Posted By Daniel Levy
Friday, July 22, 2011 - 7:12 PM
Share
As more information seeps out from the Quartet principals meeting held in Washington on July 11, it becomes harder not to reach the conclusion that American policy on Israel-Palestine is now being driven almost exclusively by a desire to prevent any possible U.N. vote on the matter in the Autumn. Reading the draft text proposed as a Quartet statement by the U.S. (the text is not yet public, but the authenticity of the draft described here has been reliably confirmed) and rejected by the EU, Russia, and the U.N. Secretary General entrenches that conclusion -- and worse, that the U.S. was attempting to pull something of a diplomatic fast one on the senior Quartet officials assembled. But more on that later.
First, a veritable minefield of myths that have sprung up around a possible Palestine vote at the U.N. should be debunked.
No a U.N. vote will not in practical terms deliver a sovereign Palestinian state and Israeli withdrawal and de-occupation. Nor will Israelis instantly be hauled in front of various international legal bodies as a consequence of a U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) resolution. Several other steps would have to take place subsequent to a U.N. vote for either of those things to happen and those do not flow seamlessly, one from the other.
No the U.N. Security Council or General Assembly is not an inappropriate venue for discussing or passing resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, nor does doing so contravene previous agreements signed between the parties. It is hard to imagine a more relevant or obvious matter for the U.N. to act on. One does not have to get very far in reading the charter of the U.N. to understand that U.N. member states who are signatories to that charter would be derelict in their duties if they refused to act on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Article 1 of that charter is about maintaining international peace and security; Article 2 is about the right of peoples to self-determination; and the list goes on. More specifically, when it comes to Israel-Palestine, the idea of partition to two states is a product of the U.N. (more specifically Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question), enshrined in UNGA Resolution 181, and it was U.N. recognition that crucially established the legitimacy of the State of Israel. The existing panoply of Israeli-Palestinian agreements from the past two decades say nothing about barring any action at the U.N. and do not even explicitly refer to Palestinian statehood, so that any recognition of a Palestinian state at the U.N. cannot be in contravention of those agreements.
While Netanyahu's amen corner may point to a clause in the Oslo agreements setting out that "neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank or the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations," they tend to conveniently forget about this when it comes, for instance, to the daily Israeli acts contravening this same clause, notably relentless settlement expansion. So the idea that a U.N. resolution -- even one recognizing Palestine -- is inadmissible given existing signed commitments, is no more than an Israeli diplomatic sleight of hand parroted by American officials and assorted hangers on. Thankfully, there are still international actors with a somewhat more grounded understanding of the Oslo process and international legality. In fact, none other than the initiators of the Oslo process, the Norwegians themselves. Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre included the following in a statement issued earlier this week, subsequent to his meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas:
It is Norway's view, however, that it is legitimate and not in contradiction with a process of negotiation, to turn to the U.N. to promote a common approach on the part of the international community and respect for the international rule of law. In light of the continuing deadlock in the negotiations, the Palestinians cannot be denied the right to approach the U.N.
No the Palestinians cannot realistically circumvent an American veto and become a member state of the U.N. -- and they know this. The theoretical option of pursuing a two-thirds majority at the General Assembly and then using the "Uniting for Peace" framework to get around the Security Council, and therefore the American veto, is not something the Palestinians will pursue. At most, they will pursue a membership application in order to set down a marker for the future, maintain a degree of drama and attention surrounding the vote, and to heighten American discomfort at its inability to pursue a coherent or credible Israel-Palestine policy.
Finally, the subtext of going to the U.N. is not about creating conditions for a new round of violence and a third intifada -- something the current Palestinian leadership has no interest in and are themselves threatened by. The likelihood or otherwise of violent instability in the Occupied Territories is influenced by a number of variables, among them economic conditions and Israel's possible withholding of Palestinian tax revenues, Palestinian ability to sustain non-violent approaches to mobilization, the intensity of Israeli provocations, and the extent of Palestinian frustration. The latter could be more fueled by a Palestinian retreat from U.N. action and a return to meaningless negotiations or by a failure at the U.N. to overwhelmingly endorse Palestinian rights than by a successful, symbolic win at the U.N., even if that does not translate the morning after into new freedoms on the ground.
Having said all of this, there are ways in which a U.N. resolution could be constructive and help achieve progress toward a better future for both Palestinians and Israelis (of course these prospects will partly depend on the exact wording and nature of any specific resolution). For instance, a U.N. resolution clarifying that a two-state solution would be on the 1967 lines (allowing for modifications to that line only on the basis of agreed, equal, and minor land exchanges) with Jerusalem serving as the capital of both states, could help ground any future negotiations in more realistic terms, establishing that the contours of a two-state arrangement cannot be endlessly flexible while also undermining the time-wasting and obfuscatory special pleading that tends to characterize Israeli negotiation tactics.
At the same time, such a resolution would powerfully entrench the two-state solution, guaranteeing a future for both Israel and a Palestinian state. That is the main reason that those preferring a one-state outcome -- from both the more absolutist Palestinian rights camp and from the Greater Israel settler camp -- are opposed to this U.N. move. This should provide a reason for the pro-democracy wing of the pro-Israel camp to attempt to work constructively in this U.N. space. Yet most of the American Jewish establishment groups who by self-definition claim to support a democratic Israel seem more busy taking a victory lap every time another Eastern European or Pacific Island state declares itself against the U.N. vote.
In Israeli domestic political terms a strongly endorsed U.N. resolution would administer a kick to the groin of the peace rejectionist policies pursued by the current Netanyahu-Lieberman government. It is hard to see how peace is advanced by rewarding those rejectionist policies, whether at the U.N. or in the constructing of Quartet statement language. For the Palestinians, a U.N. resolution that upgrades their U.N. status to non-member state (similar to the Vatican status), would pave the way to membership in additional institutions including very likely the ability to take cases to the International Criminal Court (ICC). While the asymmetry of Israeli-Palestinian realities and therefore the logic of the Palestinians gaining leverage by utilizing non-violent diplomatic tools of this nature is a powerful one, this is not something that the Palestinian leadership is claiming it will pursue subsequent to any U.N. vote.
Given both the legitimacy of the U.N. as a venue for advancing Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution and this non-exhaustive list of potential benefits that could be derived from such a move, why is it that the U.S. (and in many ways Europe) are so uncomfortable about a U.N. vote and working so hard to prevent it from occurring?
The respective reasons for American and European opposition are not exactly the same. Both share a preference to be on the same page when it comes to this issue and it is unlikely that would happen should it come to a U.N. vote. When the Security Council voted on a settlements resolution in February, the EU states supported the resolution while the U.S. was alone in opposing and vetoing it. The U.S. and Europe also share a concern that the U.N. route would signal the beginning of them losing control of this issue (a worry that is more acute for the U.S.). And even if the Palestinians are not planning to go to the ICC or to try to sanction Israel in various ways subsequent to a U.N. vote, that might be the future trajectory for this conflict and a U.N. vote might ultimately encourage that, which is likely to present a series of difficult decisions down the road (in this case especially for the Europeans).
The main explanation for U.S. opposition to any U.N. consideration of a Palestine resolution would appear to be rooted in the domestic politics of this issue. With re-election coming up (isn't it always) the president would be unenthusiastic about having to deal with the background noise criticism that many of the so-called pro-Israel lobbying groups would undoubtedly generate in the wake of any U.N. vote. Even a U.S. veto in the Security Council or "no" vote in the General Assembly would not shield the president from being attacked. He will be blamed for encouraging the Palestinians to try this path by stating in his speech last year to the UNGA that "when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations -- an independent, sovereign state of Palestine." The president is also likely to be held accountable for failing to sufficiently persuade or pressure any state with whom American maintains bilateral relations and that votes with the Palestinians. Yes, it is ridiculous.
Republican congressional leaders have threatened to withhold America's UN payments if such a vote goes ahead, giving the president another horse-trading headache in the already difficult act of managing congressional relations. What's more, members of Congress from both parties are threatening to de-fund all U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority if the Palestinians push a U.N. vote. This matters because administration officials understand that de-funding might not only encourage escalation on the ground, but it also removes an important lever of U.S. influence with the Palestinians for managing the conflict in ways that are convenient to Israel. A classically ironic own goal for the pro-Israel community, this one. There is also the small matter of America's own national interests and credibility at the U.N., in the Middle East, and in the broader global community. If there is a U.N. vote and domestic politics dictates a US "no" vote, then while no direct causal line can be drawn between that vote and increased extremist recruitment, terror, and threats against the U.S., the relationship between those factors is nonetheless one that American leaders and especially military leaders are all too aware of.
The distinctly European reasons for also preferring that a U.N. move be avoided mainly revolve around the difficulty that exists in producing a common European position and in the absence of such a position the inability to bring leverage to bear and the exposing of divisions within Europe.
Given the shared point of departure on the desirability of producing an alternative to the Palestinian push at the UN it might seem somewhat surprising that the U.S., Europe, and the rest of the Quartet failed to produce a common statement at last week's high level meeting. Surprising, that is, until one considers what was on offer from the U.S. -- which is where the American sophistry comes in. The U.S. presented to its Quartet "partners" a suggested one page text that looked rather like an exercise in cherry picking Obama's recent speeches by the Israeli Prime Minister's office (given the recent traffic between Jerusalem and Washington and the end product it is reasonable to speculate that that is precisely what happened). The American pitch went something like the following: the proposed text is a reflection of the President's speech, the Quartet had encouraged the President to give such a speech, the President had taken some political heat for the speech, the Quartet had even endorsed the speech (which it did in a May 20 statement), therefore the Quartet should now stand united behind the American draft, demonstrate to the Palestinians that they have no alternative but to accept the Quartet position, resume negotiations, and drop the U.N. idea. The text was quite clearly pre-cooked with the Israeli leadership, so no problem of acceptance from Israel.
Except that the U.S. text was not a faithful rendition of what the Quartet had endorsed -- namely, the May 19 State Department speech of the president -- but rather a hodgepodge of language from that speech, from the May 22 speech at the AIPAC conference, and of elements never before endorsed by the Quartet and even contradicting the existing positions of the EU and others. Hence the stalemate -- and not altogether a shock given Jerusalem's apparent co-authorship of the text.
So here are the details. To recap: President Obama's May 19 speech spent 1,040 words addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Obama described the conflict, touched on Israeli and Palestinian aspirations, and made a case for a solution being more urgent than ever in the context of the Arab awakening. The President then made news when, in calling for a resumption of negotiations, he stated that "the basis of those negotiations is clear," and then spent 170 words providing the parameters of a borders and security first approach to achieving two-states (his reference of the 1967 lines in particular drew attention). He closed out this part of the speech by saying "these principles provide a foundation for negotiations." The U.S. draft proposal presented to the Quartet did include the President's language from the May 19 speech, but it also included a whole lot more, all of it skewing, extremely uni-directionally, in Israel's favor. To the simple May 19 border language of "based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps," the U.S. added the following from the May 22 speech:
The parties themselves will negotiate a border between Israel and Palestine that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967, to take account of changes that have taken place over the last 44 years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides.
This is essentially America asking the Quartet to endorse illegal Israeli settlement activity that has taken place since 1967 (and in phrasing this as "the parties themselves will negotiate a border..." the U.S. is deviating from its own previous policy of not dictating to the parties). Compare that to the official position of the European Union: "The European Union will not recognize any changes to the pre-1967 borders including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties."
Remember, the Quartet issued a statement endorsing the president's May 19 speech; it has never endorsed the May 22 speech.
The U.S. text also included language about Israel that was spoken on both May 19 and May 22 but was not part of the principles or foundations for negotiations set out on May 19 (and it is these principles that the Quartet endorsed). As follows:
A lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland of the Jewish people.
Again, this is terminology that neither the EU nor the Quartet has endorsed in the past. While it may be derived from previous U.N. resolutions (UNGA 181) it is problematic in several respects. It comes at a time when the nationalist chauvinism of the Netanyahu-Lieberman government is creating in practice an ever less democratic rendition of Jewish statehood. And America's text actually fails to even mention the need for Israel to be a democracy or to respect the equal rights of all citizens (maybe the American drafters did understand more than appears at first glance). It is being claimed by Israel, and for understandable reasons, to be a definitive position on the Palestinian refugee issue, and it meets a key Netanyahu demand without anything even resembling a reciprocal nod to Palestinian rights.
The U.S. wanted the Quartet to agree that:
[N]or can the two-state solution be achieved through action in the United Nations.
Again, this was not in the principles of negotiations May 19 language and is closer to the May 22 text and is an Israeli position...and a bit of a stretch to ask everyone else, including the UN Secretary General, to join America in de-legitimizing the idea of acting through the United Nations.
Another proposed sentence would have the Quartet saying:
No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction.
Taken from the AIPAC speech, and while ostensibly reasonable, this is not something that has been applied in other conflict situations or that does anything other than curry favor with Jerusalem. It was America's way of coming out firmly against Palestinian national reconciliation and conceding to Israel's argument that even if the Palestinians accept these principles for negotiations, Israel would still not be expected to enter talks until the unity deal was undone. One Quartet member, Russia, actually hosted a joint Hamas, Fatah, and other factions delegation in Moscow to encourage the reconciliation deal, while the EU position is to call "on all Palestinians to promote reconciliation behind President Mahmoud Abbas."
To top it all off, nowhere in the proposed statement was there a mention of settlement activity and the need for it to be stopped (other than retroactively legitimizing it as mentioned above). Europe's position on settlements is clear:
[They are] illegal under international law...and threaten to make a two-state solution impossible. The [European] Council urges the government of Israel to immediately end all settlement activities, in East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank and including natural growth, and to dismantle all outposts erected since March 2001.
Finally, the U.S. attempted to introduce a new procedural construct with the following sentence:
The Quartet calls on the parties to return to direct negotiations, beginning with preparatory work to maximize their chances of success.
It reads like an attempt to ensure that September could be navigated safely by not even starting the negotiations before then -- instead focusing on this new "preparatory work". Under the conditions embodied in the U.S. text, the only preparatory work that one can imagine might lead to success would be a Hogwart's crash course in Wizardry (although American officials no doubt have different ideas and are proposing the kind of minimalist Israeli confidence-building measures that have made such a massive contribution to peace in the last decade!).
With the American text having been rejected, what next? What are the scenarios for between now and September?
There are three basic options for the U.S. and the Quartet, acting in tandem or separately. First, the U.S. might yet convince the other Quartet members to accept their proposed text or something close enough to it to still have Netanyahu chortling and Abbas turning out the lights at the Muqata. This is the thrust of current U.S. diplomatic efforts. If that succeeds, and the premise is correct that faced with a unified Quartet position the Palestinians will fold and abandon any U.N. efforts, then of course September is successfully avoided -- but at what cost. Negotiations, even if they begin, are unlikely to last, let alone be fruitful, and the current Palestinian leadership and the entire negotiations approach will be even further emaciated and exposed as a folly. Paradoxically, the Palestinian embrace of a new more assertive and proactive strategy that America so fears may even be accelerated if the Quartet ploy carries the day.
A second possibility is that the Europeans lead an effort to craft a Security Council product at the U.N. This could be done with Palestinian assent, as a way of establishing meaningful parameters of a two-state solution, it might avoid messy textual negotiations at the UNGA, and maintain a unified European position. The only problem with this option is that the U.S. will almost certainly veto anything deemed unacceptable by Jerusalem -- and Jerusalem's bar for acceptability has all the moderation of a Voldemort.
The third scenario is for a General Assembly resolution, which the U.S. can oppose but not of course veto. For the Palestinians the focus for such a resolution would likely be the upgrading of their current status to what was described earlier as something similar to that of the Vatican: an observer or non-member state. The battleground in this context would be the exact language of the resolution and the votes of European and some other states.
Neither Israel nor America will be excluded from, or be bystanders to, developments over the coming weeks. Nevertheless, the degree of Israeli intransigence (and refusal to play even make believe peaceniks) and the severity of America's allergy to action at the U.N. will greatly restrict and marginalize both, if and when a September move draws closer. That will place a premium on whether the Palestinians can come up with something approaching an effective strategy and whether Europe can intervene in a consensual and meaningful fashion.
With the prospects for any improvement on the Israel-Palestine situation so dire, and with American stewardship of the peace process so thoroughly compromised, that represents a slim yet worthwhile gamble. Once the American election dust settles, the realization in the meantime of some Palestinian and European punctuation points of progress might even generate more conducive conditions in the future for America to re-engage in a constructive way. Not that holding one's breath while waiting for that eventuality is recommended.
Daniel Levy directs the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation and is an editor of the Middle East Channel.
AFP/Getty images
EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, FLASH POINTS, MIDDLE EAST, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. CONGRESS, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, UNITED NATIONS 
...because once the US is no longer the big dog on the block it will be peace love and dope everywhere on the planet. Arabs and Israelis will learn to live together and the Chinese, Russians, Brazilians, Indians etc., will only act in the interest of all the citizens of the globe instead of their narrow national interests. World government, cooperative economics and the rule of law will flower in the absence of America.
Grow up!
APARTHEID IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY
Isreal today By Nelson Mandela
A Letter by Nelson Mandela to Thomas Friedman: March 30, 2001 ”Today the world, black and white, recognize that apartheid has no future. In South Africa it has been ended by our own decisive mass action in order to build peace and security. That mass campaign of defiance and other actions could only culminate in the establishment of democracy. Perhaps it is strange for you to observe the situation in Palestine or more specifically, the structure of political and cultural relationships between Palestinians and Israelis, as an apartheid system. This is because you incorrectly think that the problem of Palestine began in 1967. You seem to be surprised to hear that there are still problems of 1948 to be solved, the most important component of which is the right to return of Palestinian refugees. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not just an issue of military occupation and Israel is not a country that was established "normally" and happened to occupy another country in 1967. Palestinians are not struggling for a "state" but for freedom, liberation and equality, just like we were struggling for freedom in South Africa. In the last few years, and especially during the reign of the Labour Party, Israel showed that it was not even willing to return what it occupied in 1967; that settlements remain, Jerusalem would be under exclusive Israeli sovereignty, and Palestinians would not have an independent state, but would be under Israeli economic domination with Israeli control of borders, land, air, water and sea. APARTHEID IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY (my emphasis). Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property. It has perpetuated a system of gross racial discrimination and inequality. It has systematically incarcerated and tortured thousands of Palestinians, contrary to the rules of international law. It has, in particular, waged a war against a civilian population, in particular children. The responses made by South Africa to human rights abuses emanating from the removal policies and apartheid policies respectively, shed light on what Israeli society must necessarily go through before one can speak of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and an end to its apartheid policies”
Maybe too late for Palestine TARQUINIS, but also too late United States?
I don't know why you feel the need to post that in here.
It only serves to reinforce that anti-Israel zealots are screwballs.
why weren't you at the latest queers for Palestine meeting? We missed you pal and those chubby thighs.
Your hasbara wearing thin, Giladg
You say,
* In SA whites where not indigenous to the country. Jews have always lived in the land now called Israel and have long standing, ligitimate rights
In small communities, sometimes villages, but never en masse. And in general, Sephardim were treated by Zionists almost as badly as the Arabs.
* In SA whites are a minority. In Israel Jews are the majority.
Before 1948, Arabs were the majority. And the Yishuv expelled them, in rather the same way the Spanish Crown and the Spanish Inquisition earlier expelled Sephardim and Muslims. If Israel were truly a democracy, the only one in the Middle East, it would recognize the right of the refugees to return; it would recognize that ethnic origin and cultural background do not constitute a valid reason for denying citizenship rights. As a mandated territory of the British empire, and thus obtaining a vast majority of its laws from the British Common Law, Mandatory Palestine on becoming a state in its own right, would have granted citizenship to all ordinary domiciled residents, irrespective of ethnic background, religion, or other irrelevancies.
* In SA only whites could vote. In Israel Arabs can vote and have full rights by law.
In a democracy, the rule of law is that everyone who's subject to the state's monopoly of power of life and death, has the right to contest the exercise of that power in the appropriate courts of law. Israel maintains life-and-death powers of the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza, and for the most part, those powers and their exercise are not contestable in any Israeli court of law - since when have we ever heard of a settler ever being brought to trial for their abusive treatment of Palestinians?
* In SA, blacks could only work in specified areas.. In Israel, Arabs can work where they please.
You want to get specific on this? Israeli Palestinians, that is, Israeli citizens who are ethnically Arabs, are denied the right to enlist in the IDF. So that's one area of employment that's closed. Should I go on?
* In SA, blacks had separate hospitals. In Israel all hospitals are shared
Funny you should say this. A few years ago there was a bit of a to-do about an Arab Israeli dentist who wanted to set up practice in a town or suburb that was regarded as strictly Jewish-only. He wasn't allowed to move in there, he wasn't allowed to set up practice, and he got so fed up with the whole mess that when things finally went his way, he flagged it as a useless endeavour. And that's leaving out the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, entirely.
* In SA, blacks had separate schools. In Israel, Arabs and Jews share the same schools and universities.
Please consult the relevant Israel resources instead of gratuitously insulting our intelligence, please. In Israel, Arab schools are underfunded, and overcrowded. That's leaving out entirely the unpleasant fact that the Israel government is actively working to push the Negev Bedouin off their lands and out of their villages, and into - needless to say - school-less reservations. They even use defoliants a la USAF in Vietnam War, to kill Israeli Bedouin citizens' crops, because they are of the wrong ethnicity.
* In SA, black had separate toilets. Not In Israel.
You want to wait. Things haven't got that far yet. These are the good old days, just you wait and see.
* In SA, there where no regional wars threatening the existence of the white population and there was no mass support amongst blacks for violence against whites.
Huh? Strikes on Angola and Mozambique and Zambia and in cooperation with the then-Rhodesia, soon to become Zimbabwe, strikes on ANC supporters and training camps in those lands? When the ANC was the one party nearly everyone in both black and white communities could guarantee to have the support of the disenfranchised black African majority? When it was the only party President de Klerk could turn to, to solve the problems South Africa was facing? And the ANC was engaged in violent struggle against the apartheid regime?
Your hasbara is wearing thin, mate. I'd suggest you open your eyes and mind.
whiskey echo papa is just a moron who makes false statements
Lie: Sephardim were treated by Zionists almost as badly as the Arabs.
- Except that an impoverished Jewish state, which just survived a war of extinction (where 1% of the entire population perished) absorbed nearly 1 million sefardim (and there were only about 1 million Jews there already). This cost immense effort, money, blood, labor to do it. Something few peoples have ever done for anyone else. Quite a sacrifice that no one else seems to have done.
Lie: Before 1948, Arabs were the majority. And the Yishuv expelled them.
-except in the Partition plan, Jews were the majority in the area allocated to them for a state. The palestinians rejected the partition, seeking to take all the land. And over 60% of palestinians fled without ever seeing a single Israeli soldier in 1948. They fled after being urged by their "arab brothers" to clear the way. They thought they would then take the spoils once the arab armies were "victorious." Too bad for them it didn't work out that way.
Lie:since when have we ever heard of a settler ever being brought to trial for their abusive treatment of Palestinians?
-happens all the time. Ex. "Police said Sunday they have arrested a settler suspected of involvement in a failed rocket attack on a Palestinian village in the West Bank. Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said that police arrested Gilad Herman. "
LIE: Israeli citizens who are ethnically Arabs, are denied the right to enlist in the IDF.
There is a long-standing government policy of encouraging Bedouins to volunteer and of offering them various inducements, and in some impoverished Bedouin communities a military career seems one of the few means of (relative) social mobility available. Also, Muslims and Christians are accepted as volunteers, even at an age greater than 18.
One of Israel's most famous soldiers, Amos Yarkoni - was a muslim Arab. Six Israeli Arabs have received orders of distinction as a result of their military service; of them the most famous is a Bedouin officer, Lieutenant Colonel Abd el-Majid Hidr (also known as Amos Yarkoni), who received the Order of Distinction. Recently, a Bedouin officer was promoted to the rank of Colonel.
LIE: Arab dentist couldn't set up shop. More than 60,000 palestinians are given entry visas to Israel many for FREE medical treatment in Israeli hospitals, paid for by Israelis.
Sorry Whiskey Echo, seems like you were drinking too much Whisky when you spat out your nonsense lies.
Obvious to compare Israel to apartheid South Afica.
For a start, they were close allies during the apartheid years.
>> * In SA whites where not indigenous to the country.
Many Jews immigrated to Israel and are not indigenous to the region either. The European immigrants do not inherent territorial rights under any law because there were fellow Jews in Palestine.
>> * In SA whites are a minority. In Israel Jews are the majority.
Jews are a majority because they expelled the Palestians in 1948, who were the majorty by 2:1.
>> * In SA only whites could vote. In Israel Arabs can vote and have full rights by law.
False. Palestinians do not have full rights by law and are decriminated under the law. As for voting rights, Isreli laws are rigegd to ensure that the Palestinians have no power by banning Arab partied from forming coalitions.
>> * In SA, blacks could only work in specified areas.. In Israel, Arabs can work where they please.
False. Arabs are denied access to high paying jobs.
>> * In SA, blacks had separate hospitals. In Israel all hospitals are shared
Jews and arabs are segregated muc like they were in SA.
>> * In SA, blacks had separate schools. In Israel, Arabs and Jews share the same schools and universities.
In a small number of schools, but most are segregated.
>> * In SA, black had separate toilets. Not In Israel.
Perhaps, but then again, Arabs and Palestinians are not allowed to mingle in work places.
>> * In SA, there where no regional wars threatening the existence of the white population
There is no regional wars threatening the existence of the Jewish population either. Every war since 1948 has been started by Israel, with the exeptino of 1973.
>> The Arab world has hijacked the term "Apartheid" to unjustly de-legitimize Israel
False. The father of apartheid, the South African Prime Minister who created it, said that ISrale was an apartheid state in 1961. He was not an Arab.
Nor is Nelson Mandela and Desmnd Tutu.
Are you sugegsting that neither of these men understand Apartheid?
As with the Jews in Wiemar Germany, Israel and its AIPAC minions have garnered disproportionate Israeli media, financial and political control right here in United States. Seems our country, not just Palestine, is being (has been?) occupied. Palestine, at horrific cost, justly and honorably resists, whereas we, like donkeys, serve the Israeli herdsmen.
seems like our country is getting occupied by KKK racists like yourself.
Woops, the AS Word (reply to ARAVAY)
To me, opposing a racist race isn't just not racist, its proper, humane and important.
Would you have it otherwise ARAVAY?
Israel's illegal actions with the backing of the US Congress in invading Palestinian land and constructing illegal settlement activities beyond the 1967 lines is just appalling. Also, invading East Jerusalem and illegally claiming the entirety of the city for itself, and also insisting that the world accept that Israel is a Jewish state (even though it is a democracy and is based on citizenship, with more than 20 percent of the population native Palestinians with Israeli citizenship) is disgusting and speaks to how they have learned nothing during the Holocaust. Israel must stop its illegal activities and retreat back behind the 1967 lines. Why Congress is supporting a thief and an invader is beyond me, even if Israel is an ally. If anything we should be supporting the Palestinians, since they were wrongfully invaded and kicked out of Palestine by Zionists that just waltzed in to someone else's land and declared the land theirs and created a state.
How would you feel if a hobo off the street came into your home with a knife, murdered your children, kicked you out and laid claim to your house, and the police you called to sort out this mess (US) backing the deranged mad man?
Israel-Palestinian Peace Process is a joke and a two state solution is a joke. Israel shouldn't even exist in the first place.
DBSTJDALS describes his family actions in the USA
along with Candaian actions, australian actions, and even ARAB ACTIONS towards the native peoples of the middle east (like: Jews, Kurds, Berbers, Copts)
"How would you feel if a hobo off the street came into your home with a knife, murdered your children, kicked you out and laid claim to your house, and the police you called to sort out this mess (US) backing the deranged mad man?"
LOL - move out of the USA then. Since, you stole that land.
If nothing else it will be worth seeing the United States publicly repudiate its own founding principles of liberty and justice for all for thirty shekels of silver.
6 out 10 Palestinians reject 2-state solution, survey finds
15/07/2011
73% of 1,010 Palestinians in W. Bank, Gaza agree with 'hadith' quoted in Hamas Charter about the need to kill Jews hiding behind stones, trees.
Only one in three Palestinians (34 percent) accepts two states for two peoples as the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to an intensive, face-to-face survey in Arabic of 1,010 Palestinian adults in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip completed this week by American pollster Stanley Greenberg.
The poll, which has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, was conducted in partnership with the Beit Sahour-based Palestinian Center for Public Opinion and sponsored by the Israel Project, an international nonprofit organization that provides journalists and leaders with information about the Middle East.
The Israel Project is trying to reach out to the Arab world to promote “people-to-people peace.” The poll appears to indicate that the organization has a difficult task ahead.
Respondents were asked about US President Barack Obama’s statement that “there should be two states: Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people and Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people.”
Just 34% said they accepted that concept, while 61% rejected it.
Sixty-six percent said the Palestinians’ real goal should be to start with a two-state solution but then move to it all being one Palestinian state.
Asked about the fate of Jerusalem, 92% said it should be the capital of Palestine, 1% said the capital of Israel, 3% the capital of both, and 4% a neutral international city.
Seventy-two percent backed denying the thousands of years of Jewish history in Jerusalem, 62% supported kidnapping IDF soldiers and holding them hostage, and 53% were in favor or teaching songs about hating Jews in Palestinian schools.
When given a quote from the Hamas Charter about the need for battalions from the Arab and Islamic world to defeat the Jews, 80% agreed. Seventy-three percent agreed with a quote from the charter (and a hadith, or tradition ascribed to the prophet Muhammad) about the need to kill Jews hiding behind stones and trees.
But only 45% said they believed in the charter’s statement that the only solution to the Palestinian problem was jihad.
The survey’s more positive findings included that only 22% supported firing rockets at Israeli cities and citizens and that two-thirds preferred diplomatic engagement over violent “resistance.”
Among Palestinians in general 65% preferred talks and 20% violence. In the West Bank it was 69-28%, and in Gaza, 59- 32%.
Asked whether they backed seeking a Palestinian state unilaterally in the UN, 64% said yes. The number was 57% in the West Bank and 79% in Gaza. Thirty-seven percent said the UN action would bring a Palestinian state closer, 16% said it would set back the establishment of a state, and 44% said it would make no difference.
When asked what Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s top priorities should be, 83% said creating jobs. Just 4% said getting the UN to recognize a Palestinian state, and only 2% said peace talks with Israel.
Israel Project president Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi said she was encouraged that the Arab Spring would bring more accuracy to Arab media and by the 59% of Palestinians who are on Facebook. The Israel Project has 80,723 friends for its Arabic site, which has had 9.5 million page views in two months.
“Some of the numbers in the poll are discouraging, but we are trying to change them,” she said at a Jerusalem press conference in which Greenberg presented the findings.
Greenberg said the survey proved that there was a big need for public education and leadership on the Palestinian side.
Greenberg and Laszlo Mizrahi have presented the findings to President Shimon Peres, opposition leader Tzipi Livni, Vice Premier Moshe Ya’alon and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s senior adviser, Ron Dermer.
Next week, they have meetings scheduled in the White House and the Pentagon.
Israeli leaders told Greenberg and Laszlo Mizrahi they were encouraged by Palestinian support for talks.
Palestinians persecute homosexuals
Court: Palestinian persecuted for homosexuality can stay in Israel
Nablus man says would be killed for sexual orientation, collaborating with Israel, if expelled to PA.
By Tomer Zarchin Tags: Nablus Palestinian Authority Israel news
In an unusual ruling, the High Court of Justice ordered the state late last week to evaluate the degree to which the life of a young Palestinian is at risk, in part because of his sexual orientation. The Palestinian is asking for permission to remain in Israel because he fears for his life if he is expelled to the Palestinian Authority.
Speaking to Haaretz, he said that "in other times, when they brought me to the roadblock the entire village chased me and beat me, and nearly killed me. I prefer to sit in prison than to go back."
The official position of the state, which was also presented to the court, is that the committee on persons at risk operates in accordance with the office coordinating operations in the territories, and is authorized to address requests of Palestinians claiming to be under threat for their collaboration with security forces.
On the other hand, according to the state attorney, the committee is not authorized to discuss the cases of those whose behavior is seen by Palestinian society as being "morally degenerate," including prostitutes, criminals and drug addicts.
The Palestinian, in his 20s, maintains that his life is threatened because of his sexual orientation and because he has been marked by Palestinians as having cooperated with Israel.
Former sex worker
A native of Nablus, he fled his home at 12 and came to Israel as a result of violence and abuse at the hands of his father. At one point he worked as a male prostitute in Tel Aviv's Gan Hahashmal. Six months after living in Israel, he returned to his family in Nablus.
In the PA he was arrested by Palestinian intelligence who suspected him of collaborating with Israeli security forces. He says that he was jailed, tortured and abused until he was forced to admit such collaboration.
Following his forced confession he was jailed at a facility near the Muqata'a for what he says was two years, waiting for a death sentence to be carried out for alleged treason.
The young Palestinian petitioned the High Court through attorney Yohanna Lerman, a public defender, said that during IDF operations he managed to escape and was asked to identify those who jailed and abused him openly, exposing his own identity.
Following his exposure to the Palestinians as appearing to "collaborate" with Israeli forces, he was granted temporary permits to stay in Israel by the Shin Bet. During his stay in Israel the young Palestinian was arrested and jailed for his involvement in acts of violence and theft.
The committee evaluating the degree to which Palestinians are at risk for alleged collaboration with Israel decided in November that the young man was not at risk. The committee also said that he failed to meet his commitment to avoid illegal activities, which in turn threatens public safety.
The state argued in response to the High Court petition that many Palestinians who have claimed similar risk to their lives for collaboration are actually threatened because Palestinian society considers their behavior to be "morally degenerate."
"This unfortunate fact cannot impose on the State of Israel the legal responsibility to allow every Palestinian from such groups to live in its territory," the state attorney's office wrote.
The court ruled that there must be an authority capable of taking responsibility on deciding whether a threat exists and what its nature is, in areas that are not necessarily linked with collaboration.
"To date the committee, the state and the court avoided interfering, but now the judges have asked that there be a collective approach that also includes the issue of sexual orientation," Lerman said, pointing out that both local and international law state clearly that someone whose life is at risk cannot be abandoned.
Remind me again why the USA is Israel's supplicant?
You know, not meaning to be rude or anything, but why is the Big Dog letting that annoying little Tic do its thinking for it?
Why not just send Avigdor Lieberman to the Quartet meetings to act as Netanyahu's mouthpiece, rather than sending Hillary Clinton there to be.... Netanyahu's mouthpiece.
At least then there can be no confusion about who is saying what, because at the moment it's Hillary's mouth that's all a' flappin', but it's Someone Else's Words that are pouring out....
How humiliating for The Greatest Goddam Nation On The Face Of The Gaddam Earth!
If it is ever reached, the current and any other artificial “peace agreement” will be illegitimate before it is ever signed because (1) all people living in Palestine regardless of religion, race, origin, etc. (hereinafter “All People of Palestine”) were never given a choice on how they want their land to be governed, and (2) all contracts signed under duress are null and void.
The biggest problem in Palestine is that the Zionist regime never offered a choice to All People of Palestine on how they want to govern their land because the Zionist regime cannot exist as a democratic entity. If there was ever any democratic process in Palestine, Zionists would have been outvoted and the Zionist regime would have never existed. That is why the Zionist regime is the occupier because it does not offer choice (i.e. democracy), but instead imposes its regime (i.e. occupies). Imagine if Russians would simply occupy a town in the U.S. where they are in significant numbers and attempt to create a Russian state there without giving the rest of the Americans living there a choice. Imagine then if they would try to institute a “peace agreement” that would attempt to legitimize their occupation. The “peace agreement” would logically and legally be illegitimate because the Americans were not given a choice.
Under all countries’ laws, any contract is null and void if it is signed under duress. The current Palestine “peace agreement” process reminds me of The Godfather movie where the mafia boss (i.e. the Zionist regime) made a guy “an offer he could not refuse” by placing a gun (i.e. Zionist conventional and nuclear arsenal) to his head and making him sign the contract. Like the mafia boss’ offer, any “peace agreement” other than the choice for All People of Palestine is a crime, and the contract is legally null and void.
The bottom line is that All People of Palestine never wanted to divide their land into artificial two states the way the occupation and this “peace agreement” attempt to divide it. From the beginning of the Zionist regime to its unavoidable end, All People of Palestine and the region never wanted the Zionist regime and they do not want it even more after all the atrocities the Zionist regime committed. I just cannot believe how the Zionist regime can be so ignorant to think that this or any other “peace agreement” that does not allow people to choose how they want to be governed will last and ensure its people’s survival. The Zionist regime fails to realize that no matter if it succeeds in muscling this “peace agreement” by unspeakable historic coercion tens of millions of moral people around the world will oppose it until it is corrected, and until justice and free choice prevail. Also, ever increasing number of Jewish people are realizing that Zionism is becoming a destructive force for them and are leading the global resistance to it.
Feel free to copy this comment, email it to other bloggers, and repost it on other blogs, newspaper websites, Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking websites, and include it in any correspondence/lobbying with senators, state representatives and any other public officials so the public learns the truth
The main Zionist claim is that they have a supreme right to some of Palestinian territory because they lived there thousands of years ago. Let’s examine the core and real nature of this claim.
Firstly, this claim is mistaken and selfish in its core concept because Zionists fail to recognize that history is a continuum and that there were other people living in majority in Palestine before the Jews and also after the Jews. Zionists simply cut history at a convenient point for them and claim ancestral ties to the land as of that convenient point.
Secondly, whatever the claim, it is beyond absurd to try to shape modern world based on thousands of years old maps. Imagine if the rest of the world would be reshaped by who was on the land thousands of years ago. It would cause horrific wars, countless refugees, and unimaginable human suffering, exactly what is happening in Palestine.
Thirdly and most disturbing, Zionist goal was to establish a Jewish state wherever possible. Palestine may have been a preference, but Palestine was not the only location that Zionists planned as their state in modern times. Another location was Argentina where Jews have been migrating for hundreds of years for the purpose of establishing a state. Also, locations in Europe were on the list and that’s why the Catholic Church was killing/expelling Jews since Roman times (read the history of the Holly Inquisition). Whatever the location, Zionist plan was to simply occupy the people living on the land even if that would mean imposing a regime worst than Nazi Germany’s from which they escaped. And Zionists would just use a different ideological coloring than the one used in Palestine in the attempt to rationalize the occupation.
In conclusion, the main claim on which the Zionist regime is built in Palestine is erroneous, selfish, and a lie. I am categorically against generalizing, and recognize that many Jews are against the crimes the Zionist regime is committing and that many Jews are leading the global resistance to it. They should be proud
Not only were there peope in palestine before there was Jewish presence, but there were many civlizations the suceeded ancient Israel.
There is no mention of ancient Israel is the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations, San Remo or even in Israel's 1948 Declation of Independence.
All who wish to reproduce my comment on mailing lists, repost on other blogs, or send to congress, senators and state representatives, or use for lobbying are welcome to do so. Let justice be served:
The only solution for a lasting peace is absolute democratic process (that we Americans cherish so passionately) for the entire territory in question, otherwise, the peace will not last. All people who lived there without regard to religion, race, etc. should vote on how they would like their one country to be run. I favor one state solution because two states would only attempt to “legalize” Zionist occupation that will be remembered in history until it is corrected by future large scale conflicts, so no lasting peace will result. The only issue with the fair democratic process is what to do with all manipulated Jewish people who the Zionist regime imported for decades to increase the Jewish population from around 100,000 to over 5 Million since the start of the occupation. This is obviously an attempt to unjustly manipulate any future democratic process by forcefully increasing the occupier’s population at the expense of others. Any compromise other than the absolute fair democratic process with no manipulated population will be temporary with terrible conflicts looming to correct it in the future.
The truth is that the Zionist regime will not accept any democratic process even if the manipulated Jewish population is included because it cannot exist as a democratic country as Zionists will be outvoted by all others who live there (Zionists were in an infinite minority before the occupation). The Zionist regime can only temporarily exist through the force of its arms as a one people country where only select ones can vote and where different laws apply to different people.
The world must stand up against the Zionist regime by cutting all diplomatic and economic relations with it. Many countries have already stopped all relations with the Zionist regime and others are in the process of doing the same. We Americans need to completely distance ourselves from this oppressive regime through urging our state representatives and senators to do what the rest of the world is doing
I am new here and I just joined because this article made so much interest that it made me more politically inclined. Thanks! - Night Watch Online
I am new here and I just joined because this article made so much interest that it made me more politically inclined. Thanks! - Night Watch Online
America’s attempted Quartet sophistry
In my view:
"File Under Futurism" is the culmination of a six-month collaboration between DJ Spooky That Subliminal Kid (a.k.a. Paul D. Miller) and the Freight Elevator Quartet (R. Luke DuBois, Paul Feuer, Rachael Finn, and Stephen Krieger). The recording presents the key elements and ideas of the artists involved, and represents a coherent musical work that takes DJ Spooky's immense talent for aural recontextualization and cultural commentary and merges it with the electroacoustic improvisation and digital savoir faire of the Freight Elevator Quartet. The result is a commentary on cultural and aesthetic oppositions, through a musical exposition and juxtaposition of early twentieth century Futurism (imagining a sublime technology) and the exponentially accelerated culture in which we live today.
DJ Spooky That Subliminal Kid, the combined inspiration of a sci-fi hero in a William S. Burroughs novel and an old commercial for Count Chocula cereal is recognised as one of New York City's pioneers of the "illbient" genre.
The Freight Elevator Quartet are at the forefront of a new breed of electronic music that bridges genres and schools of thought seamlessly - where jungle and downtempo beats, the electronic avant garde, hip hop rhymes, improvisational melodies and ethereal vocals can all exist and interact in the same space. The FEQ sound is a startling celebration of the possibilities of digital culture.
Gerald Simpson then a member of local band Scratchbeat Masters moved on teaming up with The Hit Squad, who later became the ubiquitous 808 State. As an original member of the proto-techno legends, Gerald was responsible, but not credited until much later, for the production and composition of their groundbreaking first album “Newbuild” which featured the UK techno anthem “Pacific State”. While “Pacific State” topped UK charts and 808 State’s profile skyrocketed, Gerald pursued further music mobility working on his solo projects as A GUY CALLED GERALD. Finding a modern influence through Detroit techno and Chicago house, A GUY CALLED GERALD produced “Voodoo Ray” storming the UK and worldwide dance charts at the same time his 808 State “Pacific State” track was still in the charts. With two tracks in the charts (only recognized for one), A GUY CALLED GERALD became an international star and “Voodoo Ray” became the anthem that many identify for launching UK’s acid house movement.
The success of “Voodoo Ray” landed Gerald a solo record deal with Sony/Columbia in 1990 quickly followed by the release of his first LP “Automanik”. With success came tension. As Gerald’s success as a pop artist grew, Gerald’s need for artistic license expanded. His label could not keep up with Gerald’s forward thinking music and never released his second album. Relegated back into the underground, Gerald found solace and further explored the emerging breakbeat influenced sounds. In 1993 Gerald, the master, released “28 Gun Bad Boy”, a pioneering album that harnessed the brutal dynamics of drum n bass. As jungle rose in popularity so did Gerald, once again. In 1995, A GUY CALLED GERALD released the classic “Black Secret Technology” LP becoming the leading pioneering of UK’s urban sound. Since then he has remixed or worked with luminaries such as David Bowie or Tricky.
¤t_project1=no&artist_web_address1=homepages.force9.net/king1/&label_web_address1=www.Caipirinha.com/Music/2025.htm&audio_clip1=&audio_title1=&entry2=2&artist2=A Guy Called Gerald&track2=&track_info2=&album2=Essense&album_cover2=images/&record_label2=K7!&genre2=Techno / Jungle&job_code2=Digital Editing & Mastering&add_info2=A GUY CALLED GERALD’s long awaited album “Essence” will proudly be released worldwide through STUD!O K7 Records on August 14th, 2000. This will be his first project since 1995’s groundbreaking “Black Secret Technology.” Featuring sleek and sexy production, “Essence” features the songwriting and vocals from guest artists such as David Simpson, Lady Kier, Lamb’s Louise Rhodes, and successful UK songwriter Wendy Page. Merging subtly ambitious elements of drum n bass and dub over immaculate melodies and tones, “Essence” hopes to vitalize the stale nature of drum n bass expanding the songwriting and composition potential of breakbeat music with sleek and soulful production.
"AGCG is the master of UK dance. Essence – an album of the future" - CMU, May-00
"brilliantly edgy, dark stuff" - Melody Maker, 2000
"A masterful musical massage from the Manchester maestro" - Ministry Magazine, 2000
Gerald on his new album: "The exercise is to show diversity in vocal-orientated dance music. This record was recorded over five years on both sides of the pond and it doesn't sound like anything I've heard before. It is up to you to call it what you want!"
Since the 80’s, Manchester, UK native A GUY CALLED GERALD, born Gerald Simpson, has proven to be among the most innovative modern music figures. His influence is international, and through his versatility he has spawned genres and generations of music culture. Since his early experimentation with techno and acid house into his groundbreaking contributions to drum n bass music, GCG’s art and craft has perpetually evolved regardless of his individual successes in each of those genres. Five years in the making, Gerald’s forthcoming album “Essence” marks his return to promise.
In the early 70’s in Manchester, UK a young Gerald Simpson was found alongside his mother at church listening to the organist through which he found inspiration to pursue music. Gospel melodies evolved into an affinity for the Jackson 5, the soul turned into funk, and funk spawned hip hop. Music’s steady mutations and newfound brilliance kept Gerald’s interests keen, and no later could one find Gerald experimenting on an Amstrad twin cassette deck, stripping apart and re-orchestrating pieces of Herbie Hancock’s “Rockit” into minimal, twisted forms. His early forays in production embodied the raw brilliance that would later reflect the ethic of his music.
Gerald Simpson then a member of local band Scratchbeat Masters moved on teaming up with The Hit Squad, who later became the ubiquitous 808 State. As an original member of the proto-techno legends, Gerald was responsible, but not credited until much later,
for the production and composition of their groundbreaking first album “Newbuild” which featured the UK techno anthem “Pacific State”. While “Pacific State” topped UK charts and 808 State’s profile skyrocketed, Gerald pursued further music mobility working on his solo projects as A GUY CALLED GERALD. Finding a modern influence through Detroit techno and Chicago house,
A GUY CALLED GERALD produced “Voodoo Ray” storming the UK and worldwide dance charts at the same time his 808 State “Pacific State” track was still in the charts. With two tracks in the charts (only recognized for one),
A GUY CALLED GERALD became an international star and “Voodoo Ray” became the anthem that many identify for launching UK’s acid house movement.
For more:ashlynn brooke
The Middle East Channel offers unique analysis and insights on this diverse and vital region of more than 400 million.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(26)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE