Apartheid Israel Feeling the Chill from Washington

U.S. decision to deal with the PA government raises hackles in Israel.  Good.

The notion that Israel-coddling produces diplomatic flexibility has been disproved repeatedly, not least by former diplomat and diplomatic strike-out king Dennis Ross (and here).  Ross bent over backwards in a recent NYT Op-Ed to find ways that Israel might do just a teeny bit of withdrawals from the West Bank to eliminate the threat that the PA would seek redress for Israel's illegal colonization of the West Bank with the International Criminal Court.

Here are two worthy contributions, both antidotes to coddle school:  The first by Alain Gresh, is aptly titled "What's mine is mine; what's yours is negotiable."  The second is by Emile Nakhleh, who argues that the two-state option is dead.

[Added: This joint statement in April 2014 by five respected and wise men and woman remains relevant, notwithstanding the failure of John Kerry's effort to broker an Israel-Palestine deal.]

[Added: Israel flaunts international opprobrium and announces 1,460 more housing units in illegal settlements.]

Imagine the U.S. were to follow the EU lead

As reported by the Guardian:

"Future agreements between the European Union and Israel must include the explicit exclusion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank or East Jerusalem, according to a new EU directive described by an Israeli official as an "earthquake".

"The EU guidelines, adopted on 30 June, will prohibit the issuing of grants, funding, prizes or scholarships unless a settlement exclusion clause is included. Israeli institutions and bodies situated across the pre-1967 Green Line will be automatically ineligible.

"The Israeli government will be required to state in any future agreements with the EU that settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are outside the state of Israel.

"The directive, part of the 2014-20 financial framework, covers all areas of co-operation between the EU and Israel, including economics, science, culture, sports and academia. It does not cover trade, such as produce and goods originating in settlements."

Israel's colonization of occupied territory: You say illegal, I say illegitimate, let's call the whole thing off

http://pfcmc.com/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10178.doc.htm
Headline USA Today: "Clinton says Israeli settlements are illegitimate, not illegal*"
Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, February 18, 2011:

"I think it is absolutely clear to say, number one, that it's been American policy for many years that settlements were illegitimate** and it is the continuing goal and highest priority of the Obama administration to keep working toward a two-state solution with both Israelis and Palestinians."

Amb. Susan Rice, February 20, 2011: 

"Yes, for over four decades it has been U.S.  policy to oppose settlement activity.  We view it as illegitimate and corrosive to the peace process.  I made that point clearly in our statement after the vote."

 According to Merriam-Webster:

*Illegal: "not according to or authorized by law"
**Illegitimate: "not sanctioned by law"


[How should the U.S. respond to its impudent clients, namely Israel and the PA?  In the case, of the PA, despite the personal request of the U.S. President, Mahmoud 'Abbas insisted on going forward with the doomed resolution.  As for Israel, it merrily continued it illegal colonization of occupied territory.  Michael Lame suggests punishing both parties by chopping financial aid.]

US vetoes UNSC resolution describing Israel's illegal settlements as illegal while accusing Israel of violating "international commitments"

Ambassador Susan Rice:

"Our opposition to the resolution before this Council today should therefore not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity. On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity. For more than four decades, Israeli settlement activity in territories occupied in 1967 has undermined Israel’s security and corroded hopes for peace and stability in the region. Continued settlement activity violates Israel’s international commitments, devastates trust between the parties, and threatens the prospects for peace."

An abstention would have sent a far stronger and far more appropriate message to Israel. Rice's statement will cause some indigestion, but the resolution would have facilitated additional sanctions.

[Added: text of the vetoed resolution.]

Of continuing relevance: Boston Study Group report on an Israeli-Palestinian peace

Feed for Obama speech

"The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."

Exploiting the Holocaust

Haaretz:

"In a renewed comparison of the Gaza pullout to the Holocaust, residents of the Gaza settlement bloc of Gush Katif are writing their identity card numbers on their arms to protest the closure of the Strip to non-resident Israelis.

"Security forces are requiring Gaza settlers to display their ID cards before allowing them into the settlements.The trend began during a Wednesday night protest against the closure, when a woman who lives in Gush Katif refused to show her ID card to security forces at Kissufim crossing. Instead, she showed him her arm, on which she had written her identity number, in a simulation of the Nazi practice of branding numbers on the arms of concentration camp inmates. Security forces checked her identity and let her through the checkpoint.

"Since then, several other Gaza settlers have tried the same tactic, although previous comparisons to the Holocaust - including the use of orange Star of David badges - have provoked controversy."

This is a disgraceful example of exploiting the Holocaust. In one instance, Jews, Gypsies and others were killed and tormented simply because of who they were. In contrast, we now we have settlers, illegal colonists really, who are living in a occupied territory (Gaza and the West Bank) in violation of international law. They are claiming to be victims, whereas their colonization of Gaza victimized others. It is sacrilege for them even to presume that their situation is comparable those who suffered under the Nazis. Yes, it is sad that they are leaving homes to which they have become accustomed, but their right to live in those homes has no standing.