and genuine criticism of the state of Israel, which stands accused of violating scores of United Nations resolutions and of war crimes in the occupied territories, especially Gaza.
Adopting the new definition comes on the heels of a manufactured crisis in British politics, in which the Labor Party under Jeremy Corbyn was falsely accused of being 'soft' on anti-Semitism among its members. This 'crisis' was engineered by pro-Israeli groups to detract from genuine campaigning among Labor supporters, in order to bind Israel to its international obligations, and end the siege and occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Last October, a cross-party group issued a report that contributed to the confusion of ideas, condemning the use of the word 'Zionist' as pejorative, and claiming that such a use "has no place in civil society.'
While efforts to protect Israel from freedom of speech in Britain are still gathering steam, the debate in the United States has been stifled long ago. There is little room for any criticism of Israel in mainstream American media or ‘polite’ society. Effectively, this means that US policy in the Middle East remains beholden only to Israeli interests, the diktats of its powerful pressure and lobby groups.
Following suit, the UK is now adopting that same self-defeating position, an issue which is hardly new. In fact, Friday of last week was an anniversary of great relevance to this very issue.
On December 16, 1991, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 46/86, a single, reticent statement: "The General Assembly decides to revoke the determination contained in its resolution 3379 (XXX) of 10 November 1975."
This was a reversal of an earlier resolution that equated Israel's political ideology, Zionism and racism.
The longer text of the initial resolution, 3379 of 1975 was based on a clear set of principles, including UN resolution 2106 of 1965 that defined racial discrimination as "any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, color, descent or national or ethnic origin."
The reversal of that resolution was the outcome of vigorous US lobbying and pressures that lasted for years. In 1991, Israel had insisted that it would not join the US-sponsored Madrid peace talks without the disavowal of 3379 first. With the UN being one of the Madrid Talks’ sponsors, the US pressure paid its dividends at last, and UN members were obliged to overturn their early verdicts.
However, equating Zionism with racism is not the only comparison that is often conjured by Israel’s critics.
Recently, Ecuadorian envoy to the United Nations, Horacio Sevilla was adamant in his comments before a UN session, marking November 29 as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.
After he repudiated "with all our strength the persecution and genocide" unleashed by "Nazism against the Hebrew people," he added, “but I cannot remember anything more similar in our contemporary history than the eviction, persecution and genocide that today imperialism and Zionism do against the Palestinian people.”
The tirade of condemnations that followed was expected, as Israeli officials seized yet another opportunity to hurl anti-Semitic accusations against the United Nations for persistently targeting Israel, while, supposedly, excluding others from censure.
As far as Israel is concerned, any criticism of the state and its political ideology is anti-Semitic as are any demands for accountability from Israel regarding its military conducts during war.
But why is Israel so concerned with definitions?
At the heart of Israel's very existence lurks a sense of vulnerability which all the nuclear warheads and firepower cannot redeem.
Outlawing the use of the term Zionism is ludicrous and impractical, if not altogether impossible.
For Israelis who embrace the term, Zionism is many things, while for Palestinians, who learned to loathe it, it is, ultimately a single ideology.
In an article published in 2012, Israeli author, Uri Avnery, acknowledged the many shades of Zionism – early socialist Zionism (obsessed with the color red, and mobilizing around Jewish-only unions and Kibbutzim); religious Zionism which sees itself as the “forerunner of the Messiah”; right-wing Zionism which demands a "Jewish state in all of historical Palestine", and secular, liberal Zionism as envisioned by its founder, Theodor Herzl.
For a Palestinian whose land was illegally confiscated, home demolished and life endangered by these very ‘Zionist’ forces, Avnery's itemization is insignificant. For them the term ‘Zionist’ is essentially pejorative, and is anyone who advocates, participates in or justifies Israeli aggressive actions based on his/her support and sympathy for political Zionism.
In his article, “Zionism from the Standpoint of its Victims”, the late Palestinian Professor Edward Said elaborates: "It is not unreasonable to find that the entire Palestinian-Arab experience seems unanimous about the view that Zionism visited upon the Arabs a singular injustice," and that even before the British handed Palestine over to Zionist settlers upon which to establish a state formally in 1948, Palestinians universally opposed and variously tried to resist Zionist colonialism."
Many countries share the Palestinian perception of Zionism as a form of colonialism, and that prevailing perception is a historical fact, not a product of collective anti-Semitic illusion.
The reason why the question and debate of Zionism must not waver to any intimidation is that the essence of Zionism never matured, evolved or changed from its early, colonial version.
Israeli historian Ilan Pappe agrees. “The Zionist ideology and strategy has not changed from its very beginning,” he wrote. “The idea was ‘We want to create a Jewish state in Palestine but also a Jewish democracy’. So the Zionists needed to have a Jewish majority all the time .. Therefore, ethnic cleansing was the only real solution from the Zionist perspective ..”
This remains the main driving force behind Israeli policy towards Palestinians, and Israel’s refusal to break away from a 19th century colonial enterprise into a modern, democratic state for all its citizens.
To do so, would be to sacrifice the core of its Zionist ideology, constructed on an amalgam of ethno-religious identities, and to embrace a universal form of democracy in a state where Jews and Arabs are treated as equals.
- Dr. Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for over 20 years. He is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His books include “Searching Jenin”, “The Second Palestinian Intifada” and his latest “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story”. His website is www.ramzybaroud.net.
***
Share the link of this article with your facebook friends
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||
