Those who habitually read newspapers or listen to broadcast news know that President Obama had until now two mantras in his mind. His first mantra: “Our support of Israel to live in security is unshakable”, has been heard around the world, loudly and clearly, dozens of times.
His second mantra: “The bond between Israel and USA is unbreakable”, also has been heard around the world on many occasions. He chanted it even at the Cairo University in Egypt. “America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable.” These two mantras and some minor variants of the mantras have been chanted just like mantras, repeatedly, by Vice President Joe Biden, and Secretary of State Clinton, and Obama’s Middle East envoy George Mitchell every time they found an opportunity to chant them.
To those who are dismayed and bored with President Obama’s two mantras, I have some good news. Rejoice! President Obama has found a new mantra, his third, and has added it to his list. The new mantra is: “We are dismayed that Israelis are expanding the settlements”.
The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said that the Palestinian Authority “strongly condemns” the decision to build 900 housing units in Gilo, in East Jerusalem. In contrast, the Obama administration issued a statement that the administration was “dismayed” and asked both parties to avoid unilateral actions that could “pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations.” I think his administration is sleeping; doesn’t it know that the peace process is dead and gone?
I am dismayed that The New York Times wrote that: “The news that the building plans had moved closer to approval drew a sharp response from the White House, which has declared reviving the talks to be a major policy goal.” And what was White House’s sharp response? The statement – Obama’s third mantra – that “We are dismayed that Israelis are expanding the settlements”. Here is a country that defies international laws, a country that it supports unconditionally with financial and military aid, and a country that it protects from international condemnations at the UN Security Council, and all that the Obama administration can do is express its “dismay” at Israel’s disregard for international laws?
These settlements are not only illegal per international laws, and against UN resolutions, they are opposed by almost the entire world except the USA. Yes, Obama’s administration has in the past stated that “We do not recognize the legitimacy of Israel’s settlements in the occupied territories”; but these are hollow words, not backed up with actions, actions such as ending economic and military aid to an aggressor and oppressor, and an international bully. President Obama has continued to send blank checks to Israel, and on time. It’s high time that the Nobel Peace committee stopped deluding itself that President Obama is a man of peace. I am aware that it is quite unlikely that the committee would withdraw the Nobel Peace Prize already given; but it is never too late to issue a statement expressing its regrets.
Yesh Prabhu, Plainsboro, NJ
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Declare Independence of Palestine Now
It is now abundantly clear that the stalled negotiation for peace in the Middle East is now dead.
During Secretary of State Clinton’s recent short sojourn through the region, in her joint press conference with Mr. Netanyahu in Jerusalem, she effusively praised Netanyahu’s intransigence regarding Israel’s illegal settlements in the West Bank. The peace process died when she bizarrely described as “unprecedented” Mr. Netanyahu’s paltry concession to slow down the feverish tempo of building illegal housing units in the occupied territories. Even though she hastily tried to back-track, the damage to the peace process had been done. It was as if she had given the peace process a death blow. The Palestinian negotiators were deeply shocked. Did not President Obama, and even Mrs. Clinton herself, say only a month ago that the Israeli settlements in the occupied land were illegitimate? It dawned on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that the peace process was dead, and so he announced that he will be resigning from his position soon. He had threatened to resign a couple of times on previous occasions, of course, but this time it seems that he means to carry out his threat.
At the White House President Obama has been mostly silent regarding the peace process, except for declaring at regular and frequent intervals his commitment for the security of Israel and announcing that the bond between Israel and the USA is “unshakable”. After impressing the entire world with his commitment for peace, and inspiring the world with his soaring speech and dazzling oratory from the august hall of Cairo University in Cairo, Egypt, when he said, “America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable…..On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own," he seems to have changed. He seems to have had second thoughts regarding Palestinians’ suffering, and has been tilting slowly, but perceptibly, towards the Israeli side. And the world has noticed this tilt. He has clearly softened his opposition to the ever expanding Israeli settlements in both the West Bank and East Jerusalem. And perhaps even more shocking: he remained silent as the Israeli government evicted Palestinian and Arab families from their homes in East Jerusalem, and bulldozed two houses.
There are credible reports that Palestinian Prime Minister Mr. Salam Fayyad is seriously exploring his own plan for peace in the Middle East that he first proposed in August 2009 in a 54-page booklet: To unilaterally declare the independence of Palestine bounded by the internationally recognized June 4, 1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as its capital. For forty years the pursuit of peace has been through endless negotiations; Fayyad would like to seek peace through a declaration. The game of Negotiation versus Declaration should be most fascinating to watch. There are reports also that the plan has earned the broad backing of the UN, the Quartet, and a few European leaders, as well as the Obama administration.
This is not really a novel or new idea as Mr. Fayyad very well knows, because this plan has precedents. For example, on 17 February 2008, Kosovo had issued its unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia, and the United States and most European Union countries, with which this declaration was coordinated, had rushed to extend diplomatic recognition to this “new country”. So, wouldn’t the USA and the same EU countries now find it awkward to oppose any such unilateral declarations of independence for Palestine? I am afraid they will not find it awkward, because in any matter that pertains to Israel, having a double standard is the norm, not the exception. Consider nuclear weapons, for example. Even though Israel possesses more than 200 nuclear weapons, all the noise one hears coming from Washington and the capitals of the EU countries is regarding the probability of Iran’s acquiring nuclear capability in two or three years. Rockets fired by the Hamas in Gaza into its occupying and blockading neighbor, Israel, is considered terrorism; but the precision missiles fired at Palestinians’ houses, schools, hospitals, mosques, sewage treatment plants, water reservoirs, and police stations, and the phosphorus bombs dropped by Israel on Palestinian civilians is considered self-defense, even though per international law, an occupying power can not claim self defense in justifying its atrocities.
Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper has reported that in secret meetings with leaders of a few EU nations, Mr. Fayyad has secured support for his grand plan. There are reports that he has discussed his plan with both President Obama and Mrs. Clinton also. Netanyahu, obviously, does not like the plan at all, and he has asked Obama to veto the plan in the UN Security Council should the proposal arrive at the Security Council.
Mr. Salam Fayyad knows that forty years of negotiations with successive Israeli governments have resulted in only three significant things that matter: Increase in numbers of the ever expanding, illegal settlements; and encroachment of vast areas of Palestinian ancestral lands; and loss of even more land for the creation of security “buffer areas”. Even though nothing will be built in these buffer areas, the Palestinians will be forbidden from entering these areas, nevertheless.
Israel now has 121 Jewish-only settlements and 106 out-posts, all of them illegal, on confiscated Palestinian land. Nearly 500,000 Israelis live in the occupied territories and East Jerusalem.
Per Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” I am certain that President Obama knows this. And yet he has decided to go along with Mr. Netanyahu’s plan of expanding the illegal settlements as the world watches in bewildered silence.
If the Palestinians truly wish to establish their independent state, they need to do only a simple thing. After suffering all the terrors of the 41 year occupation and horrors of the Gaza War, and the daily humiliations at the roadside checkpoints, the time has come to take a bold step and do the right and necessary thing: Unilaterally declare independence from Israel, just as the people of Kosovo declared independence from Serbia, in February 2008.
Let there be peace on earth.
Yesh Prabhu, Plainsboro, NJ
During Secretary of State Clinton’s recent short sojourn through the region, in her joint press conference with Mr. Netanyahu in Jerusalem, she effusively praised Netanyahu’s intransigence regarding Israel’s illegal settlements in the West Bank. The peace process died when she bizarrely described as “unprecedented” Mr. Netanyahu’s paltry concession to slow down the feverish tempo of building illegal housing units in the occupied territories. Even though she hastily tried to back-track, the damage to the peace process had been done. It was as if she had given the peace process a death blow. The Palestinian negotiators were deeply shocked. Did not President Obama, and even Mrs. Clinton herself, say only a month ago that the Israeli settlements in the occupied land were illegitimate? It dawned on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that the peace process was dead, and so he announced that he will be resigning from his position soon. He had threatened to resign a couple of times on previous occasions, of course, but this time it seems that he means to carry out his threat.
At the White House President Obama has been mostly silent regarding the peace process, except for declaring at regular and frequent intervals his commitment for the security of Israel and announcing that the bond between Israel and the USA is “unshakable”. After impressing the entire world with his commitment for peace, and inspiring the world with his soaring speech and dazzling oratory from the august hall of Cairo University in Cairo, Egypt, when he said, “America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable…..On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own," he seems to have changed. He seems to have had second thoughts regarding Palestinians’ suffering, and has been tilting slowly, but perceptibly, towards the Israeli side. And the world has noticed this tilt. He has clearly softened his opposition to the ever expanding Israeli settlements in both the West Bank and East Jerusalem. And perhaps even more shocking: he remained silent as the Israeli government evicted Palestinian and Arab families from their homes in East Jerusalem, and bulldozed two houses.
There are credible reports that Palestinian Prime Minister Mr. Salam Fayyad is seriously exploring his own plan for peace in the Middle East that he first proposed in August 2009 in a 54-page booklet: To unilaterally declare the independence of Palestine bounded by the internationally recognized June 4, 1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as its capital. For forty years the pursuit of peace has been through endless negotiations; Fayyad would like to seek peace through a declaration. The game of Negotiation versus Declaration should be most fascinating to watch. There are reports also that the plan has earned the broad backing of the UN, the Quartet, and a few European leaders, as well as the Obama administration.
This is not really a novel or new idea as Mr. Fayyad very well knows, because this plan has precedents. For example, on 17 February 2008, Kosovo had issued its unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia, and the United States and most European Union countries, with which this declaration was coordinated, had rushed to extend diplomatic recognition to this “new country”. So, wouldn’t the USA and the same EU countries now find it awkward to oppose any such unilateral declarations of independence for Palestine? I am afraid they will not find it awkward, because in any matter that pertains to Israel, having a double standard is the norm, not the exception. Consider nuclear weapons, for example. Even though Israel possesses more than 200 nuclear weapons, all the noise one hears coming from Washington and the capitals of the EU countries is regarding the probability of Iran’s acquiring nuclear capability in two or three years. Rockets fired by the Hamas in Gaza into its occupying and blockading neighbor, Israel, is considered terrorism; but the precision missiles fired at Palestinians’ houses, schools, hospitals, mosques, sewage treatment plants, water reservoirs, and police stations, and the phosphorus bombs dropped by Israel on Palestinian civilians is considered self-defense, even though per international law, an occupying power can not claim self defense in justifying its atrocities.
Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper has reported that in secret meetings with leaders of a few EU nations, Mr. Fayyad has secured support for his grand plan. There are reports that he has discussed his plan with both President Obama and Mrs. Clinton also. Netanyahu, obviously, does not like the plan at all, and he has asked Obama to veto the plan in the UN Security Council should the proposal arrive at the Security Council.
Mr. Salam Fayyad knows that forty years of negotiations with successive Israeli governments have resulted in only three significant things that matter: Increase in numbers of the ever expanding, illegal settlements; and encroachment of vast areas of Palestinian ancestral lands; and loss of even more land for the creation of security “buffer areas”. Even though nothing will be built in these buffer areas, the Palestinians will be forbidden from entering these areas, nevertheless.
Israel now has 121 Jewish-only settlements and 106 out-posts, all of them illegal, on confiscated Palestinian land. Nearly 500,000 Israelis live in the occupied territories and East Jerusalem.
Per Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” I am certain that President Obama knows this. And yet he has decided to go along with Mr. Netanyahu’s plan of expanding the illegal settlements as the world watches in bewildered silence.
If the Palestinians truly wish to establish their independent state, they need to do only a simple thing. After suffering all the terrors of the 41 year occupation and horrors of the Gaza War, and the daily humiliations at the roadside checkpoints, the time has come to take a bold step and do the right and necessary thing: Unilaterally declare independence from Israel, just as the people of Kosovo declared independence from Serbia, in February 2008.
Let there be peace on earth.
Yesh Prabhu, Plainsboro, NJ
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
President Obama’s Peace Mask Has Cracked
On the political stage, a short period of five months might as well be an eternity. As the world turns on its axis, events least expected can and often do happen, and spin out of control; and carefully laid out plans go awry.
On Thursday June 4, 2009, President Obama spoke to the world from the august Major Reception Hall at Cairo University in Cairo, Egypt. Appropriately titled "A New Beginning", the speech was grand and impressive. He described Palestinians' statelessness as "intolerable", and recognized their aspirations for statehood and dignity as legitimate, just as legitimate as Israel's desire for a Jewish homeland. And, of course, he reaffirmed, as he had done several times before, America's alliance with Israel, calling their mutual bond "unbreakable". He was wearing his peace mask. That was only five months ago, and already it seems so very long ago.
Now, consider this scenario: Imagine an experienced ballerina on a well-lit stage, waiting to dance a beautifully choreographed "Swan Lake". But instead of playing the well-rehearsed and famous Tchaikovsky score, the orchestra suddenly decides to play rap music, and as the startled ballerina tries to take it into stride and begins to improvise, an immense hydraulic pump beneath the stage begins to slowly raise the back of the stage, and as a consequence the ballerina slides and falls on fer face. Now imagine that Secretary of State Clinton was this ballerina. That is what happened to her in Jerusalem last week. This is the sequence of a series of events that started in Washington and culminated in Morocco in a fiasco:
Last week President Obama sent Secretary of State Clinton for a short sojourn through Pakistan to assure Pakistanis of USA's long term committment to Pakistan. From Pakistan Clinton flew to Abu Dhabi, to meet PA President Mahmoud Abbas, and to urge him to rejoin the stalled peace process. He firmly declined that invitation saying that unless Israel froze all settlement activities he will not negotiate. From Abu Dhabi Mrs. Clinton flew to Jerusalem to meet Netanyahu. She emerged from a closed door meeting with Netanyahu and, in a joint press meeting made this befuddled statement: "What the prime minister has offered... a restraint on the policy of settlements, which he has just described, no new starts, for example, is unprecedented in the context of prior negotiations." In other words, Netanyahu would build the recently approved (with Obama's blessimgs) 3000 new housing units on land already confiscated from Palestinians, but he would build them at a slower pace. He will not start new settlements, but will only extend existing illegal settlements. She priased Netanyahu's offer effusively.
This statement caused a great furor in the Arab world. Mahmoud Abbas said Mr. Netanyahu's proposal was a "non-starter," in the words of his chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat. And Erekat said that halting settlement construction was the "only way to ensure the revival of the peace process." The secretary general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, said Mrs. Clinton's remarks in Jerusalem "mean that we are once again in the same vicious circle we were in the 1990s". The Arabs saw a clear US tilt towards Israel. The Saudis were upset with Mrs. Clinton; Jordan's King Abdullah was livid. It soon dawned on President Obama that Mrs. Clinton had to tone down, and retune and fine-tune what she was saying. So here in Washington Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Philip J. Crowley clarified for The Jerusalem Post that the United States is still demanding that Israel freeze all settlement activity, but that it should not be a precondition for talks between Israelis and Palestinians.
And in Morocco, before meeting with the Arab foreign ministers, Mrs. Clinton moderated her praise for Israel's offer to restrain building settlements in Palestinian areas. Regarding Netanyahu's offer she said, "It is not what we want; it is nowhere near enough. But I think when you keep your eye on what we want to achieve, it is a better place to be than the alternative. And therefore, I think we should be trying to keep moving the parties." She insisted that Washington still considered settlement activity in West Bank "illegitimate" and that Obama wanted a freeze.
Even though Mrs. Clinton's "slip" occured in Jerusalem, the crack in Obama's peace mask occured in Washington. That is the nature of political occurences, sometimes. An event occurs in one place, but the consequence can be seen in a distant place, far removed from the place of occurence.
George Mitchell met again with Mr. Abbas, this time in Jordan, on Monday, and also with King Abdullah. In Marrakesh, Morocco, Mrs. Clinton tried to persuade skeptical Arab foreign ministers of the value of Israel's proposal. She even met Libyan foreign minister, Musa Kusa. Wow!
From Marrakesh Mrs. Clinton flew to Cairo to confer with Hosni Mubarak, and to mollify Muslims angry at her remarks at the weekend praising Israel's offer to slow down - but not freeze - settlement construction in the West Bank. Netanyahu would continue to build in East Jerusalem, however.
Be that as it may, I believe that the reason the peace process has not succeeded even after forty years' negotiations is that America loves Israel blindly. Call it motherly love. The USA feels motherly love for Israel, but it has a step-motherly attitude towards Palestinians. That is the very kernel of the problem. Until the step-motherly attitude towards the Palestinians changes, there will be no peace in the Middle East.
It is becoming abundantly clear that President Obama is not unbiased regarding Israel-Palestine conflict. His Middle East policy now has a clear, discernible tilt towards Israel. The peace mask that he wore so successfully for nine months as an unbiased arbiter for peace has cracked.
A new peace mask for Obama is on order, I suppose.
Yesh Prabhu, Plainsboro, NJ
On Thursday June 4, 2009, President Obama spoke to the world from the august Major Reception Hall at Cairo University in Cairo, Egypt. Appropriately titled "A New Beginning", the speech was grand and impressive. He described Palestinians' statelessness as "intolerable", and recognized their aspirations for statehood and dignity as legitimate, just as legitimate as Israel's desire for a Jewish homeland. And, of course, he reaffirmed, as he had done several times before, America's alliance with Israel, calling their mutual bond "unbreakable". He was wearing his peace mask. That was only five months ago, and already it seems so very long ago.
Now, consider this scenario: Imagine an experienced ballerina on a well-lit stage, waiting to dance a beautifully choreographed "Swan Lake". But instead of playing the well-rehearsed and famous Tchaikovsky score, the orchestra suddenly decides to play rap music, and as the startled ballerina tries to take it into stride and begins to improvise, an immense hydraulic pump beneath the stage begins to slowly raise the back of the stage, and as a consequence the ballerina slides and falls on fer face. Now imagine that Secretary of State Clinton was this ballerina. That is what happened to her in Jerusalem last week. This is the sequence of a series of events that started in Washington and culminated in Morocco in a fiasco:
Last week President Obama sent Secretary of State Clinton for a short sojourn through Pakistan to assure Pakistanis of USA's long term committment to Pakistan. From Pakistan Clinton flew to Abu Dhabi, to meet PA President Mahmoud Abbas, and to urge him to rejoin the stalled peace process. He firmly declined that invitation saying that unless Israel froze all settlement activities he will not negotiate. From Abu Dhabi Mrs. Clinton flew to Jerusalem to meet Netanyahu. She emerged from a closed door meeting with Netanyahu and, in a joint press meeting made this befuddled statement: "What the prime minister has offered... a restraint on the policy of settlements, which he has just described, no new starts, for example, is unprecedented in the context of prior negotiations." In other words, Netanyahu would build the recently approved (with Obama's blessimgs) 3000 new housing units on land already confiscated from Palestinians, but he would build them at a slower pace. He will not start new settlements, but will only extend existing illegal settlements. She priased Netanyahu's offer effusively.
This statement caused a great furor in the Arab world. Mahmoud Abbas said Mr. Netanyahu's proposal was a "non-starter," in the words of his chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat. And Erekat said that halting settlement construction was the "only way to ensure the revival of the peace process." The secretary general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, said Mrs. Clinton's remarks in Jerusalem "mean that we are once again in the same vicious circle we were in the 1990s". The Arabs saw a clear US tilt towards Israel. The Saudis were upset with Mrs. Clinton; Jordan's King Abdullah was livid. It soon dawned on President Obama that Mrs. Clinton had to tone down, and retune and fine-tune what she was saying. So here in Washington Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Philip J. Crowley clarified for The Jerusalem Post that the United States is still demanding that Israel freeze all settlement activity, but that it should not be a precondition for talks between Israelis and Palestinians.
And in Morocco, before meeting with the Arab foreign ministers, Mrs. Clinton moderated her praise for Israel's offer to restrain building settlements in Palestinian areas. Regarding Netanyahu's offer she said, "It is not what we want; it is nowhere near enough. But I think when you keep your eye on what we want to achieve, it is a better place to be than the alternative. And therefore, I think we should be trying to keep moving the parties." She insisted that Washington still considered settlement activity in West Bank "illegitimate" and that Obama wanted a freeze.
Even though Mrs. Clinton's "slip" occured in Jerusalem, the crack in Obama's peace mask occured in Washington. That is the nature of political occurences, sometimes. An event occurs in one place, but the consequence can be seen in a distant place, far removed from the place of occurence.
George Mitchell met again with Mr. Abbas, this time in Jordan, on Monday, and also with King Abdullah. In Marrakesh, Morocco, Mrs. Clinton tried to persuade skeptical Arab foreign ministers of the value of Israel's proposal. She even met Libyan foreign minister, Musa Kusa. Wow!
From Marrakesh Mrs. Clinton flew to Cairo to confer with Hosni Mubarak, and to mollify Muslims angry at her remarks at the weekend praising Israel's offer to slow down - but not freeze - settlement construction in the West Bank. Netanyahu would continue to build in East Jerusalem, however.
Be that as it may, I believe that the reason the peace process has not succeeded even after forty years' negotiations is that America loves Israel blindly. Call it motherly love. The USA feels motherly love for Israel, but it has a step-motherly attitude towards Palestinians. That is the very kernel of the problem. Until the step-motherly attitude towards the Palestinians changes, there will be no peace in the Middle East.
It is becoming abundantly clear that President Obama is not unbiased regarding Israel-Palestine conflict. His Middle East policy now has a clear, discernible tilt towards Israel. The peace mask that he wore so successfully for nine months as an unbiased arbiter for peace has cracked.
A new peace mask for Obama is on order, I suppose.
Yesh Prabhu, Plainsboro, NJ
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The tide is changing, and the sky is clearing for the Palestinians, at last
Look around you, or peep into the world's window. Do you notice that the world has changed? Yes, it has. The unthinkable has happened. In fact, a series of events unimaginable only a year ago have occured. Even though one of these astonishing events occured in far away Geneva, the show and its entourage will take the center stage right here in New York, at the UN quarters, in a few weeks.
The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on Friday, October 16, 2009, with a majority vote, passed a resolution in Geneva that endorsed the Goldstone Report. Out of the 47- nation Council, 25 voted in favor of the report. They included China, Russia, Egypt, India, Jordan, Pakistan, South Africa, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Ghana, Indonesia, Djibouti, Liberia, Qatar, Senegal, Brazil, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, and four other nations. These six countries opposed the resolution: the U.S., Italy, Holland, Hungary, Slovakia and Ukraine. Eleven countries abstained: Bosnia, Burkina-Faso, Cameron, Gabon, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Belgium, South Korea, Slovenia and Uruguay. And five countries did not vote at all. Madagaskar and Kyrgyzstan were not present during the vote; and Britain and France behaved as if they were not presesnt in Geneva at all, but were instead partying elsewhere, and did not vote.
Long before voting, Britain and France had stated very clearly that the report had made many valid points, and so they did not wish to vote against the report. But, apparently, they did not wish to vote for the report either, because of their reluctance to displease President Obama; hence their behavior.
The New York Times wrote about the vote: "On breaches of the Geneva Conventions as grave as those alleged in the report - including its finding that Israeli soldiers deliberately targeted civilians - any nation that has agreed to the coventions has jurisdiction to investigate the crimes in their national courts. The Goldstone report recommends that those nations do so, setting up a possible situation of cases being brought against Israeli officials elsewhere." The question now is: Inspired by this vote at the UNHRC in Geneva, and also by the recommendations of the Goldstone Report, would Judge Baltasar Garzon of Spain reopen the case he started eight months ago against the perpetrators of the Gaza War? I wonder.
Following the vote in Geneva, Mr. Riyad Mansour, Palestinian Permanent Observer to the UN, spoke to reporters and said, "Advancing the cause of justice and upholding the international law, it serves the peace process. You can not serve the peace process while you have violation of international humanitarian law. This is not a question of pursuing the Israelis, but a matter of international law." He said also that, "Now it is required from the Secretary General of the UN, based on recommendation two of Goldstone report, to move the report to Security Council."
Palestinian National Initiative's (PNI) Secretary General Mustafa Barghouthi described the majority vote on Goldstone's report as "a victory to the Palestinians and to the families of the victims of Israeli war crimes in Gaza."
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy wrote a joint letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The letter acknowledged the sensitivity of the Goldstone report in Israel and encouraged Israel to handle it in a way that helps the negotiation for peace in the Middle East. Brown and Sarkozy urged Netanyahu to establish an independent and transparent investigation into all accusations made against Israel in relation to alleged war crimes in Gaza. They also urged him to improve humanitarian access to Gaza, and to implement a complete freeze on Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
History indicates that until the Gaza War, Britain, France, and Germany did not deviate very much, if at all, from USA's stand regarding Israel, faithfully parroting whatever America dictated to them. The worldwide furor caused by the Gaza War, however, especially the use of white phosphorus on civilians in the Gaza, drastically changed the atmosphere. And now, instead of attentively listening to and focusing both of their eyes on America, countries such as Britain. France and Germany are now keeping one eye on America and the other eye on the world opinion, because America has lost much of its former clout on the world stage.
Encouraged by the vote, the two factions of the divided Palestinians, the Fatah and the Hamas, are now more likely than ever before to unite, so that they could best follow up on the Goldstone report, and face their next challenging task at the UN Security Council, and also at the UN General Assembly. To reconcile their differences and forge unity, representatives of Hamas and Fatah are scheduled to meet in Egypt, again, in a couple of weeks. And now, because of the developments at the UNHRC in Geneva, there is genuine hope that this time the parties will unite at last.
There are reports that if the UN Security Council votes to recommend sending the Goldstone Report to the International Criminal Court in Hague for adjudication, President Obama will instruct his UN Amgassador to veto the resolution. Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, has reported that Mirit Cohen, the spokeswoman for the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Gabriela Shalev, has said that the Israeli ambassador was assured by the Obama administration that it would veto in the Security Council any resolution that could be harmful to Israel. Which raises an interesting and pertinent question: What happened to the promise President Obama made to the world from Egypt that he would provide a level playing field to the Palestinians in the peace negotiations, and that he would be unbiased? If he vetoes the resolution in the Security Council, President Obama would be taking the first concrete step to "tarnish" his golden Nobel Peace Prize medal that he won less than a month ago.
All the pressure exerted on the world leaders by President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, and the dozens of calls and threats made to Palestinian President Abbas have failed to postpone or freeze the voting at the UNHRC in Geneva. Neither Obama nor Netanyahu wants to see the report end up in the ICC in Hague. And now that the Goldstone report has been endorsed by the UNHRC in Geneva, in Tel Aviv there is stunned silence and palpable fear in the air. Haaretz has reported that Netanyahu has suddenly decided to settle the settlements dispute he had been waging with Obama for months. There is no doubt that since the vote in UNHRC in Geneva, the political landscape in Israel has changed drastically. Could the change in physical landscape be far behind? For the Palestinians, the tide has turned at last.
Yesh Prabhu, Plainsboro, NJ
The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on Friday, October 16, 2009, with a majority vote, passed a resolution in Geneva that endorsed the Goldstone Report. Out of the 47- nation Council, 25 voted in favor of the report. They included China, Russia, Egypt, India, Jordan, Pakistan, South Africa, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Ghana, Indonesia, Djibouti, Liberia, Qatar, Senegal, Brazil, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, and four other nations. These six countries opposed the resolution: the U.S., Italy, Holland, Hungary, Slovakia and Ukraine. Eleven countries abstained: Bosnia, Burkina-Faso, Cameron, Gabon, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Belgium, South Korea, Slovenia and Uruguay. And five countries did not vote at all. Madagaskar and Kyrgyzstan were not present during the vote; and Britain and France behaved as if they were not presesnt in Geneva at all, but were instead partying elsewhere, and did not vote.
Long before voting, Britain and France had stated very clearly that the report had made many valid points, and so they did not wish to vote against the report. But, apparently, they did not wish to vote for the report either, because of their reluctance to displease President Obama; hence their behavior.
The New York Times wrote about the vote: "On breaches of the Geneva Conventions as grave as those alleged in the report - including its finding that Israeli soldiers deliberately targeted civilians - any nation that has agreed to the coventions has jurisdiction to investigate the crimes in their national courts. The Goldstone report recommends that those nations do so, setting up a possible situation of cases being brought against Israeli officials elsewhere." The question now is: Inspired by this vote at the UNHRC in Geneva, and also by the recommendations of the Goldstone Report, would Judge Baltasar Garzon of Spain reopen the case he started eight months ago against the perpetrators of the Gaza War? I wonder.
Following the vote in Geneva, Mr. Riyad Mansour, Palestinian Permanent Observer to the UN, spoke to reporters and said, "Advancing the cause of justice and upholding the international law, it serves the peace process. You can not serve the peace process while you have violation of international humanitarian law. This is not a question of pursuing the Israelis, but a matter of international law." He said also that, "Now it is required from the Secretary General of the UN, based on recommendation two of Goldstone report, to move the report to Security Council."
Palestinian National Initiative's (PNI) Secretary General Mustafa Barghouthi described the majority vote on Goldstone's report as "a victory to the Palestinians and to the families of the victims of Israeli war crimes in Gaza."
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy wrote a joint letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The letter acknowledged the sensitivity of the Goldstone report in Israel and encouraged Israel to handle it in a way that helps the negotiation for peace in the Middle East. Brown and Sarkozy urged Netanyahu to establish an independent and transparent investigation into all accusations made against Israel in relation to alleged war crimes in Gaza. They also urged him to improve humanitarian access to Gaza, and to implement a complete freeze on Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
History indicates that until the Gaza War, Britain, France, and Germany did not deviate very much, if at all, from USA's stand regarding Israel, faithfully parroting whatever America dictated to them. The worldwide furor caused by the Gaza War, however, especially the use of white phosphorus on civilians in the Gaza, drastically changed the atmosphere. And now, instead of attentively listening to and focusing both of their eyes on America, countries such as Britain. France and Germany are now keeping one eye on America and the other eye on the world opinion, because America has lost much of its former clout on the world stage.
Encouraged by the vote, the two factions of the divided Palestinians, the Fatah and the Hamas, are now more likely than ever before to unite, so that they could best follow up on the Goldstone report, and face their next challenging task at the UN Security Council, and also at the UN General Assembly. To reconcile their differences and forge unity, representatives of Hamas and Fatah are scheduled to meet in Egypt, again, in a couple of weeks. And now, because of the developments at the UNHRC in Geneva, there is genuine hope that this time the parties will unite at last.
There are reports that if the UN Security Council votes to recommend sending the Goldstone Report to the International Criminal Court in Hague for adjudication, President Obama will instruct his UN Amgassador to veto the resolution. Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, has reported that Mirit Cohen, the spokeswoman for the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Gabriela Shalev, has said that the Israeli ambassador was assured by the Obama administration that it would veto in the Security Council any resolution that could be harmful to Israel. Which raises an interesting and pertinent question: What happened to the promise President Obama made to the world from Egypt that he would provide a level playing field to the Palestinians in the peace negotiations, and that he would be unbiased? If he vetoes the resolution in the Security Council, President Obama would be taking the first concrete step to "tarnish" his golden Nobel Peace Prize medal that he won less than a month ago.
All the pressure exerted on the world leaders by President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, and the dozens of calls and threats made to Palestinian President Abbas have failed to postpone or freeze the voting at the UNHRC in Geneva. Neither Obama nor Netanyahu wants to see the report end up in the ICC in Hague. And now that the Goldstone report has been endorsed by the UNHRC in Geneva, in Tel Aviv there is stunned silence and palpable fear in the air. Haaretz has reported that Netanyahu has suddenly decided to settle the settlements dispute he had been waging with Obama for months. There is no doubt that since the vote in UNHRC in Geneva, the political landscape in Israel has changed drastically. Could the change in physical landscape be far behind? For the Palestinians, the tide has turned at last.
Yesh Prabhu, Plainsboro, NJ
Monday, October 5, 2009
Has President Abbas been bribed, bought, and blackmailed by the USA?
It has been quite apparent even to casual observers of the strange but predictable Middle East Peace Opera that in the last two years Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas hasn't done much to help the long suffering Palestinians. Yes, he has whined and grunted and mumbled alot with international reporters, but hasn't done much else. His behavior in the last two months, however, has been so bizarre that it raises an interesting question: Has President Abbas been bribed, bought, and blackmailed by the USA to guarantee his submission to Israel's demands?
For nearly three months Abbas insisted that he will neither negotiate with the Israelis regarding the Road Map for Peace, nor meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu in New York during the UN General Body meeting in September, until Israel halted all construction activities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. But he suddenly changed his mind, nevertheless, and stood meekly near President Obama and extended his hand to Netanyahu, even though Netanyahu approved the construction of nearly 3000 housing units in the occupied territories.
Then the world heard the news last week about Abbas' inexplicable and bizarre action regarding the Goldstone report on the Gaza War. He should have been happy to read the report's conclusion that Israel might be guilty of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity during the war. Instead of asking the UN Human Rights Commission to review and vote on the report and take stern action against Israel, he actually asked the UN Human Rights Commission to delay reviewing the report.
The newspaper Haaretz in Israel reported: "Palestinian Sources told Haaretz that Abbas made the decision to delay the vote immediately after meeting with the Consul General last Thursday, without the knowledge of the PLO leadership or the government of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, and without any consultation." Haaretz stated also that, "Palestinian officials say that there was "heavy and ongoing pressure" from the U.S., which warned that the adoption of the findings in the commission's report would stymie progress in the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians."
Human rights organizations around the world, and also a lot of people concerned with the suffering of Palestinians were deeply shocked at Abbas' behavior. The Palestinian news agency Ma'an has reported that, "In the wake of the uproar, Abbas on Sunday ordered an internal investigation into why his own government ruled to delay the vote." It's quite strange that Abbas acted as if he himself did not know why he asked the UN agency to delay its review of the Goldstone Report.
At first glance his behavior might appear to be bizarre, but on close scrutiny it makes sense. Perhaps there is a good reason and a method to his madness, after all, if you consider this: In the USA it's an open secret that several Senators - both Republican and Democrat - who opposed the national Health Care reform have received huge amounts of cash from the Health Care Organizations and Pharmaceutical Industries. The money given is labeled as Campaign Financing, but in reality it's a form of bribe disguised as campaign contributions. The same process must be at work in the Ramallah offices of Mr. Abbas.
I do not have proof that Mr. Abbas has indeed been bribed, of course. I am only asking a question. But the next time you see Mr. Abbas in a photo or on the TV, if you imagine that you are seeing a studded black leather collar round his neck with a leash attached, his bizarre behavior in the last two months suddenly begins to make sense.
The time to pursue a peace built on a foundation of justice, human rights, and dignity of people and the rule of law has long been over due. In Justice Goldston's words, there is no peace without justice. The belief that accountability and the rule of law can be brushed aside in the pursuit of peace is deeply flawed and misguided. I am certain that President Obama is aware of this basic truth. And yet there have been reports that Secretary of State Clinton - with the consent of President Obama, of course - and the government of the UK, and Egypt's President Mubarak have put intense pressure on Abbas to withdraw Palestinian Authority's support of the UN Goldstone Report. President Obama's and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's role in this sad and tragic travesty of justice is unconscienable. Why whip and thrash the entire population of Gaza, a people already groaning in pain from the wounds of the Gaza war?
Yesh Prabhu, Plainsboro, NJ
For nearly three months Abbas insisted that he will neither negotiate with the Israelis regarding the Road Map for Peace, nor meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu in New York during the UN General Body meeting in September, until Israel halted all construction activities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. But he suddenly changed his mind, nevertheless, and stood meekly near President Obama and extended his hand to Netanyahu, even though Netanyahu approved the construction of nearly 3000 housing units in the occupied territories.
Then the world heard the news last week about Abbas' inexplicable and bizarre action regarding the Goldstone report on the Gaza War. He should have been happy to read the report's conclusion that Israel might be guilty of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity during the war. Instead of asking the UN Human Rights Commission to review and vote on the report and take stern action against Israel, he actually asked the UN Human Rights Commission to delay reviewing the report.
The newspaper Haaretz in Israel reported: "Palestinian Sources told Haaretz that Abbas made the decision to delay the vote immediately after meeting with the Consul General last Thursday, without the knowledge of the PLO leadership or the government of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, and without any consultation." Haaretz stated also that, "Palestinian officials say that there was "heavy and ongoing pressure" from the U.S., which warned that the adoption of the findings in the commission's report would stymie progress in the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians."
Human rights organizations around the world, and also a lot of people concerned with the suffering of Palestinians were deeply shocked at Abbas' behavior. The Palestinian news agency Ma'an has reported that, "In the wake of the uproar, Abbas on Sunday ordered an internal investigation into why his own government ruled to delay the vote." It's quite strange that Abbas acted as if he himself did not know why he asked the UN agency to delay its review of the Goldstone Report.
At first glance his behavior might appear to be bizarre, but on close scrutiny it makes sense. Perhaps there is a good reason and a method to his madness, after all, if you consider this: In the USA it's an open secret that several Senators - both Republican and Democrat - who opposed the national Health Care reform have received huge amounts of cash from the Health Care Organizations and Pharmaceutical Industries. The money given is labeled as Campaign Financing, but in reality it's a form of bribe disguised as campaign contributions. The same process must be at work in the Ramallah offices of Mr. Abbas.
I do not have proof that Mr. Abbas has indeed been bribed, of course. I am only asking a question. But the next time you see Mr. Abbas in a photo or on the TV, if you imagine that you are seeing a studded black leather collar round his neck with a leash attached, his bizarre behavior in the last two months suddenly begins to make sense.
The time to pursue a peace built on a foundation of justice, human rights, and dignity of people and the rule of law has long been over due. In Justice Goldston's words, there is no peace without justice. The belief that accountability and the rule of law can be brushed aside in the pursuit of peace is deeply flawed and misguided. I am certain that President Obama is aware of this basic truth. And yet there have been reports that Secretary of State Clinton - with the consent of President Obama, of course - and the government of the UK, and Egypt's President Mubarak have put intense pressure on Abbas to withdraw Palestinian Authority's support of the UN Goldstone Report. President Obama's and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's role in this sad and tragic travesty of justice is unconscienable. Why whip and thrash the entire population of Gaza, a people already groaning in pain from the wounds of the Gaza war?
Yesh Prabhu, Plainsboro, NJ
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Goldstone Report on the Gaza War has been released: What next?
The eagerly awaited UN report on the Gaza War has been released. Even though the conclusions reached by the commissioners and investigators of the UN were quite expected, the severity of the language, the harsh criticism of both Israel and Hamas, have astonished many, and shocked Israeli politicians. The Israelis are now desperately trying to control the damage the report has caused to Israel's image.
The report recommends that Israeli government, and also Hamas, should begin independent investigations of "serious violations" of international humanitarian and human rights laws, including evidence of war crimes, during the Gaza War.
In a column published in the New York Times dated Sept 17, 2009, Mr. Goldstone explained why he agreed to head the UN commission to investigate possible war crimes committed during the Gaza War by Israel and also the Hamas: "But above all, I accepted because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the laws of war, and the principle that in armed conflict civilians should to the greatest extent possible be protected from harm." And he stated that: "In Gaza, hundreds of civilians died. They died from disproportionate attacks on legitimate targets and from attacks on hospitals and other civilian structures. They died from precision weapons like missiles from aerial drones as well as from heavy artillery. Repeatedly, the Israel Defense Forces failed to adequately distinguish between combatants and civilians, as the laws of war strictly require."
Mr. Goldstone stated, "In these cases, Israel must investigate, and Hamas is obliged to do the same. They must examine what happened and appropriately punish any soldier or commander found to have violated the law."
On Wednesday Sept 16, 2009, Israel asked a few senior members of the Obama administration to assist in curbing the international fallout from the Goldstone Commission report. Israel is not complying with President Obama's request to freeze the settlements on West Bank; but it is asking Obama to help it in minimizing the devastating consequences of the stern report. Israel is terribly worried that the matter might arrive at the International Criminal Court for adjudication. Netanyahu has asked Putin for help, and he has also asked some members of the 15-member UN Security Council for help in discrediting the report. It's very unlikely that Britain and France will intervene. But what President Obama will do remains unclear. Would he buckle under the pressure of the Jewish Lobby(AIPAC) and try to discredit the Goldstone Commission report?
Initial response from the Obama administration does not appear to be very promising, and it does not inspire confidence that President Obama would be impartial. In her first reaction to the findings by Goldstone on Tuesday, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said: "We have long expressed our very serious concerns about the mandate given by the Human Rights Council prior to our joining it....We view the mandate as one-sided and basically unbalanced." And she also objected to Goldstone's recommendations, including one for the 15-nation Security Council to investigate and refer the war crimes to the International Criminal Court at The Hague.
It is prudent and wise to note what Mr. Goldstone has said: "Pursuing justice in this case is essential because no state or armed group should be above the law. Western governments in particular face a challenge because they have pushed for accountability in places like Darfur, but now must do the same with Israel, an ally and a democratic state... Failing to pursue justice for serious violations during the fighting will have a deeply corrosive effect on international justice, and reveal an unacceptable hypocrisy."
There is an international movement to implement an economic boycott of Israel for its actions in the Gaza War. The release of the UN Goldstone report is likely to give momentum to the budding boycott movement.
Also, It's worth noting that European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana has called for the United Nations Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state by a certain deadline even if an agreement is not reached between Israel and the Palestinians. So finally, after all these years, a consensus is building around the world that the Palestinians deserve a nation of their own and that the UN must help the Palestinians to realize this goal.
Yesh Prabhu, Plainsboro, NJ
The report recommends that Israeli government, and also Hamas, should begin independent investigations of "serious violations" of international humanitarian and human rights laws, including evidence of war crimes, during the Gaza War.
In a column published in the New York Times dated Sept 17, 2009, Mr. Goldstone explained why he agreed to head the UN commission to investigate possible war crimes committed during the Gaza War by Israel and also the Hamas: "But above all, I accepted because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the laws of war, and the principle that in armed conflict civilians should to the greatest extent possible be protected from harm." And he stated that: "In Gaza, hundreds of civilians died. They died from disproportionate attacks on legitimate targets and from attacks on hospitals and other civilian structures. They died from precision weapons like missiles from aerial drones as well as from heavy artillery. Repeatedly, the Israel Defense Forces failed to adequately distinguish between combatants and civilians, as the laws of war strictly require."
Mr. Goldstone stated, "In these cases, Israel must investigate, and Hamas is obliged to do the same. They must examine what happened and appropriately punish any soldier or commander found to have violated the law."
On Wednesday Sept 16, 2009, Israel asked a few senior members of the Obama administration to assist in curbing the international fallout from the Goldstone Commission report. Israel is not complying with President Obama's request to freeze the settlements on West Bank; but it is asking Obama to help it in minimizing the devastating consequences of the stern report. Israel is terribly worried that the matter might arrive at the International Criminal Court for adjudication. Netanyahu has asked Putin for help, and he has also asked some members of the 15-member UN Security Council for help in discrediting the report. It's very unlikely that Britain and France will intervene. But what President Obama will do remains unclear. Would he buckle under the pressure of the Jewish Lobby(AIPAC) and try to discredit the Goldstone Commission report?
Initial response from the Obama administration does not appear to be very promising, and it does not inspire confidence that President Obama would be impartial. In her first reaction to the findings by Goldstone on Tuesday, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said: "We have long expressed our very serious concerns about the mandate given by the Human Rights Council prior to our joining it....We view the mandate as one-sided and basically unbalanced." And she also objected to Goldstone's recommendations, including one for the 15-nation Security Council to investigate and refer the war crimes to the International Criminal Court at The Hague.
It is prudent and wise to note what Mr. Goldstone has said: "Pursuing justice in this case is essential because no state or armed group should be above the law. Western governments in particular face a challenge because they have pushed for accountability in places like Darfur, but now must do the same with Israel, an ally and a democratic state... Failing to pursue justice for serious violations during the fighting will have a deeply corrosive effect on international justice, and reveal an unacceptable hypocrisy."
There is an international movement to implement an economic boycott of Israel for its actions in the Gaza War. The release of the UN Goldstone report is likely to give momentum to the budding boycott movement.
Also, It's worth noting that European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana has called for the United Nations Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state by a certain deadline even if an agreement is not reached between Israel and the Palestinians. So finally, after all these years, a consensus is building around the world that the Palestinians deserve a nation of their own and that the UN must help the Palestinians to realize this goal.
Yesh Prabhu, Plainsboro, NJ
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Israel Isolated, Alone, and Shunned by the World Regarding its Settlements
Switzerland has become the latest nation that has asked Israel to stop all its settlement activities in the occupied territories. In a statement released on Thursday July 23, 2009, the Swiss Foreign Minisrty said, "Switzerland is deeply concerned about the destruction of Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem near the old town and the planned eviction of Palestinian families." It also said that East Jerusalem is an integral part of the Palestinian territories and under international humanitarian law Israel must protect the local civilian population, and that, "There is no military necessity that could justify the destruction of these houses or the eviction of Palestinian families. The Israeli settlement policy is not compatible with efforts to find a lasting global solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestinians."
On Tuesday July 21, 2009, both France and Russia asked Netanyahu to freeze settlement activities. Moscow said plans to build 20 apartments in Sheikh Jarrah should be abolished. "The settlement should be stopped immediately in line with the Roadmap," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said. And Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner of France said Tuesday that France summoned Israeli ambassador to demand halt to settlement construction in eastern part of Jerusalem. But in reply, Deputy FM Ayalon of Israel said, " Israel would continue to operate in accordance with its vital national interests. Our right to develop Jerusalem is irrefutable."
Also on Tuesday July 21, 2009, the European Union called on Israel to halt all construction in East Jerusalem, saying it obstructed the Middle East peace process.
The European Commission has criticized Israel's settlement policy. "Israel's settlement policy helps strangle the Palestinian economy and makes the Palestinian government more dependent on foreign aid. Expropriation of fertile land for Israeli settlements, roads that serve settlers only and West Bank checkpoints help constrain Palestinian economic growth and make the Palestinian government more dependent on aid."
The current holder of the European Union's rotating presidency, Sweden, has urged Israel "to refrain from provocative actions in East Jerusalem, including home demolitions and evictions, as stated also by the Quartet 26 June, 2009. Such actions are illegal under international law."
At a meeting in the Italian city of Trieste last month, the Middle East Quartet - the EU, Russia, the USA and the UN - called on Israel to halt West Bank settlement expansion.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel's administration also urged Israel not to build more settlements, and warned that it risked political suicide if it continued to do so. Mr. Puprecht Polenz, the head of German Foreign Affairs Committee, said that Israel's aim of having secure borders would only be possible with a two state solution.
President Barack Obama, too, has asked Netanyahu repeatedly, and through his Middle East envoy Mr. George Mitchell, and also in person in Washington, to stop all settlement building activities.
But so far Netanyahu has resisted pressure successfully, and he hasn't budged. He has said clearly and bluntly that his government has no intention of recognizing international laws or opinions with respect to Israel's land-grab in the West Bank, which he calls "Judea and Samaria." "I wish to make this clear," he has said, "the united Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people in the State of Israel."
The United Nations does not recognize the term "Judea and Samaria". People who refer to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria in political debate usually believe that these territories are part of Israel and should remain so.
On Thursday July 23, 2009, the Israeli government rejected France's demand to halt settlement expansion activities in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The settlements have been built in violation of the Fouth Geneva Convention, which says the occupying power is not allowed to transfer citizens from its own territory to the occupying territory.
It is now abundantly clear that there is a synchronized effort among the major nations of the world to put pressure on Israel to change its ways. Germany, France, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, the European Union, Russia, USA and the UN - all have asked Israel to freeze its settlements. India, which aspires to be a world class technology giant and economic super power, is strangely silent regarding Israel's settlements. I suppose Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is still thinking about how to respond and what to say. I wonder whether a cup of strong Darjeeling tea might help to wake him up.
But all this heat from all the corners of the world, I am sad to say, has generated no light. The peace tunnel is ominously dark and gloomy. Thousands of bombed-out Palestinians in Gaza are homeless and still living in tents.
Wahington has declared through its State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley, that it is not contemplating financial or economic pressure against Israel in response to Mr. Netanyahu's intransigence. I suppose tanks, and missiles and white phosphorus bombs and other military weapons will continue to flow into Israel, and billions of American dollars will continue to fill Israeli coffers. Which raises an interesting question: Would Netanyahu change his settlement policy secure with the knowledge that President Obama wouldn't use military and economic sanctions against Israel? And if Netanyahu need not pay a price for his short-sighted policy, why would he change it and antagonize the settlers?
Yesh Prabhu, Plainsboro, NJ
On Tuesday July 21, 2009, both France and Russia asked Netanyahu to freeze settlement activities. Moscow said plans to build 20 apartments in Sheikh Jarrah should be abolished. "The settlement should be stopped immediately in line with the Roadmap," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said. And Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner of France said Tuesday that France summoned Israeli ambassador to demand halt to settlement construction in eastern part of Jerusalem. But in reply, Deputy FM Ayalon of Israel said, " Israel would continue to operate in accordance with its vital national interests. Our right to develop Jerusalem is irrefutable."
Also on Tuesday July 21, 2009, the European Union called on Israel to halt all construction in East Jerusalem, saying it obstructed the Middle East peace process.
The European Commission has criticized Israel's settlement policy. "Israel's settlement policy helps strangle the Palestinian economy and makes the Palestinian government more dependent on foreign aid. Expropriation of fertile land for Israeli settlements, roads that serve settlers only and West Bank checkpoints help constrain Palestinian economic growth and make the Palestinian government more dependent on aid."
The current holder of the European Union's rotating presidency, Sweden, has urged Israel "to refrain from provocative actions in East Jerusalem, including home demolitions and evictions, as stated also by the Quartet 26 June, 2009. Such actions are illegal under international law."
At a meeting in the Italian city of Trieste last month, the Middle East Quartet - the EU, Russia, the USA and the UN - called on Israel to halt West Bank settlement expansion.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel's administration also urged Israel not to build more settlements, and warned that it risked political suicide if it continued to do so. Mr. Puprecht Polenz, the head of German Foreign Affairs Committee, said that Israel's aim of having secure borders would only be possible with a two state solution.
President Barack Obama, too, has asked Netanyahu repeatedly, and through his Middle East envoy Mr. George Mitchell, and also in person in Washington, to stop all settlement building activities.
But so far Netanyahu has resisted pressure successfully, and he hasn't budged. He has said clearly and bluntly that his government has no intention of recognizing international laws or opinions with respect to Israel's land-grab in the West Bank, which he calls "Judea and Samaria." "I wish to make this clear," he has said, "the united Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people in the State of Israel."
The United Nations does not recognize the term "Judea and Samaria". People who refer to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria in political debate usually believe that these territories are part of Israel and should remain so.
On Thursday July 23, 2009, the Israeli government rejected France's demand to halt settlement expansion activities in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The settlements have been built in violation of the Fouth Geneva Convention, which says the occupying power is not allowed to transfer citizens from its own territory to the occupying territory.
It is now abundantly clear that there is a synchronized effort among the major nations of the world to put pressure on Israel to change its ways. Germany, France, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, the European Union, Russia, USA and the UN - all have asked Israel to freeze its settlements. India, which aspires to be a world class technology giant and economic super power, is strangely silent regarding Israel's settlements. I suppose Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is still thinking about how to respond and what to say. I wonder whether a cup of strong Darjeeling tea might help to wake him up.
But all this heat from all the corners of the world, I am sad to say, has generated no light. The peace tunnel is ominously dark and gloomy. Thousands of bombed-out Palestinians in Gaza are homeless and still living in tents.
Wahington has declared through its State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley, that it is not contemplating financial or economic pressure against Israel in response to Mr. Netanyahu's intransigence. I suppose tanks, and missiles and white phosphorus bombs and other military weapons will continue to flow into Israel, and billions of American dollars will continue to fill Israeli coffers. Which raises an interesting question: Would Netanyahu change his settlement policy secure with the knowledge that President Obama wouldn't use military and economic sanctions against Israel? And if Netanyahu need not pay a price for his short-sighted policy, why would he change it and antagonize the settlers?
Yesh Prabhu, Plainsboro, NJ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
