Atlanta – History is repeating itself in the Palestinian territories. Washington refuses to engage a right-wing Palestinian group – and so spawns organizations that are even more extreme.
It happened in the 1980s, when the US balked at recognizing the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and hesitated to seek a resolution to the Middle East conflict through the creation of a Palestinian state. Those long delays helped propel the rise of the hard-line Islamist party Hamas.
Today, the lack of US dialogue with Hamas and the group's moderation are leading to the formation of new, more dangerous rejectionist groups.
If the US were serious about engaging Hamas, it would acknowledge three things:
1. By agreeing to accept a state in the West Bank and Gaza, Hamas is demonstrating de facto recognition of Israel.
2. Hamas has said Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas can continue negotiations with Israel, and that it would abide by any peace agreement he signs if it is ratified by a referendum of the Palestinian people.
3. Hamas has observed several cease-fires with Israel and has offered decades-long truces in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza.
In December 1988, President Reagan authorized dialogue between the US government and the PLO – 14 years after the Arab League designated the PLO the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people," and 13 years after the United Nations General Assembly made the PLO an observer organization. Even Mr. Reagan's step conferred no official US recognition, though the PLO had some form of relations with at least 70 countries and was widely recognized by the Palestinians as their legitimate political leadership.
Reagan's decision came one year after the founding of Hamas, established as an Islamic armed force (it was originally a social service group, providing services to the elderly and youth) to counter Israel at the beginning of the first Palestinian uprising in 1987. Hamas's political platform calling for the destruction of Israel was in part a response to the gradual moderation of the PLO, which adopted the position of accepting a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza in 1988.
Back then, Hamas gave new voice to the rejectionists, while centering itself ideologically in the budding Islamic political revival that flowed from the Iranian revolution and the successes of the mujahideen in Afghanistan.
And now it appears that though Hamas's charter remains the same, like the PLO before it, Hamas has moderated its views substantially. In a July 31 interview with The Wall Street Journal, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal reiterated acceptance of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza on the 1967 lines. "This is the national program. This is our program."
But, as with Hamas's rise to the right of the PLO in the late 1980s, new rejectionist groups are springing up with ideologies far more dangerous and fundamentalist than those of Hamas.
On Sept. 6, the Saudi newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat reported on a Palestinian, Mahmud Talib, who is on the run from Hamas security forces inside Gaza. According to the article, Talib had been a leader in the Hamas military wing, but split from the organization in 2006 when Hamas decided to participate in Palestinian elections, a key signal of its new openness to a two-state solution. Hamas accuses Mr. Talib of masterminding recent bomb attacks in Gaza targeting Hamas security forces.
Talib and his supporters report planning to pledge their allegiance to Osama bin Laden. Talib also claims to have been involved in alleged assassination attempts in Gaza against former President Jimmy Carter and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, now Quartet Middle East Envoy. In recent months the Israeli press has also reported on defections from Hamas and the formation of Al Qaeda-inspired organizations in Gaza.
Such groups have claimed responsibility for attacks against Israeli forces on the Gaza border, at a time when Hamas is observing a de facto cease-fire.
While Palestinians attacking Israel is not new, the rise of groups in the Palestinian territories espousing a Salafist (fundamentalist Sunni) ideology is. Though Hamas initially attempted to accommodate these organizations, relations have clearly soured.
On Aug. 14, clashes between Hamas security forces in Gaza and another Al Qaeda-inspired faction, Jund Ansar Allah, left 24 people dead.
The distinction between Hamas and Al Qaeda is significant. Both have been responsible for horrific acts of terrorism, but Hamas is a domestic Palestinian organization, which has consistently avoided attacking non-Israeli targets. Its ideological roots are less conservative than Al Qaeda's, and, since 9/11, Hamas has distanced itself from Al Qaeda's rhetoric and global attacks. In the past few years, Hamas has also shown substantial willingness to compromise; Al Qaeda has not.
The US should not overestimate support in Gaza for these more radical organizations. Compared with members of Hamas or the PLO factions, their numbers are few. Gaza is not a new base for global Al Qaeda attacks. But the longer Gaza is left isolated and impoverished, the longer the Hamas government cannot provide hope for the people of Gaza, the more likely it is that Al Qaeda's ideology will gain support.
The long delay in US outreach to the PLO contributed to the rise of Hamas, and now the delay in engaging Hamas is encouraging the growth of Al Qaeda-inspired organizations on the eastern Mediterranean.
This is yet another reason for the West to talk to Hamas.
Nathan Stock is assistant director of the Conflict Resolution Program at The Carter Center.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Palestinian civil society has strongly and almost unanimously condemned the Palestinian Authority's decision to delay action regarding the UN Fact-Finding Mission's report, headed by justice Richard Goldstone, which investigated the recent Israeli war of aggression against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip. A common demand in almost all Palestinian statements was for the UN to adopt the report and act swiftly on its recommendations to bring the report to the Security Council and failing meaningful investigation by responsible parties, take the case to the International Criminal Court in order to bring an end to Israel's criminal impunity, and to hold it accountable before international law for its war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza and, indeed, all over the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Succumbing to US pressure and unabashed Israeli blackmail, Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Ramallah Palestinian Authority (PA), was reportedly personally responsible for the decision to defer council consideration of the Goldstone report. This dashed the hopes of Palestinians everywhere as well as those of international human rights organizations and solidarity movements, that Israel would finally face a long overdue process of legal accountability and that its victims would have a measure of justice. The PA decision -- which delays adoption of the report at least until March 2010 -- gives Israel a golden opportunity to bury it with US, European, Arab and now Palestinian complicity, and constitutes the most blatant case yet of PA betrayal of Palestinian rights and surrender to Israeli dictates.
History of betrayal
This is not the first time, though, that the PA has acted under orders from Washington and threats from Tel Aviv against the express interests of the Palestinian people. The historic July 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), finding Israel's wall and colonies built on occupied Palestinian territory illegal, presented a rare diplomatic, political and legal opportunity to isolate Israel just as apartheid South Africa was isolated after the ICJ's 1971 decision against its occupation of Namibia. Alas, the PA squandered the opportunity and systematically -- quite suspiciously, actually -- failed even to call on world governments to comply with their obligations stated in the advisory opinion.
The whole clause on Israel and Palestinian rights that was to be discussed at the recent UN Durban Review Conference in Geneva was dropped after the Palestinian representative gave his green light. Efforts by non-aligned nations and former UN General Assembly president Father Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann to push for a UN resolution condemning Israel's war crimes in Gaza and establishing an international tribunal were thwarted mainly by the Palestinian ambassador to the UN, causing several prominent diplomats and international law experts to wonder which side the official Palestinian representative was on.
The Mercosur-Israel Free Trade Agreement was almost ratified by Brazil last September after the Palestinian ambassador there expressed approval, only urging Brazil to exclude Israeli settlement products from the agreement. With prompt action by Palestinian and Brazilian civil society organizations and eventually by the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), this ratification was averted and the responsible Brazilian parliamentary committee recommended that the government refrain from approving the agreement until Israel complies with international law.
In all these cases and many similar ones, the instructions to the Palestinian representatives came from Ramallah. The PA government there has, however, illegally appropriated the PLO's authority to conduct Palestinian diplomacy and set foreign policy, conceding Palestinian rights and acting against Palestinian national interests, without worrying about accountability to any elected representatives of the Palestinian people.
The PA's latest forthright collusion in Israel's campaign to whitewash its crimes and escape accountability came a few days after the far-right Israeli government publicly blackmailed the PA, demanding that it withdraw its support for adopting the Goldstone report in return for "permitting" a second mobile communications provider to operate in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
This collusion undermines the great efforts by human rights organizations and many activists to bring justice to the Palestinian victims of Israel's latest massacre in Gaza, the more than 1,400 killed (predominantly civilians), the thousands injured, the 1.5 million who are still suffering from the wanton destruction of infrastructure, educational and health institutions, factories, farm lands, power plants and other critical facilities, and from the long criminal Israeli siege against them.
It is nothing short of a betrayal of Palestinian civil society's effective boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel, with all its recent, remarkable growth and achievements in mainstream western societies and among leading unions. It is also a betrayal of the global solidarity movement that has worked tirelessly and creatively, mainly within the framework of the fast-spreading BDS campaign, to end Israel's impunity and to uphold universal human rights.
It is crucial to remember that the PA does not have any legal or democratic mandate to speak on behalf of the people of Palestine or to represent the Palestinians at the UN or any of its agencies and institutions. The current PA government has never won the necessary constitutional approval of the democratically elected Palestinian Legislative Council. Even if it had such a mandate, at best it would only represent the Palestinians living under Israel's military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, excluding the great majority of the people of Palestine, particularly the refugees.
Israel's strongest weapon, the PA
Only the PLO can theoretically claim to represent the entire Palestinian people, inside historic Palestine and in exile. For such a claim to be substantiated and universally accepted, though, the PLO would need to be revived from the grassroots upwards, in a transparent, democratic and inclusive process involving Palestinians everywhere and encompassing all political parties that are outside PLO structures today.
In parallel with this popular take-back of the PLO by the people and their representative unions and institutions, the PA must be responsibly and gradually dismantled, with its current powers, particularly the representation seats at the UN and other regional and international institutions, returned to where they belong: a revived and democratized PLO. Dissolution of the PA, however, must at all times avoid creating a legal and political vacuum, as history shows that hegemonic powers are often the most likely to fill such a vacuum to the detriment of the oppressed.
The fact is the PA has been gradually and irreversibly transformed since its establishment 15 years ago. It began as an often powerless, obsequious and coerced sub-contractor of the Israeli occupation, relieving Israel of its most cumbersome civil duties, like providing services and tax collection. Most crucially, the PA very effectively helped Israel safeguard the security of its occupation army and colonial settlers. Now, the PA has gone beyond those roles, becoming a willing collaborator that constitutes Israel's most important strategic weapon in countering its growing isolation and loss of legitimacy on the world stage as a colonial and apartheid state. Israel's hundreds of nuclear weapons and its fourth most powerful military in the world proved impotent or at least irrelevant before the growing BDS movement, particularly after Israel's acts of genocide in Gaza. The almost unlimited diplomatic, political, economic and scientific support Israel receives from American and European governments and its unparalleled impunity have also failed to protect it from the gloomy fate of apartheid South Africa.
Even before Israel's war on Gaza, many unions around the world had joined the BDS campaign. After Gaza, BDS leaped into a new, advanced phase, finally reaching the mainstream. Years of careful groundwork facilitated this, but international shock at Israel's white phosphorus showers of death visited upon the children of Gaza cowering in UN shelters, and the universal feeling that the international order has failed to hold Israel accountable or even end its slaughter, or the ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, has provided an enormous boost.
In February, weeks after the end of Israel's Gaza bloodbath, the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU) made history when it refused to offload an Israeli ship in Durban. In April, the Scottish Trade Union Congress followed the lead of the South African trade union federation, COSATU, and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in adopting BDS to bring about Israel's compliance with international law. In May, the University and College Union (UCU), representing some 120,000 British academics, reiterated its annual support for the logic of boycott against Israel, calling for organizing an inter-union BDS conference to discuss strategies to implement the boycott.
And in September, Norway's government pension fund, the world's third largest, divested from an Israeli military contractor supplying equipment for construction of the illegal West Bank wall. Shortly after that, a Spanish ministry excluded a team representing an Israeli college illegally built on occupied Palestinian land from participating in an academic competition. Also in September, the British Trades Union Congress, representing more than 6.5 million workers, adopted the boycott, ushering in a new phase reminiscent of the beginning of the end of the South African apartheid regime. According to concrete, persistent and mounting indicators, Palestinians are witnessing the arrival of their South Africa moment.
Amidst all this came the Goldstone report, quite surprisingly -- given the judge's strong connections with Israel and Zionism -- providing the straw that may well break the camel's back: irrefutable evidence, meticulously researched and documented, of Israel's deliberate commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Despite its clear shortcomings, this report presented Israel with the daunting possibility of standing trial at an international tribunal, effectively ending its impunity.
In this dire situation, only one strategic weapon in Israel's arsenal could fend off a crushing legal and political defeat: the PA. And Israel indeed used it at the right time, almost killing the Goldstone report.
Ultimately, the failure of the UN Human Rights Council to adopt the Goldstone report is another proof, if any is needed, that Palestinians cannot hope at the current historical moment to obtain justice from the US-controlled so-called "international community." Only through intensified, sustainable and context-sensitive civil society campaigns of boycott and divestment can there be any hope that Israel will one day be compelled to end its lawlessness and criminal disregard of human rights and recognize the inalienable Palestinian right to self determination. This right, as expressed by the great majority of the Palestinian people, comprises ending the occupation, ending the legalized and institutionalized system of racial discrimination, or apartheid, and recognizing the fundamental, UN-sanctioned right of Palestine refugees to return to their homes of origin, like all other refugees around the world.
We simply cannot afford to give up on the UN, though. Human rights organizations and international civil society must continue to help the Palestinian struggle to pressure the UN, at least its General Assembly, to adopt and act upon the recommendations of the Goldstone report at all levels. If the UN fails to do so it will send an unambiguous message to Israel that its impunity remains intact and that the international community will stand by apathetically the next time it commits even more egregious crimes against the indigenous people of Palestine. This would gravely undermine the rule of law and promote in its stead the law of the jungle, where no one will be protected from total chaos and boundless carnage.
Omar Barghouti is a founding member of the BDS movement (www.BDSmovement.net).
Succumbing to US pressure and unabashed Israeli blackmail, Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Ramallah Palestinian Authority (PA), was reportedly personally responsible for the decision to defer council consideration of the Goldstone report. This dashed the hopes of Palestinians everywhere as well as those of international human rights organizations and solidarity movements, that Israel would finally face a long overdue process of legal accountability and that its victims would have a measure of justice. The PA decision -- which delays adoption of the report at least until March 2010 -- gives Israel a golden opportunity to bury it with US, European, Arab and now Palestinian complicity, and constitutes the most blatant case yet of PA betrayal of Palestinian rights and surrender to Israeli dictates.
History of betrayal
This is not the first time, though, that the PA has acted under orders from Washington and threats from Tel Aviv against the express interests of the Palestinian people. The historic July 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), finding Israel's wall and colonies built on occupied Palestinian territory illegal, presented a rare diplomatic, political and legal opportunity to isolate Israel just as apartheid South Africa was isolated after the ICJ's 1971 decision against its occupation of Namibia. Alas, the PA squandered the opportunity and systematically -- quite suspiciously, actually -- failed even to call on world governments to comply with their obligations stated in the advisory opinion.
The whole clause on Israel and Palestinian rights that was to be discussed at the recent UN Durban Review Conference in Geneva was dropped after the Palestinian representative gave his green light. Efforts by non-aligned nations and former UN General Assembly president Father Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann to push for a UN resolution condemning Israel's war crimes in Gaza and establishing an international tribunal were thwarted mainly by the Palestinian ambassador to the UN, causing several prominent diplomats and international law experts to wonder which side the official Palestinian representative was on.
The Mercosur-Israel Free Trade Agreement was almost ratified by Brazil last September after the Palestinian ambassador there expressed approval, only urging Brazil to exclude Israeli settlement products from the agreement. With prompt action by Palestinian and Brazilian civil society organizations and eventually by the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), this ratification was averted and the responsible Brazilian parliamentary committee recommended that the government refrain from approving the agreement until Israel complies with international law.
In all these cases and many similar ones, the instructions to the Palestinian representatives came from Ramallah. The PA government there has, however, illegally appropriated the PLO's authority to conduct Palestinian diplomacy and set foreign policy, conceding Palestinian rights and acting against Palestinian national interests, without worrying about accountability to any elected representatives of the Palestinian people.
The PA's latest forthright collusion in Israel's campaign to whitewash its crimes and escape accountability came a few days after the far-right Israeli government publicly blackmailed the PA, demanding that it withdraw its support for adopting the Goldstone report in return for "permitting" a second mobile communications provider to operate in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
This collusion undermines the great efforts by human rights organizations and many activists to bring justice to the Palestinian victims of Israel's latest massacre in Gaza, the more than 1,400 killed (predominantly civilians), the thousands injured, the 1.5 million who are still suffering from the wanton destruction of infrastructure, educational and health institutions, factories, farm lands, power plants and other critical facilities, and from the long criminal Israeli siege against them.
It is nothing short of a betrayal of Palestinian civil society's effective boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel, with all its recent, remarkable growth and achievements in mainstream western societies and among leading unions. It is also a betrayal of the global solidarity movement that has worked tirelessly and creatively, mainly within the framework of the fast-spreading BDS campaign, to end Israel's impunity and to uphold universal human rights.
It is crucial to remember that the PA does not have any legal or democratic mandate to speak on behalf of the people of Palestine or to represent the Palestinians at the UN or any of its agencies and institutions. The current PA government has never won the necessary constitutional approval of the democratically elected Palestinian Legislative Council. Even if it had such a mandate, at best it would only represent the Palestinians living under Israel's military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, excluding the great majority of the people of Palestine, particularly the refugees.
Israel's strongest weapon, the PA
Only the PLO can theoretically claim to represent the entire Palestinian people, inside historic Palestine and in exile. For such a claim to be substantiated and universally accepted, though, the PLO would need to be revived from the grassroots upwards, in a transparent, democratic and inclusive process involving Palestinians everywhere and encompassing all political parties that are outside PLO structures today.
In parallel with this popular take-back of the PLO by the people and their representative unions and institutions, the PA must be responsibly and gradually dismantled, with its current powers, particularly the representation seats at the UN and other regional and international institutions, returned to where they belong: a revived and democratized PLO. Dissolution of the PA, however, must at all times avoid creating a legal and political vacuum, as history shows that hegemonic powers are often the most likely to fill such a vacuum to the detriment of the oppressed.
The fact is the PA has been gradually and irreversibly transformed since its establishment 15 years ago. It began as an often powerless, obsequious and coerced sub-contractor of the Israeli occupation, relieving Israel of its most cumbersome civil duties, like providing services and tax collection. Most crucially, the PA very effectively helped Israel safeguard the security of its occupation army and colonial settlers. Now, the PA has gone beyond those roles, becoming a willing collaborator that constitutes Israel's most important strategic weapon in countering its growing isolation and loss of legitimacy on the world stage as a colonial and apartheid state. Israel's hundreds of nuclear weapons and its fourth most powerful military in the world proved impotent or at least irrelevant before the growing BDS movement, particularly after Israel's acts of genocide in Gaza. The almost unlimited diplomatic, political, economic and scientific support Israel receives from American and European governments and its unparalleled impunity have also failed to protect it from the gloomy fate of apartheid South Africa.
Even before Israel's war on Gaza, many unions around the world had joined the BDS campaign. After Gaza, BDS leaped into a new, advanced phase, finally reaching the mainstream. Years of careful groundwork facilitated this, but international shock at Israel's white phosphorus showers of death visited upon the children of Gaza cowering in UN shelters, and the universal feeling that the international order has failed to hold Israel accountable or even end its slaughter, or the ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, has provided an enormous boost.
In February, weeks after the end of Israel's Gaza bloodbath, the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU) made history when it refused to offload an Israeli ship in Durban. In April, the Scottish Trade Union Congress followed the lead of the South African trade union federation, COSATU, and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in adopting BDS to bring about Israel's compliance with international law. In May, the University and College Union (UCU), representing some 120,000 British academics, reiterated its annual support for the logic of boycott against Israel, calling for organizing an inter-union BDS conference to discuss strategies to implement the boycott.
And in September, Norway's government pension fund, the world's third largest, divested from an Israeli military contractor supplying equipment for construction of the illegal West Bank wall. Shortly after that, a Spanish ministry excluded a team representing an Israeli college illegally built on occupied Palestinian land from participating in an academic competition. Also in September, the British Trades Union Congress, representing more than 6.5 million workers, adopted the boycott, ushering in a new phase reminiscent of the beginning of the end of the South African apartheid regime. According to concrete, persistent and mounting indicators, Palestinians are witnessing the arrival of their South Africa moment.
Amidst all this came the Goldstone report, quite surprisingly -- given the judge's strong connections with Israel and Zionism -- providing the straw that may well break the camel's back: irrefutable evidence, meticulously researched and documented, of Israel's deliberate commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Despite its clear shortcomings, this report presented Israel with the daunting possibility of standing trial at an international tribunal, effectively ending its impunity.
In this dire situation, only one strategic weapon in Israel's arsenal could fend off a crushing legal and political defeat: the PA. And Israel indeed used it at the right time, almost killing the Goldstone report.
Ultimately, the failure of the UN Human Rights Council to adopt the Goldstone report is another proof, if any is needed, that Palestinians cannot hope at the current historical moment to obtain justice from the US-controlled so-called "international community." Only through intensified, sustainable and context-sensitive civil society campaigns of boycott and divestment can there be any hope that Israel will one day be compelled to end its lawlessness and criminal disregard of human rights and recognize the inalienable Palestinian right to self determination. This right, as expressed by the great majority of the Palestinian people, comprises ending the occupation, ending the legalized and institutionalized system of racial discrimination, or apartheid, and recognizing the fundamental, UN-sanctioned right of Palestine refugees to return to their homes of origin, like all other refugees around the world.
We simply cannot afford to give up on the UN, though. Human rights organizations and international civil society must continue to help the Palestinian struggle to pressure the UN, at least its General Assembly, to adopt and act upon the recommendations of the Goldstone report at all levels. If the UN fails to do so it will send an unambiguous message to Israel that its impunity remains intact and that the international community will stand by apathetically the next time it commits even more egregious crimes against the indigenous people of Palestine. This would gravely undermine the rule of law and promote in its stead the law of the jungle, where no one will be protected from total chaos and boundless carnage.
Omar Barghouti is a founding member of the BDS movement (www.BDSmovement.net).
A firestorm of criticism has erupted since Friday's "postponement" of the United Nations Human Rights Council's (UNHRC) vote on the Goldstone report, which accused Israel of committing war crimes during its winter invasion of the Gaza Strip. The postponement was at the behest of the Ramallah Palestinian Authority's (PA) ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Ibrahim Khraishi. Palestinians globally and across the political spectrum have rightfully been outraged at what is not only an unbelievable act of cowardice and ineptitude, but a betrayal of the highest order. Indeed, anywhere else in the world it would be considered tantamount to treason. Sadly and unsurprisingly, it is what passes for leadership from Mahmoud Abbas.
While the shock and anger over Abbas's actions is understandable, it ignores how he has behaved to date. Indeed, burying the Goldstone report represents the culmination of Abbas's collusion and incompetence dating to the time of his (brief) assumption of the then newly created post of prime minister in 2003. As the newly appointed prime minister, Abbas drew scorn for appearing beside then US President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and reciting a speech that appeared to have been written by a low-level State Department staffer -- with nary a mention of Palestinian suffering.
Yet, this abysmal beginning was a highlight compared to his subsequent presidency. After being ignored by Bush and Sharon his first year in office, Abbas collaborated with the US and Israel in an attempt to undermine and overthrow the Hamas-run government elected in 2006.
After Hamas's takeover of Gaza a year later, Abbas all but endorsed Israel's siege of the territory, going so far as to order the PA's ambassador at the UN to block an attempt by Qatar and Indonesia to obtain a Security Council resolution "expressing concern" over "a pending humanitarian crisis." As the siege tightened, Abbas repeatedly insulted his own people, deriding their efforts to break the siege as well as attempts by international solidarity activists to draw attention to their plight.
Judging by their fumbling and inconsistent responses over the past several days, Abbas and his cronies were clearly caught off guard by the reaction to the postponement. After making the ludicrous announcement that he would empower an investigation into what happened at the UNHRC, Abbas dispatched the PA's "foreign minister," Riyad al-Maliki, to New York to participate in an emergency session of the UN Security Council called at the request of Libya to discuss the Goldstone report. Regardless of what happens at the Security Council, any rational observer must ask, exactly what kind of "president" is Mahmoud Abbas and who does he represent?
Therein lies the rub. Abbas's term as president expired on 9 January and he has been ruling under extra-constitutional emergency powers since. Not only is the emperor without clothes, he lacks legitimacy as well. However, he does have a freshly trained and equipped praetorian guard courtesy of Washington and US Lt. General William Dayton. The sole purpose of this force is to secure the rule of Abbas and his appointed Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and by extension the Fatah party. On display during this summer's Fatah conference, the new security force demonstrates that while the neoconservative freedom agenda of the Bush Administration is gone, it has been replaced by a repression agenda under the guise of stability and realpolitik. Palestinians will be hard pressed to know the difference.
Whether or not the clumsy attempt to shelve the report is the tipping point for Abbas's rule, the succession process has been underway for several years. However, it is being coordinated by the US and Israel and is no reflection of the wishes and desires of the Palestinian people. Abbas's likely successor is Fayyad, who somehow manages to be an even more uninspiring and unpopular character. Yet, one would never know this considering the fawning press coverage he has received in the American media over the past few months, including The New York Times, Time magazine and The Los Angeles Times. Fayyad is a favorite not just of American and European leaders, but the developmentistas who benefit from and ensure the perpetual state of dependence that defines the Palestine Industry.
In spite of the accolades from different quarters and hyperbolic claims of plans for effective institution-building, Fayyad's record is remarkably thin on actual achievements. With no electoral success to point to, he is left with just one verifiable "success": introducing direct deposit to the PA, in particular the security services. No doubt this was a difficult effort, especially due to opposition from late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat. However, what is never discussed in the glowing press accounts is that Fayyad's singular achievement barely qualifies him to be finance minister -- his position when direct deposit was implemented -- not prime minister and definitely not president. But this isn't about achievements or qualifications -- that is not how the PA functions.
Fayyad was a favorite of the Bush Administration, especially the former president, and so far has maintained that status with the Obama Administration. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have thoroughly manipulated Abbas and Fayyad, ensuring their mutual suspicion, competitiveness and insecurity in order to maintain a feckless and weak leadership beholden to the US and Israel and not to the Palestinian people. Meanwhile, the same supporters of the Abbas and Fayyad government who never tired of hailing every banal utterance by Bush and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, regardless of how destructive their policies were to Palestinian rights and aspirations, have now sought to champion the meager efforts of the Obama Administration. Once again Palestinians are told that yet another American president is paying "attention" to their situation and is "focused" on the "peace process."
We have heard this all before, and unless Palestinians reclaim their national movement, we will hear it again and again. Palestinians and those sympathetic to their cause must recognize that Abbas and his clique will abandon any advantage and undermine any initiative that threatens the position, privileges and wealth they have accrued while in power. The PA will not dissolve itself, but it will disrupt and impede any progress or effort that threatens to truly challenge the occupation and Israel's system of apartheid of which they are an essential component and direct beneficiaries. No matter what success activists across the globe have against Israeli apartheid and the occupation, the PA will scuttle those gains. Tales of corruption, graft and incompetence at the highest levels of the PA are neither new nor shocking. What is, however, is that Palestinians have allowed this situation to persist. As a result, Abbas's government has grown more strident and obvious in its collaboration with the occupation, a fact fully realized in Geneva on Friday.
The calls for Abbas's resignation are long overdue and without question he is not now nor was he ever fit to be president of the Palestinian people. Similarly, Salam Fayyad has demonstrated that he is little more than a willing tool waiting to hear his master's call so he can ascend to power. These men are certainly responsible for the fiasco in Geneva, but Palestinians must also ask: who else is accountable? Accountability in this context is not just those who made and implemented this unconscionable decision, but the elected and appointed leadership of the Palestinian people who stood by and in their silence allowed it to pass. To date, the condemnations have been strong but the resignations have been few, and some likely self-serving. One wonders, where are the rest? Indeed, the measure for Palestinians in evaluating their leaders must now be: what did you do when Abbas shelved the Goldstone report? Did you oppose it? Or did you remain silent? Did you act? Or were you complicit? For those who claim to be leaders and representatives, this is how you will be judged -- now and by history. Let there be no doubt, there will be a reckoning and you must choose.
Absent from this discussion is what happened in those three weeks in Gaza. Nearly 1,500 Palestinians were killed, including 109 women and 320 children and thousands more were injured. Basic infrastructure, homes, businesses and schools were destroyed and because of the siege, are yet to be rebuilt. The use of white phosphorous and flechette bombs, indiscriminate shelling and bombing of civilian areas, use of human shields, and the list goes on. By burying the Goldstone report, the US, Israel and the PA also hoped to bury these crimes. With Gaza isolated and besieged, they believe that claims of Israeli war crimes will get overtaken by other events and lost in the media din. Considering the poverty of leadership in Abbas's regime, it is up to people of good conscience to step into the breach and ensure that Gaza is never forgotten and that the PA, like the occupation it serves, ends up on the ash heap of history.
Osamah Khalil is a doctoral candidate in US & Middle East History at the University of California, Berkeley and a frequent contributor to The Electronic Intifada. He can be reached at ofkhalil A T gmail D O T com.
While the shock and anger over Abbas's actions is understandable, it ignores how he has behaved to date. Indeed, burying the Goldstone report represents the culmination of Abbas's collusion and incompetence dating to the time of his (brief) assumption of the then newly created post of prime minister in 2003. As the newly appointed prime minister, Abbas drew scorn for appearing beside then US President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and reciting a speech that appeared to have been written by a low-level State Department staffer -- with nary a mention of Palestinian suffering.
Yet, this abysmal beginning was a highlight compared to his subsequent presidency. After being ignored by Bush and Sharon his first year in office, Abbas collaborated with the US and Israel in an attempt to undermine and overthrow the Hamas-run government elected in 2006.
After Hamas's takeover of Gaza a year later, Abbas all but endorsed Israel's siege of the territory, going so far as to order the PA's ambassador at the UN to block an attempt by Qatar and Indonesia to obtain a Security Council resolution "expressing concern" over "a pending humanitarian crisis." As the siege tightened, Abbas repeatedly insulted his own people, deriding their efforts to break the siege as well as attempts by international solidarity activists to draw attention to their plight.
Judging by their fumbling and inconsistent responses over the past several days, Abbas and his cronies were clearly caught off guard by the reaction to the postponement. After making the ludicrous announcement that he would empower an investigation into what happened at the UNHRC, Abbas dispatched the PA's "foreign minister," Riyad al-Maliki, to New York to participate in an emergency session of the UN Security Council called at the request of Libya to discuss the Goldstone report. Regardless of what happens at the Security Council, any rational observer must ask, exactly what kind of "president" is Mahmoud Abbas and who does he represent?
Therein lies the rub. Abbas's term as president expired on 9 January and he has been ruling under extra-constitutional emergency powers since. Not only is the emperor without clothes, he lacks legitimacy as well. However, he does have a freshly trained and equipped praetorian guard courtesy of Washington and US Lt. General William Dayton. The sole purpose of this force is to secure the rule of Abbas and his appointed Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and by extension the Fatah party. On display during this summer's Fatah conference, the new security force demonstrates that while the neoconservative freedom agenda of the Bush Administration is gone, it has been replaced by a repression agenda under the guise of stability and realpolitik. Palestinians will be hard pressed to know the difference.
Whether or not the clumsy attempt to shelve the report is the tipping point for Abbas's rule, the succession process has been underway for several years. However, it is being coordinated by the US and Israel and is no reflection of the wishes and desires of the Palestinian people. Abbas's likely successor is Fayyad, who somehow manages to be an even more uninspiring and unpopular character. Yet, one would never know this considering the fawning press coverage he has received in the American media over the past few months, including The New York Times, Time magazine and The Los Angeles Times. Fayyad is a favorite not just of American and European leaders, but the developmentistas who benefit from and ensure the perpetual state of dependence that defines the Palestine Industry.
In spite of the accolades from different quarters and hyperbolic claims of plans for effective institution-building, Fayyad's record is remarkably thin on actual achievements. With no electoral success to point to, he is left with just one verifiable "success": introducing direct deposit to the PA, in particular the security services. No doubt this was a difficult effort, especially due to opposition from late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat. However, what is never discussed in the glowing press accounts is that Fayyad's singular achievement barely qualifies him to be finance minister -- his position when direct deposit was implemented -- not prime minister and definitely not president. But this isn't about achievements or qualifications -- that is not how the PA functions.
Fayyad was a favorite of the Bush Administration, especially the former president, and so far has maintained that status with the Obama Administration. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have thoroughly manipulated Abbas and Fayyad, ensuring their mutual suspicion, competitiveness and insecurity in order to maintain a feckless and weak leadership beholden to the US and Israel and not to the Palestinian people. Meanwhile, the same supporters of the Abbas and Fayyad government who never tired of hailing every banal utterance by Bush and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, regardless of how destructive their policies were to Palestinian rights and aspirations, have now sought to champion the meager efforts of the Obama Administration. Once again Palestinians are told that yet another American president is paying "attention" to their situation and is "focused" on the "peace process."
We have heard this all before, and unless Palestinians reclaim their national movement, we will hear it again and again. Palestinians and those sympathetic to their cause must recognize that Abbas and his clique will abandon any advantage and undermine any initiative that threatens the position, privileges and wealth they have accrued while in power. The PA will not dissolve itself, but it will disrupt and impede any progress or effort that threatens to truly challenge the occupation and Israel's system of apartheid of which they are an essential component and direct beneficiaries. No matter what success activists across the globe have against Israeli apartheid and the occupation, the PA will scuttle those gains. Tales of corruption, graft and incompetence at the highest levels of the PA are neither new nor shocking. What is, however, is that Palestinians have allowed this situation to persist. As a result, Abbas's government has grown more strident and obvious in its collaboration with the occupation, a fact fully realized in Geneva on Friday.
The calls for Abbas's resignation are long overdue and without question he is not now nor was he ever fit to be president of the Palestinian people. Similarly, Salam Fayyad has demonstrated that he is little more than a willing tool waiting to hear his master's call so he can ascend to power. These men are certainly responsible for the fiasco in Geneva, but Palestinians must also ask: who else is accountable? Accountability in this context is not just those who made and implemented this unconscionable decision, but the elected and appointed leadership of the Palestinian people who stood by and in their silence allowed it to pass. To date, the condemnations have been strong but the resignations have been few, and some likely self-serving. One wonders, where are the rest? Indeed, the measure for Palestinians in evaluating their leaders must now be: what did you do when Abbas shelved the Goldstone report? Did you oppose it? Or did you remain silent? Did you act? Or were you complicit? For those who claim to be leaders and representatives, this is how you will be judged -- now and by history. Let there be no doubt, there will be a reckoning and you must choose.
Absent from this discussion is what happened in those three weeks in Gaza. Nearly 1,500 Palestinians were killed, including 109 women and 320 children and thousands more were injured. Basic infrastructure, homes, businesses and schools were destroyed and because of the siege, are yet to be rebuilt. The use of white phosphorous and flechette bombs, indiscriminate shelling and bombing of civilian areas, use of human shields, and the list goes on. By burying the Goldstone report, the US, Israel and the PA also hoped to bury these crimes. With Gaza isolated and besieged, they believe that claims of Israeli war crimes will get overtaken by other events and lost in the media din. Considering the poverty of leadership in Abbas's regime, it is up to people of good conscience to step into the breach and ensure that Gaza is never forgotten and that the PA, like the occupation it serves, ends up on the ash heap of history.
Osamah Khalil is a doctoral candidate in US & Middle East History at the University of California, Berkeley and a frequent contributor to The Electronic Intifada. He can be reached at ofkhalil A T gmail D O T com.
The uproar over the Palestinian Authority's (PA) collaboration with Israel to bury the Goldstone report, calling for trials of Israeli leaders for war crimes in Gaza, is a political earthquake. The whole political order in place since the 1993 Oslo accords were signed is crumbling. As the initial tremors begin to fade, the same old political structures may appear still to be in place, but they are hollowed out. This unprecedented crisis threatens to topple the US-backed PA leader Mahmoud Abbas, but it also leaves Hamas, the main Palestinian resistance faction, struggling with fateful choices.
Abbas, accustomed to being surrounded by corrupt cronies, sycophants and yes-men, badly misjudged the impact of his decision -- under Israeli and American instructions -- to withdraw PA support for the resolution at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, forwarding the Goldstone report for further action. After all, the PA had actively sabotaged measures supporting Palestinian rights at the UN on at least two occasions in recent years without much reaction.
This time, torrents of protest and outrage flowed from almost every direction. It was as if all the suppressed anger and grief about PA collaboration with Israel during the massacres in Gaza last winter suddenly burst through a dam. "The crime at Geneva cannot pass without all those responsible being held accountable," the widely-read London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi stated in its lead editorial on 8 October. The newspaper called for the removal of Abbas and his associates who betrayed the victims of Israel's massacres and "saved Israel from the most serious moral, political and legal crisis it has faced since its establishment."
Naming collaboration -- even treason -- for what it is has always been a painful taboo among Palestinians, as for all occupied peoples. It took the French decades after World War II to begin to speak openly about the extent of collaboration that took place with the Nazi-backed Vichy government. Abbas and his militias -- who for a long time have been armed and trained by Israel, the United States and so-called "moderate" Arab states to wage war against the Palestinian resistance -- have relied on this taboo to carry out their activities with increasing brazenness and brutality. But the taboo no longer affords protection, as calls for Abbas' removal and even trial issued from Palestinian organizations all over the world.
Hamas too seems to have been taken by surprise at the strength of reaction. Hamas leaders were critical of Abbas' withdrawal of the Goldstone resolution, but initially this was notably muted. Early on, Khaled Meshal, the movement's overall leader, insisted that despite the Goldstone fiasco, Hamas would proceed with Egyptian-mediated reconciliation talks with Fatah and smaller factions scheduled for later in the month, stating that reaching a power-sharing deal remained a "national interest."
As the tremors continued, however, Hamas leaders escalated their rhetoric -- seemingly following, not leading, public opinion. Mahmoud Zahar, a prominent Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, labeled Abbas a "traitor" and urged that he be stripped of his Palestinian nationality. Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, speaking before a hastily convened session of the Palestinian Legislative Council, said Abbas was personally responsible for the "crime" committed in Geneva, and a senior officer from the Hamas-controlled Gaza police force held a press conference to announce that Abbas and his associates would be subject to arrest if they set foot in Gaza.
All of this puts Hamas in a bind. Before the Goldstone report crisis, Hamas had signaled that it accepted the most recent Egyptian proposals for reconciliation. The Egyptian position paper can be described as technocratic -- it deals with mechanisms for elections, release of prisoners, the formation of committees and other matters. It does not resolve core political and philosophical differences over the role of resistance and armed struggle, which Abbas rejects and Hamas defends. Nor does it deal with the problem of PA "security coordination" with Israel which has resulted in the killing and arrest by the PA of numerous Palestinian resistance fighters and the closure of hundreds of Palestinian organizations and charities.
Despite the remaining gulf, Hamas wanted to sign a unity deal. Being part of a Western-recognized PA would be Hamas' ticket to the "peace process" -- something Meshal has made no secret that Hamas seeks, although on its own terms. Abbas was less keen on a unity deal, as he and his cronies still resist dealing with Hamas as a political force that has popular legitimacy. But after Goldstone, Abbas needs Hamas.
Hamas now cannot have it both ways: it cannot talk about "unity" and "reconciliation" with people that it -- and many Palestinians -- view as "traitors." To seek unity with such people is in effect to say that Hamas wishes to join a government of traitors. For the moment, Hamas is buying time and has asked Egypt to postpone the scheduled Cairo meeting later this month.
Hamas' long-term strategy of trying to join the slowly crumbling edifice of the Palestinian Authority now makes no sense. It now seems more likely that the deal will not go ahead, although Hamas is maneuvering to avoid blame, and to maintain its lifeline to Egypt, which backs Fatah. Perhaps the more likely outcome, at least in the short term, is a continued stalemate, where Abbas, now entirely dependent on Israeli and American forces to remain in power, limps on even though he has no legitimacy or credibility, and is widely despised.
The more difficult question for Hamas will be, what comes next? Will it try to muddle through as it has, or will it rally the Palestinian public to oppose and resist Abbas until the collaborationist PA is dissolved? This would be an enormous strategic shift -- Hamas would likely have to drop the trappings of "government" it has taken up since it won the 2006 legislative elections and return to its roots as a social movement and a clandestine organization.
It will not have much time to decide where it is going. The hopes raised by the Obama Administration's initial foray into peacemaking have been dashed in the wake of Obama's surrender to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over settlements, even though US Middle East envoy George Mitchell continues with utterly sterile "diplomacy" aimed at bringing the rejectionist Israeli government face to face in "negotiations" with the political corpse of Abbas. As Israel accelerates its colonization of the West Bank and its ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem, there is increasing talk of a new intifada.
The political collapse underway offers all Palestinians -- including Hamas -- a new opportunity: to build a broad-based, internationally legitimate popular resistance movement that mobilizes all of Palestinian society as the first intifada did, and to reconnect with Palestinians inside Israel who face an existential threat from escalating Israeli racism. This movement must work with and enhance the global solidarity campaign to put maximum pressure on Israel -- and its collaborators -- to end their repression, racism and violence, and hasten the emancipation of all the people of Palestine.
Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah is author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse.
Abbas, accustomed to being surrounded by corrupt cronies, sycophants and yes-men, badly misjudged the impact of his decision -- under Israeli and American instructions -- to withdraw PA support for the resolution at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, forwarding the Goldstone report for further action. After all, the PA had actively sabotaged measures supporting Palestinian rights at the UN on at least two occasions in recent years without much reaction.
This time, torrents of protest and outrage flowed from almost every direction. It was as if all the suppressed anger and grief about PA collaboration with Israel during the massacres in Gaza last winter suddenly burst through a dam. "The crime at Geneva cannot pass without all those responsible being held accountable," the widely-read London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi stated in its lead editorial on 8 October. The newspaper called for the removal of Abbas and his associates who betrayed the victims of Israel's massacres and "saved Israel from the most serious moral, political and legal crisis it has faced since its establishment."
Naming collaboration -- even treason -- for what it is has always been a painful taboo among Palestinians, as for all occupied peoples. It took the French decades after World War II to begin to speak openly about the extent of collaboration that took place with the Nazi-backed Vichy government. Abbas and his militias -- who for a long time have been armed and trained by Israel, the United States and so-called "moderate" Arab states to wage war against the Palestinian resistance -- have relied on this taboo to carry out their activities with increasing brazenness and brutality. But the taboo no longer affords protection, as calls for Abbas' removal and even trial issued from Palestinian organizations all over the world.
Hamas too seems to have been taken by surprise at the strength of reaction. Hamas leaders were critical of Abbas' withdrawal of the Goldstone resolution, but initially this was notably muted. Early on, Khaled Meshal, the movement's overall leader, insisted that despite the Goldstone fiasco, Hamas would proceed with Egyptian-mediated reconciliation talks with Fatah and smaller factions scheduled for later in the month, stating that reaching a power-sharing deal remained a "national interest."
As the tremors continued, however, Hamas leaders escalated their rhetoric -- seemingly following, not leading, public opinion. Mahmoud Zahar, a prominent Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, labeled Abbas a "traitor" and urged that he be stripped of his Palestinian nationality. Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, speaking before a hastily convened session of the Palestinian Legislative Council, said Abbas was personally responsible for the "crime" committed in Geneva, and a senior officer from the Hamas-controlled Gaza police force held a press conference to announce that Abbas and his associates would be subject to arrest if they set foot in Gaza.
All of this puts Hamas in a bind. Before the Goldstone report crisis, Hamas had signaled that it accepted the most recent Egyptian proposals for reconciliation. The Egyptian position paper can be described as technocratic -- it deals with mechanisms for elections, release of prisoners, the formation of committees and other matters. It does not resolve core political and philosophical differences over the role of resistance and armed struggle, which Abbas rejects and Hamas defends. Nor does it deal with the problem of PA "security coordination" with Israel which has resulted in the killing and arrest by the PA of numerous Palestinian resistance fighters and the closure of hundreds of Palestinian organizations and charities.
Despite the remaining gulf, Hamas wanted to sign a unity deal. Being part of a Western-recognized PA would be Hamas' ticket to the "peace process" -- something Meshal has made no secret that Hamas seeks, although on its own terms. Abbas was less keen on a unity deal, as he and his cronies still resist dealing with Hamas as a political force that has popular legitimacy. But after Goldstone, Abbas needs Hamas.
Hamas now cannot have it both ways: it cannot talk about "unity" and "reconciliation" with people that it -- and many Palestinians -- view as "traitors." To seek unity with such people is in effect to say that Hamas wishes to join a government of traitors. For the moment, Hamas is buying time and has asked Egypt to postpone the scheduled Cairo meeting later this month.
Hamas' long-term strategy of trying to join the slowly crumbling edifice of the Palestinian Authority now makes no sense. It now seems more likely that the deal will not go ahead, although Hamas is maneuvering to avoid blame, and to maintain its lifeline to Egypt, which backs Fatah. Perhaps the more likely outcome, at least in the short term, is a continued stalemate, where Abbas, now entirely dependent on Israeli and American forces to remain in power, limps on even though he has no legitimacy or credibility, and is widely despised.
The more difficult question for Hamas will be, what comes next? Will it try to muddle through as it has, or will it rally the Palestinian public to oppose and resist Abbas until the collaborationist PA is dissolved? This would be an enormous strategic shift -- Hamas would likely have to drop the trappings of "government" it has taken up since it won the 2006 legislative elections and return to its roots as a social movement and a clandestine organization.
It will not have much time to decide where it is going. The hopes raised by the Obama Administration's initial foray into peacemaking have been dashed in the wake of Obama's surrender to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over settlements, even though US Middle East envoy George Mitchell continues with utterly sterile "diplomacy" aimed at bringing the rejectionist Israeli government face to face in "negotiations" with the political corpse of Abbas. As Israel accelerates its colonization of the West Bank and its ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem, there is increasing talk of a new intifada.
The political collapse underway offers all Palestinians -- including Hamas -- a new opportunity: to build a broad-based, internationally legitimate popular resistance movement that mobilizes all of Palestinian society as the first intifada did, and to reconnect with Palestinians inside Israel who face an existential threat from escalating Israeli racism. This movement must work with and enhance the global solidarity campaign to put maximum pressure on Israel -- and its collaborators -- to end their repression, racism and violence, and hasten the emancipation of all the people of Palestine.
Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah is author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Abbas' Move on War-Crimes Report Gives a Boost to Hamas
By Abigail Hauslohner / Gaza City Tuesday, Oct. 06, 2009
Mahmoud Abbas is not in the business of doing favors for his bitter rivals in Hamas, which is why the Islamists may have been more taken aback than anyone else at the massive political gift presented to them on Oct. 2 by the Palestinian Authority President. At the instruction of Abbas, the Palestinian delegation to the U.N. Human Rights Council withdrew support for moves to pursue war-crimes charges over Israel's January offensive in Gaza, effectively shelving U.N. action on an inquiry led by former international war-crimes prosecutor Richard Goldstone that accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes. So furious has been the reaction of Palestinians across the political spectrum that the move is being widely seen as the final nail in the President's political coffin — with the Palestinians due to hold parliamentary and presidential elections next year, Abbas may no longer be a viable candidate for his Fatah movement.
Abbas' move at the U.N. was widely perceived as a response to pressure from the U.S. and Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had publicly warned that his government would not negotiate peace if the Goldstone findings were pursued, insisting that they undermined Israel's "right to defend itself." Some accounts in the region suggested that Washington had prevailed on Abbas to squelch the U.N. probe; others alleged that Abbas had been blackmailed into doing so by Israelis who threatened to release tapes that purportedly show senior Palestinian Authority figures enthusiastically backing the Israeli operation in Gaza, in the hopes that it would "finish Hamas." (Israeli officials dispute that suggestion.) What is clear, however, is that the Goldstone report had been applauded by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, where more than 1,300 people died during the three-week offensive that also reduced most of the territory's infrastructure to rubble. And most found it unconscionable that their own government should be seen to be protecting Israel from any consequences of Goldstone's findings.
If Hamas had been unsure of how to act on the Goldstone report, Abbas made it easy for them by his Geneva intervention. The decision spurred a flurry of demonstrations in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, drawing furious condemnation from leaders of Hamas and Fatah and demands for an inquiry into how it came about. Hamas legislators convened to discuss the issue in Gaza City, with some of the movement's leaders accusing Abbas of treason. "If the Palestinian Legislative Council, which represents the Palestinian people and which is freely elected [and in which Hamas is the ruling party] is against the decision, and if the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] executive committee is against the decision, and if the Fatah central committee is against the decision— all political and Islamic factions are against the decision — then who made the decision?" Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said during the session. "They — the Zionists — made the decision. Supporters of the Zionists made the decision."
On Tuesday Hamas police held a Gaza City press conference demanding the arrest of those responsible for putting the Goldstone report on hold at the U.N. And Syria, which backs Hamas, postponed a planned visit to Damascus by Abbas. Hamas has also warned that the U.N. move presents a serious obstacle to the unity deal that it had been expected to sign with Fatah later this month. Indeed, Palestinian public opinion has turned so sharply against Abbas over this issue that Hamas may be tempted to hold off on reconciling with its rivals while its political position is strengthened by the tide of anger over the Geneva intervention.
"This decision revealed the true position of the authorities in Ramallah, which does not represent the Palestinian people but rather the interests of individuals and their foreign agenda," Hamas government spokesman Ayman Taha told TIME.
Gaza human-rights organizations, some of which have been highly critical of Hamas' abuses, were among those most vocally denouncing what was widely seen as a betrayal of the Palestinian cause.
"We worked so hard on [the Goldstone report]," says Mahmoud Abu Rahma, communications director for Al Mezan Center for Human Rights in Gaza, who says his organization provided the U.N. fact-finding team with hundreds of documents. "We were familiar with attempts by Israel to repress the report and ... we are familiar with the position of the United States, which is more or less in line with Israel ... But [this] came from the Palestinian Authority ... This is not acceptable."
Even before the Goldstone-report fiasco, Hamas was on a roll. It scored fresh popularity points on Oct. 2 by securing the release of 20 Palestinian women from Israeli jails in exchange for a video confirming that Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, captured by Gaza militants in 2006, is alive. The German- and Egyptian-mediated swap stirred up fresh hope on both sides that an exchange of Shalit for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners was close at hand. Prime Minister Haniyeh personally greeted the final prisoner in the swap with flowers, underscoring the political gains to be made on the prisoner-release issue, a primary grievance among Palestinians that Abbas has made little headway on in his years of talking to the Israelis.
Before the prisoner release, some in Gaza warned that Hamas' popularity might be waning and that an early election might not be in the Islamists' interests given the deteriorating economic plight of Gazans. But thanks to Abbas' intervention in Geneva, those calculations may have been dramatically changed.
By Abigail Hauslohner / Gaza City Tuesday, Oct. 06, 2009
Mahmoud Abbas is not in the business of doing favors for his bitter rivals in Hamas, which is why the Islamists may have been more taken aback than anyone else at the massive political gift presented to them on Oct. 2 by the Palestinian Authority President. At the instruction of Abbas, the Palestinian delegation to the U.N. Human Rights Council withdrew support for moves to pursue war-crimes charges over Israel's January offensive in Gaza, effectively shelving U.N. action on an inquiry led by former international war-crimes prosecutor Richard Goldstone that accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes. So furious has been the reaction of Palestinians across the political spectrum that the move is being widely seen as the final nail in the President's political coffin — with the Palestinians due to hold parliamentary and presidential elections next year, Abbas may no longer be a viable candidate for his Fatah movement.
Abbas' move at the U.N. was widely perceived as a response to pressure from the U.S. and Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had publicly warned that his government would not negotiate peace if the Goldstone findings were pursued, insisting that they undermined Israel's "right to defend itself." Some accounts in the region suggested that Washington had prevailed on Abbas to squelch the U.N. probe; others alleged that Abbas had been blackmailed into doing so by Israelis who threatened to release tapes that purportedly show senior Palestinian Authority figures enthusiastically backing the Israeli operation in Gaza, in the hopes that it would "finish Hamas." (Israeli officials dispute that suggestion.) What is clear, however, is that the Goldstone report had been applauded by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, where more than 1,300 people died during the three-week offensive that also reduced most of the territory's infrastructure to rubble. And most found it unconscionable that their own government should be seen to be protecting Israel from any consequences of Goldstone's findings.
If Hamas had been unsure of how to act on the Goldstone report, Abbas made it easy for them by his Geneva intervention. The decision spurred a flurry of demonstrations in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, drawing furious condemnation from leaders of Hamas and Fatah and demands for an inquiry into how it came about. Hamas legislators convened to discuss the issue in Gaza City, with some of the movement's leaders accusing Abbas of treason. "If the Palestinian Legislative Council, which represents the Palestinian people and which is freely elected [and in which Hamas is the ruling party] is against the decision, and if the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] executive committee is against the decision, and if the Fatah central committee is against the decision— all political and Islamic factions are against the decision — then who made the decision?" Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said during the session. "They — the Zionists — made the decision. Supporters of the Zionists made the decision."
On Tuesday Hamas police held a Gaza City press conference demanding the arrest of those responsible for putting the Goldstone report on hold at the U.N. And Syria, which backs Hamas, postponed a planned visit to Damascus by Abbas. Hamas has also warned that the U.N. move presents a serious obstacle to the unity deal that it had been expected to sign with Fatah later this month. Indeed, Palestinian public opinion has turned so sharply against Abbas over this issue that Hamas may be tempted to hold off on reconciling with its rivals while its political position is strengthened by the tide of anger over the Geneva intervention.
"This decision revealed the true position of the authorities in Ramallah, which does not represent the Palestinian people but rather the interests of individuals and their foreign agenda," Hamas government spokesman Ayman Taha told TIME.
Gaza human-rights organizations, some of which have been highly critical of Hamas' abuses, were among those most vocally denouncing what was widely seen as a betrayal of the Palestinian cause.
"We worked so hard on [the Goldstone report]," says Mahmoud Abu Rahma, communications director for Al Mezan Center for Human Rights in Gaza, who says his organization provided the U.N. fact-finding team with hundreds of documents. "We were familiar with attempts by Israel to repress the report and ... we are familiar with the position of the United States, which is more or less in line with Israel ... But [this] came from the Palestinian Authority ... This is not acceptable."
Even before the Goldstone-report fiasco, Hamas was on a roll. It scored fresh popularity points on Oct. 2 by securing the release of 20 Palestinian women from Israeli jails in exchange for a video confirming that Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, captured by Gaza militants in 2006, is alive. The German- and Egyptian-mediated swap stirred up fresh hope on both sides that an exchange of Shalit for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners was close at hand. Prime Minister Haniyeh personally greeted the final prisoner in the swap with flowers, underscoring the political gains to be made on the prisoner-release issue, a primary grievance among Palestinians that Abbas has made little headway on in his years of talking to the Israelis.
Before the prisoner release, some in Gaza warned that Hamas' popularity might be waning and that an early election might not be in the Islamists' interests given the deteriorating economic plight of Gazans. But thanks to Abbas' intervention in Geneva, those calculations may have been dramatically changed.
True Lies
The Cost of Israel to US Taxpayers
By Richard H. Curtiss
Former U.S. Foreign Service Officer
October 03, 2009 "WRMEA" -- For many years the American media said that “Israel receives $1.8 billion in military aid” or that “Israel receives $1.2 billion in economic aid.” Both statements were true, but since they were never combined to give us the complete total of annual U.S. aid to Israel, they also were lies—true lies.
Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that “Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid.” That's true. But it's still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000.
One can truthfully blame the mainstream media for never digging out these figures for themselves, because none ever have. They were compiled by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. But the mainstream media certainly are not alone. Although Congress authorizes America's foreign aid total, the fact that more than a third of it goes to a country smaller in both area and population than Hong Kong probably never has been mentioned on the floor of the Senate or House. Yet it's been going on for more than a generation.
Probably the only members of Congress who even suspect the full total of U.S. funds received by Israel each year are the privileged few committee members who actually mark it up. And almost all members of the concerned committees are Jewish, have taken huge campaign donations orchestrated by Israel's Washington, DC lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or both. These congressional committee members are paid to act, not talk. So they do and they don't.
The same applies to the president, the secretary of state, and the foreign aid administrator. They all submit a budget that includes aid for Israel, which Congress approves, or increases, but never cuts. But no one in the executive branch mentions that of the few remaining U.S. aid recipients worldwide, all of the others are developing nations which either make their military bases available to the U.S., are key members of international alliances in which the U.S. participates, or have suffered some crippling blow of nature to their abilities to feed their people such as earthquakes, floods or droughts.
Israel, whose troubles arise solely from its unwillingness to give back land it seized in the 1967 war in return for peace with its neighbors, does not fit those criteria. In fact, Israel's 1995 per capita gross domestic product was $15,800. That put it below Britain at $19,500 and Italy at $18,700 and just above Ireland at $15,400 and Spain at $14,300.
All four of those European countries have contributed a very large share of immigrants to the U.S., yet none has organized an ethnic group to lobby for U.S. foreign aid. Instead, all four send funds and volunteers to do economic development and emergency relief work in other less fortunate parts of the world.
The lobby that Israel and its supporters have built in the United States to make all this aid happen, and to ban discussion of it from the national dialogue, goes far beyond AIPAC, with its $15 million budget, its 150 employees, and its five or six registered lobbyists who manage to visit every member of Congress individually once or twice a year.
AIPAC, in turn, can draw upon the resources of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a roof group set up solely to coordinate the efforts of some 52 national Jewish organizations on behalf of Israel.
Among them are Hadassah, the Zionist women’s organization, which organizes a steady stream of American Jewish visitors to Israel; the American Jewish Congress, which mobilizes support for Israel among members of the traditionally left-of-center Jewish mainstream; and the American Jewish Committee, which plays the same role within the growing middle-of-the-road and right-of-center Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee also publishes Commentary, one of the Israel lobby’s principal national publications.
Perhaps the most controversial of these groups is B’nai B’rith’s Anti-Defamation League. Its original highly commendable purpose was to protect the civil rights of American Jews. Over the past generation, however, the ADL has regressed into a conspiratorial and, with a $45 million budget, extremely well funded hate group.
In the 1980s, during the tenure of chairman Seymour Reich, who went on to become chairman of the Conference of Presidents, ADL was found to have circulated two annual fund-raising letters warning Jewish parents against allegedly negative influences on their children arising from the increasing Arab presence on American university campuses.
More recently, FBI raids on ADL’s Los Angeles and San Francisco offices revealed that an ADL operative had purchased files stolen from the San Francisco police department that a court had ordered destroyed because they violated the civil rights of the individuals on whom they had been compiled. ADL, it was shown, had added the illegally prepared and illegally obtained material to its own secret files, compiled by planting informants among Arab-American, African-American, anti-Apartheid and peace and justice groups.
The ADL infiltrators took notes of the names and remarks of speakers and members of audiences at programs organized by such groups. ADL agents even recorded the license plates of persons attending such programs and then suborned corrupt motor vehicles department employees or renegade police officers to identify the owners.
Although one of the principal offenders fled the United States to escape prosecution, no significant penalties were assessed. ADL’s Northern California office was ordered to comply with requests by persons upon whom dossiers had been prepared to see their own files, but no one went to jail and as yet no one has paid fines.
Not surprisingly, a defecting employee revealed in an article he published in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that AIPAC, too, has such “enemies” files. They are compiled for use by pro-Israel journalists like Steven Emerson and other so-called “Terrorism experts,” and also by professional, academic or journalistic rivals of the persons described for use in blacklisting, defaming, or denouncing them. What is never revealed is that AIPAC’s “opposition research“ department, under the supervision of Michael Lewis, son of famed Princeton University Orientalist Bernard Lewis, is the source of this defamatory material.
But this is not AIPAC’s most controversial activity. In the 1970s, when Congress put a cap on the amount its members could earn from speakers’ fees and book royalties over and above their salaries, it halted AIPAC’s most effective ways of paying off members for voting according to AIPAC recommendations. Members of AIPAC’s national board of directors solved the problem by returning to their home states and creating political action committees (PACs).
Most special interests have PACs, as do many major corporations, labor unions, trade associations and public-interest groups. But the pro-Israel groups went wild. To date some 126 pro-Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 have been active in every national election over the past generation.
An individual voter can give up to $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle, and a PAC can give a candidate up to $10,000. However, a single special interest with 50 PACs can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent, and who has voted according to its recommendations, up to half a million dollars. That’s enough to buy all the television time needed to get elected in most parts of the country.
Even candidates who don’t need this kind of money certainly don’t want it to become available to a rival from their own party in a primary election, or to an opponent from the opposing party in a general election. As a result, all but a handful of the 535 members of the Senate and House vote as AIPAC instructs when it comes to aid to Israel, or other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy.
There is something else very special about AIPAC’s network of political action committees. Nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover?
Hiding AIPAC’s Tracks
In fact, the congress members know it when they list the contributions they receive on the campaign statements they have to prepare for the Federal Election Commission. But their constituents don’t know this when they read these statements. So just as no other special interest can put so much “hard money” into any candidate’s election campaign as can the Israel lobby, no other special interest has gone to such elaborate lengths to hide its tracks.
Although AIPAC, Washington’s most feared special-interest lobby, can hide how it uses both carrots and sticks to bribe or intimidate members of Congress, it can’t hide all of the results.
Anyone can ask one of their representatives in Congress for a chart prepared by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, that shows Israel received $62.5 billion in foreign aid from fiscal year 1949 through fiscal year 1996. People in the national capital area also can visit the library of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in Rosslyn, Virginia, and obtain the same information, plus charts showing how much foreign aid the U.S. has given other countries as well.
Visitors will learn that in precisely the same 1949-1996 time frame, the total of U.S. foreign aid to all of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined was $62,497,800,000--almost exactly the amount given to tiny Israel.
According to the Population Reference Bureau of Washington, DC, in mid-1995 the sub-Saharan countries had a combined population of 568 million. The $24,415,700,000 in foreign aid they had received by then amounted to $42.99 per sub-Saharan African.
Similarly, with a combined population of 486 million, all of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean together had received $38,254,400,000. This amounted to $79 per person.
The per capita U.S. foreign aid to Israel’s 5.8 million people during the same period was $10,775.48. This meant that for every dollar the U.S. spent on an African, it spent $250.65 on an Israeli, and for every dollar it spent on someone from the Western Hemisphere outside the United States, it spent $214 on an Israeli.
Shocking Comparisons
These comparisons already seem shocking, but they are far from the whole truth. Using reports compiled by Clyde Mark of the Congressional Research Service and other sources, freelance writer Frank Collins tallied for the Washington Report all of the extra items for Israel buried in the budgets of the Pentagon and other federal agencies in fiscal year 1993.Washington Report news editor Shawn Twing did the same thing for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
They uncovered $1.271 billion in extras in FY 1993, $355.3 million in FY 1996 and $525.8 million in FY 1997. These represent an average increase of 12.2 percent over the officially recorded foreign aid totals for the same fiscal years, and they probably are not complete. It’s reasonable to assume, therefore, that a similar 12.2 percent hidden increase has prevailed over all of the years Israel has received aid.
As of Oct. 31, 1997 Israel will have received $3.05 billion in U.S. foreign aid for fiscal year 1997 and $3.08 billion in foreign aid for fiscal year 1998. Adding the 1997 and 1998 totals to those of previous years since 1949 yields a total of $74,157,600,000 in foreign aid grants and loans. Assuming that the actual totals from other budgets average 12.2 percent of that amount, that brings the grand total to $83,204,827,200.
But that’s not quite all. Receiving its annual foreign aid appropriation during the first month of the fiscal year, instead of in quarterly installments as do other recipients, is just another special privilege Congress has voted for Israel. It enables Israel to invest the money in U.S. Treasury notes. That means that the U.S., which has to borrow the money it gives to Israel, pays interest on the money it has granted to Israel in advance, while at the same time Israel is collecting interest on the money. That interest to Israel from advance payments adds another $1.650 billion to the total, making it $84,854,827,200.That’s the number you should write down for total aid to Israel. And that’s $14,346 each for each man, woman and child in Israel.
It’s worth noting that that figure does not include U.S. government loan guarantees to Israel, of which Israel has drawn $9.8 billion to date. They greatly reduce the interest rate the Israeli government pays on commercial loans, and they place additional burdens on U.S. taxpayers, especially if the Israeli government should default on any of them. But since neither the savings to Israel nor the costs to U.S. taxpayers can be accurately quantified, they are excluded from consideration here.
Further, friends of Israel never tire of saying that Israel has never defaulted on repayment of a U.S. government loan. It would be equally accurate to say Israel has never been required to repay a U.S. government loan. The truth of the matter is complex, and designed to be so by those who seek to conceal it from the U.S. taxpayer.
Most U.S. loans to Israel are forgiven, and many were made with the explicit understanding that they would be forgiven before Israel was required to repay them. By disguising as loans what in fact were grants, cooperating members of Congress exempted Israel from the U.S. oversight that would have accompanied grants. On other loans, Israel was expected to pay the interest and eventually to begin repaying the principal. But the so-called Cranston Amendment, which has been attached by Congress to every foreign aid appropriation since 1983, provides that economic aid to Israel will never dip below the amount Israel is required to pay on its outstanding loans. In short, whether U.S. aid is extended as grants or loans to Israel, it never returns to the Treasury.
Israel enjoys other privileges. While most countries receiving U.S. military aid funds are expected to use them for U.S. arms, ammunition and training, Israel can spend part of these funds on weapons made by Israeli manufacturers. Also, when it spends its U.S. military aid money on U.S. products, Israel frequently requires the U.S. vendor to buy components or materials from Israeli manufacturers. Thus, though Israeli politicians say that their own manufacturers and exporters are making them progressively less dependent upon U.S. aid, in fact those Israeli manufacturers and exporters are heavily subsidized by U.S. aid.
Although it’s beyond the parameters of this study, it’s worth mentioning that Israel also receives foreign aid from some other countries. After the United States, the principal donor of both economic and military aid to Israel is Germany.
By far the largest component of German aid has been in the form of restitution payments to victims of Nazi atrocities. But there also has been extensive German military assistance to Israel during and since the Gulf war, and a variety of German educational and research grants go to Israeli institutions. The total of German assistance in all of these categories to the Israeli government, Israeli individuals and Israeli private institutions has been some $31 billion or $5,345 per capita, bringing the per capita total of U.S. and German assistance combined to almost $20,000 per Israeli. Since very little public money is spent on the more than 20 percent of Israeli citizens who are Muslim or Christian, the actual per capita benefits received by Israel’s Jewish citizens would be considerably higher.
True Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
Generous as it is, what Israelis actually got in U.S. aid is considerably less than what it has cost U.S. taxpayers to provide it. The principal difference is that so long as the U.S. runs an annual budget deficit, every dollar of aid the U.S. gives Israel has to be raised through U.S. government borrowing.
In an article in the Washington Report for December 1991/January 1992, Frank Collins estimated the costs of this interest, based upon prevailing interest rates for every year since 1949. I have updated this by applying a very conservative 5 percent interest rate for subsequent years, and confined the amount upon which the interest is calculated to grants, not loans or loan guarantees.
On this basis the $84.8 billion in grants, loans and commodities Israel has received from the U.S. since 1949 cost the U.S. an additional $49,936,880,000 in interest.
There are many other costs of Israel to U.S. taxpayers, such as most or all of the $45.6 billion in U.S. foreign aid to Egypt since Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979 (compared to $4.2 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt for the preceding 26 years). U.S. foreign aid to Egypt, which is pegged at two-thirds of U.S. foreign aid to Israel, averages $2.2 billion per year.
There also have been immense political and military costs to the U.S. for its consistent support of Israel during Israel’s half-century of disputes with the Palestinians and all of its Arab neighbors. In addition, there have been the approximately $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees and perhaps $20 billion in tax-exempt contributions made to Israel by American Jews in the nearly half-century since Israel was created.
Even excluding all of these extra costs, America’s $84.8 billion in aid to Israel from fiscal years 1949 through 1998, and the interest the U.S. paid to borrow this money, has cost U.S. taxpayers $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation. Or, put another way, the nearly $14,630 every one of 5.8 million Israelis received from the U.S. government by Oct. 31, 1997 has cost American taxpayers $23,240 per Israeli.
It would be interesting to know how many of those American taxpayers believe they and their families have received as much from the U.S. Treasury as has everyone who has chosen to become a citizen of Israel. But it’s a question that will never occur to the American public because, so long as America’s mainstream media, Congress and president maintain their pact of silence, few Americans will ever know the true cost of Israel to U.S. taxpayers.
Richard H. Curtiss enlisted in the U.S. Army in World War II, and served as a military correspondent in Berlin, Germany after the war. After earning a B.A. in journalism from the University of Southern California and working on newspapers and for the United Press, he served as a career Foreign Service officer with the Department of State and the U.S. Information Agency throughout the world and in Washington D.C. During his U.S. government career he received the U.S. Information Agency’s Superior Honor Award and the Edward R. Murrow award for excellence in Public Diplomacy, U.S.I.A.’s highest professional recognition. Curtiss is currently the Executive Editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
The Cost of Israel to US Taxpayers
By Richard H. Curtiss
Former U.S. Foreign Service Officer
October 03, 2009 "WRMEA" -- For many years the American media said that “Israel receives $1.8 billion in military aid” or that “Israel receives $1.2 billion in economic aid.” Both statements were true, but since they were never combined to give us the complete total of annual U.S. aid to Israel, they also were lies—true lies.
Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that “Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid.” That's true. But it's still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000.
One can truthfully blame the mainstream media for never digging out these figures for themselves, because none ever have. They were compiled by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. But the mainstream media certainly are not alone. Although Congress authorizes America's foreign aid total, the fact that more than a third of it goes to a country smaller in both area and population than Hong Kong probably never has been mentioned on the floor of the Senate or House. Yet it's been going on for more than a generation.
Probably the only members of Congress who even suspect the full total of U.S. funds received by Israel each year are the privileged few committee members who actually mark it up. And almost all members of the concerned committees are Jewish, have taken huge campaign donations orchestrated by Israel's Washington, DC lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or both. These congressional committee members are paid to act, not talk. So they do and they don't.
The same applies to the president, the secretary of state, and the foreign aid administrator. They all submit a budget that includes aid for Israel, which Congress approves, or increases, but never cuts. But no one in the executive branch mentions that of the few remaining U.S. aid recipients worldwide, all of the others are developing nations which either make their military bases available to the U.S., are key members of international alliances in which the U.S. participates, or have suffered some crippling blow of nature to their abilities to feed their people such as earthquakes, floods or droughts.
Israel, whose troubles arise solely from its unwillingness to give back land it seized in the 1967 war in return for peace with its neighbors, does not fit those criteria. In fact, Israel's 1995 per capita gross domestic product was $15,800. That put it below Britain at $19,500 and Italy at $18,700 and just above Ireland at $15,400 and Spain at $14,300.
All four of those European countries have contributed a very large share of immigrants to the U.S., yet none has organized an ethnic group to lobby for U.S. foreign aid. Instead, all four send funds and volunteers to do economic development and emergency relief work in other less fortunate parts of the world.
The lobby that Israel and its supporters have built in the United States to make all this aid happen, and to ban discussion of it from the national dialogue, goes far beyond AIPAC, with its $15 million budget, its 150 employees, and its five or six registered lobbyists who manage to visit every member of Congress individually once or twice a year.
AIPAC, in turn, can draw upon the resources of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a roof group set up solely to coordinate the efforts of some 52 national Jewish organizations on behalf of Israel.
Among them are Hadassah, the Zionist women’s organization, which organizes a steady stream of American Jewish visitors to Israel; the American Jewish Congress, which mobilizes support for Israel among members of the traditionally left-of-center Jewish mainstream; and the American Jewish Committee, which plays the same role within the growing middle-of-the-road and right-of-center Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee also publishes Commentary, one of the Israel lobby’s principal national publications.
Perhaps the most controversial of these groups is B’nai B’rith’s Anti-Defamation League. Its original highly commendable purpose was to protect the civil rights of American Jews. Over the past generation, however, the ADL has regressed into a conspiratorial and, with a $45 million budget, extremely well funded hate group.
In the 1980s, during the tenure of chairman Seymour Reich, who went on to become chairman of the Conference of Presidents, ADL was found to have circulated two annual fund-raising letters warning Jewish parents against allegedly negative influences on their children arising from the increasing Arab presence on American university campuses.
More recently, FBI raids on ADL’s Los Angeles and San Francisco offices revealed that an ADL operative had purchased files stolen from the San Francisco police department that a court had ordered destroyed because they violated the civil rights of the individuals on whom they had been compiled. ADL, it was shown, had added the illegally prepared and illegally obtained material to its own secret files, compiled by planting informants among Arab-American, African-American, anti-Apartheid and peace and justice groups.
The ADL infiltrators took notes of the names and remarks of speakers and members of audiences at programs organized by such groups. ADL agents even recorded the license plates of persons attending such programs and then suborned corrupt motor vehicles department employees or renegade police officers to identify the owners.
Although one of the principal offenders fled the United States to escape prosecution, no significant penalties were assessed. ADL’s Northern California office was ordered to comply with requests by persons upon whom dossiers had been prepared to see their own files, but no one went to jail and as yet no one has paid fines.
Not surprisingly, a defecting employee revealed in an article he published in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that AIPAC, too, has such “enemies” files. They are compiled for use by pro-Israel journalists like Steven Emerson and other so-called “Terrorism experts,” and also by professional, academic or journalistic rivals of the persons described for use in blacklisting, defaming, or denouncing them. What is never revealed is that AIPAC’s “opposition research“ department, under the supervision of Michael Lewis, son of famed Princeton University Orientalist Bernard Lewis, is the source of this defamatory material.
But this is not AIPAC’s most controversial activity. In the 1970s, when Congress put a cap on the amount its members could earn from speakers’ fees and book royalties over and above their salaries, it halted AIPAC’s most effective ways of paying off members for voting according to AIPAC recommendations. Members of AIPAC’s national board of directors solved the problem by returning to their home states and creating political action committees (PACs).
Most special interests have PACs, as do many major corporations, labor unions, trade associations and public-interest groups. But the pro-Israel groups went wild. To date some 126 pro-Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 have been active in every national election over the past generation.
An individual voter can give up to $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle, and a PAC can give a candidate up to $10,000. However, a single special interest with 50 PACs can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent, and who has voted according to its recommendations, up to half a million dollars. That’s enough to buy all the television time needed to get elected in most parts of the country.
Even candidates who don’t need this kind of money certainly don’t want it to become available to a rival from their own party in a primary election, or to an opponent from the opposing party in a general election. As a result, all but a handful of the 535 members of the Senate and House vote as AIPAC instructs when it comes to aid to Israel, or other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy.
There is something else very special about AIPAC’s network of political action committees. Nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover?
Hiding AIPAC’s Tracks
In fact, the congress members know it when they list the contributions they receive on the campaign statements they have to prepare for the Federal Election Commission. But their constituents don’t know this when they read these statements. So just as no other special interest can put so much “hard money” into any candidate’s election campaign as can the Israel lobby, no other special interest has gone to such elaborate lengths to hide its tracks.
Although AIPAC, Washington’s most feared special-interest lobby, can hide how it uses both carrots and sticks to bribe or intimidate members of Congress, it can’t hide all of the results.
Anyone can ask one of their representatives in Congress for a chart prepared by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, that shows Israel received $62.5 billion in foreign aid from fiscal year 1949 through fiscal year 1996. People in the national capital area also can visit the library of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in Rosslyn, Virginia, and obtain the same information, plus charts showing how much foreign aid the U.S. has given other countries as well.
Visitors will learn that in precisely the same 1949-1996 time frame, the total of U.S. foreign aid to all of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined was $62,497,800,000--almost exactly the amount given to tiny Israel.
According to the Population Reference Bureau of Washington, DC, in mid-1995 the sub-Saharan countries had a combined population of 568 million. The $24,415,700,000 in foreign aid they had received by then amounted to $42.99 per sub-Saharan African.
Similarly, with a combined population of 486 million, all of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean together had received $38,254,400,000. This amounted to $79 per person.
The per capita U.S. foreign aid to Israel’s 5.8 million people during the same period was $10,775.48. This meant that for every dollar the U.S. spent on an African, it spent $250.65 on an Israeli, and for every dollar it spent on someone from the Western Hemisphere outside the United States, it spent $214 on an Israeli.
Shocking Comparisons
These comparisons already seem shocking, but they are far from the whole truth. Using reports compiled by Clyde Mark of the Congressional Research Service and other sources, freelance writer Frank Collins tallied for the Washington Report all of the extra items for Israel buried in the budgets of the Pentagon and other federal agencies in fiscal year 1993.Washington Report news editor Shawn Twing did the same thing for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
They uncovered $1.271 billion in extras in FY 1993, $355.3 million in FY 1996 and $525.8 million in FY 1997. These represent an average increase of 12.2 percent over the officially recorded foreign aid totals for the same fiscal years, and they probably are not complete. It’s reasonable to assume, therefore, that a similar 12.2 percent hidden increase has prevailed over all of the years Israel has received aid.
As of Oct. 31, 1997 Israel will have received $3.05 billion in U.S. foreign aid for fiscal year 1997 and $3.08 billion in foreign aid for fiscal year 1998. Adding the 1997 and 1998 totals to those of previous years since 1949 yields a total of $74,157,600,000 in foreign aid grants and loans. Assuming that the actual totals from other budgets average 12.2 percent of that amount, that brings the grand total to $83,204,827,200.
But that’s not quite all. Receiving its annual foreign aid appropriation during the first month of the fiscal year, instead of in quarterly installments as do other recipients, is just another special privilege Congress has voted for Israel. It enables Israel to invest the money in U.S. Treasury notes. That means that the U.S., which has to borrow the money it gives to Israel, pays interest on the money it has granted to Israel in advance, while at the same time Israel is collecting interest on the money. That interest to Israel from advance payments adds another $1.650 billion to the total, making it $84,854,827,200.That’s the number you should write down for total aid to Israel. And that’s $14,346 each for each man, woman and child in Israel.
It’s worth noting that that figure does not include U.S. government loan guarantees to Israel, of which Israel has drawn $9.8 billion to date. They greatly reduce the interest rate the Israeli government pays on commercial loans, and they place additional burdens on U.S. taxpayers, especially if the Israeli government should default on any of them. But since neither the savings to Israel nor the costs to U.S. taxpayers can be accurately quantified, they are excluded from consideration here.
Further, friends of Israel never tire of saying that Israel has never defaulted on repayment of a U.S. government loan. It would be equally accurate to say Israel has never been required to repay a U.S. government loan. The truth of the matter is complex, and designed to be so by those who seek to conceal it from the U.S. taxpayer.
Most U.S. loans to Israel are forgiven, and many were made with the explicit understanding that they would be forgiven before Israel was required to repay them. By disguising as loans what in fact were grants, cooperating members of Congress exempted Israel from the U.S. oversight that would have accompanied grants. On other loans, Israel was expected to pay the interest and eventually to begin repaying the principal. But the so-called Cranston Amendment, which has been attached by Congress to every foreign aid appropriation since 1983, provides that economic aid to Israel will never dip below the amount Israel is required to pay on its outstanding loans. In short, whether U.S. aid is extended as grants or loans to Israel, it never returns to the Treasury.
Israel enjoys other privileges. While most countries receiving U.S. military aid funds are expected to use them for U.S. arms, ammunition and training, Israel can spend part of these funds on weapons made by Israeli manufacturers. Also, when it spends its U.S. military aid money on U.S. products, Israel frequently requires the U.S. vendor to buy components or materials from Israeli manufacturers. Thus, though Israeli politicians say that their own manufacturers and exporters are making them progressively less dependent upon U.S. aid, in fact those Israeli manufacturers and exporters are heavily subsidized by U.S. aid.
Although it’s beyond the parameters of this study, it’s worth mentioning that Israel also receives foreign aid from some other countries. After the United States, the principal donor of both economic and military aid to Israel is Germany.
By far the largest component of German aid has been in the form of restitution payments to victims of Nazi atrocities. But there also has been extensive German military assistance to Israel during and since the Gulf war, and a variety of German educational and research grants go to Israeli institutions. The total of German assistance in all of these categories to the Israeli government, Israeli individuals and Israeli private institutions has been some $31 billion or $5,345 per capita, bringing the per capita total of U.S. and German assistance combined to almost $20,000 per Israeli. Since very little public money is spent on the more than 20 percent of Israeli citizens who are Muslim or Christian, the actual per capita benefits received by Israel’s Jewish citizens would be considerably higher.
True Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
Generous as it is, what Israelis actually got in U.S. aid is considerably less than what it has cost U.S. taxpayers to provide it. The principal difference is that so long as the U.S. runs an annual budget deficit, every dollar of aid the U.S. gives Israel has to be raised through U.S. government borrowing.
In an article in the Washington Report for December 1991/January 1992, Frank Collins estimated the costs of this interest, based upon prevailing interest rates for every year since 1949. I have updated this by applying a very conservative 5 percent interest rate for subsequent years, and confined the amount upon which the interest is calculated to grants, not loans or loan guarantees.
On this basis the $84.8 billion in grants, loans and commodities Israel has received from the U.S. since 1949 cost the U.S. an additional $49,936,880,000 in interest.
There are many other costs of Israel to U.S. taxpayers, such as most or all of the $45.6 billion in U.S. foreign aid to Egypt since Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979 (compared to $4.2 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt for the preceding 26 years). U.S. foreign aid to Egypt, which is pegged at two-thirds of U.S. foreign aid to Israel, averages $2.2 billion per year.
There also have been immense political and military costs to the U.S. for its consistent support of Israel during Israel’s half-century of disputes with the Palestinians and all of its Arab neighbors. In addition, there have been the approximately $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees and perhaps $20 billion in tax-exempt contributions made to Israel by American Jews in the nearly half-century since Israel was created.
Even excluding all of these extra costs, America’s $84.8 billion in aid to Israel from fiscal years 1949 through 1998, and the interest the U.S. paid to borrow this money, has cost U.S. taxpayers $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation. Or, put another way, the nearly $14,630 every one of 5.8 million Israelis received from the U.S. government by Oct. 31, 1997 has cost American taxpayers $23,240 per Israeli.
It would be interesting to know how many of those American taxpayers believe they and their families have received as much from the U.S. Treasury as has everyone who has chosen to become a citizen of Israel. But it’s a question that will never occur to the American public because, so long as America’s mainstream media, Congress and president maintain their pact of silence, few Americans will ever know the true cost of Israel to U.S. taxpayers.
Richard H. Curtiss enlisted in the U.S. Army in World War II, and served as a military correspondent in Berlin, Germany after the war. After earning a B.A. in journalism from the University of Southern California and working on newspapers and for the United Press, he served as a career Foreign Service officer with the Department of State and the U.S. Information Agency throughout the world and in Washington D.C. During his U.S. government career he received the U.S. Information Agency’s Superior Honor Award and the Edward R. Murrow award for excellence in Public Diplomacy, U.S.I.A.’s highest professional recognition. Curtiss is currently the Executive Editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
Mahmoud Abbas' chronic submissiveness
By Amira Hass
In a single phone call to his man in Geneva, Mahmoud Abbas has demonstrated his disregard for popular action, and his lack of faith in its accumulative power and the place of mass movements in processes of change.
For nine months, thousands of people - Palestinians, their supporters abroad and Israeli anti-occupation activists - toiled to ensure that the legacy of Israel's military offensive against Gaza would not be consigned to the garbage bin of occupying nations obsessed with their feelings of superiority.
Thanks to the Goldstone report, even in Israel voices began to stammer about the need for an independent inquiry into the assault. But shortly after Abbas was visited by the American consul-general on Thursday, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization got on the phone to instruct his representative on the United Nations Human Rights Council to ask his colleagues to postpone the vote on the adoption of the report's conclusions.
Advertisement
Heavy American pressure and the resumption of peace negotiations were the reasons for Abbas' move, it was said. Palestinian spokespeople spun various versions over the weekend in an attempt to make the move kosher, explaining that it was not a cancelation but a six-month postponement that Abbas was seeking.
Will the American and European representatives in Geneva support the adoption of the report in six months' time? Will Israel heed international law in the coming months, stop building in the settlements and announce immediate negotiations on their dismantlement and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories? Is this what adoption of the report would have endangered? Of course not.
A great deal of political folly and short-sightedness was bared by that phone call, on the eve of Hamas's celebration of its victory in securing the release of 20 female prisoners. Precisely on that day, Abbas put Gaza in the headlines within the context of the PLO's defeatism and of spitting in the face of the victims of the attack - that is how they felt in Gaza and elsewhere.
Abbas confirmed in fact that Hamas is the real national leadership, and gave ammunition to those who claim that its path - the path of armed struggle - yields results that negotiations do not.
This was not an isolated gaffe, but a pattern that has endured since the PLO leadership concocted, together with naive Norwegians and shrewd Israeli lawyers, the Oslo Accords. Disregard for, and lack of interest in the knowledge and experience accumulated in the inhabitants of the occupied territories' prolonged popular struggle led to the first errors: the absence of an explicit statement that the aim was the establishment of a state within defined borders, not insisting on a construction freeze in the settlements, forgetting about the prisoners, endorsing the Area C arrangement, etc.
The chronic submissiveness is always explained by a desire to "make progress." But for the PLO and Fatah, progress is the very continued existence of the Palestinian Authority, which is now functioning more than ever before as a subcontractor for the IDF, the Shin Bet security service and the Civil Administration.
This is a leadership that has been convinced that armed struggle - certainly in the face of Israeli military superiority - cannot bring independence. And indeed, the disastrous repercussions of the Second Intifada are proof of this position. This is a leadership that believes in negotiation as a strategic path to obtaining a state and integration in the world that the United States is shaping.
But in such a world there is personal gain that accrues from chronic submissiveness - benefits enjoyed by the leaders and their immediate circles. This personal gain shapes the tactics.
Is the choice really only between negotiations and armed-struggle theater, the way the Palestinian leadership makes it out to be? No.
The true choice is between negotiations as part of a popular struggle anchored in the language of the universal culture of equality and rights, and negotiations between business partners with the junior partner submissively expressing his gratitude to the senior partner for his generosity.
By Amira Hass
In a single phone call to his man in Geneva, Mahmoud Abbas has demonstrated his disregard for popular action, and his lack of faith in its accumulative power and the place of mass movements in processes of change.
For nine months, thousands of people - Palestinians, their supporters abroad and Israeli anti-occupation activists - toiled to ensure that the legacy of Israel's military offensive against Gaza would not be consigned to the garbage bin of occupying nations obsessed with their feelings of superiority.
Thanks to the Goldstone report, even in Israel voices began to stammer about the need for an independent inquiry into the assault. But shortly after Abbas was visited by the American consul-general on Thursday, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization got on the phone to instruct his representative on the United Nations Human Rights Council to ask his colleagues to postpone the vote on the adoption of the report's conclusions.
Advertisement
Heavy American pressure and the resumption of peace negotiations were the reasons for Abbas' move, it was said. Palestinian spokespeople spun various versions over the weekend in an attempt to make the move kosher, explaining that it was not a cancelation but a six-month postponement that Abbas was seeking.
Will the American and European representatives in Geneva support the adoption of the report in six months' time? Will Israel heed international law in the coming months, stop building in the settlements and announce immediate negotiations on their dismantlement and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories? Is this what adoption of the report would have endangered? Of course not.
A great deal of political folly and short-sightedness was bared by that phone call, on the eve of Hamas's celebration of its victory in securing the release of 20 female prisoners. Precisely on that day, Abbas put Gaza in the headlines within the context of the PLO's defeatism and of spitting in the face of the victims of the attack - that is how they felt in Gaza and elsewhere.
Abbas confirmed in fact that Hamas is the real national leadership, and gave ammunition to those who claim that its path - the path of armed struggle - yields results that negotiations do not.
This was not an isolated gaffe, but a pattern that has endured since the PLO leadership concocted, together with naive Norwegians and shrewd Israeli lawyers, the Oslo Accords. Disregard for, and lack of interest in the knowledge and experience accumulated in the inhabitants of the occupied territories' prolonged popular struggle led to the first errors: the absence of an explicit statement that the aim was the establishment of a state within defined borders, not insisting on a construction freeze in the settlements, forgetting about the prisoners, endorsing the Area C arrangement, etc.
The chronic submissiveness is always explained by a desire to "make progress." But for the PLO and Fatah, progress is the very continued existence of the Palestinian Authority, which is now functioning more than ever before as a subcontractor for the IDF, the Shin Bet security service and the Civil Administration.
This is a leadership that has been convinced that armed struggle - certainly in the face of Israeli military superiority - cannot bring independence. And indeed, the disastrous repercussions of the Second Intifada are proof of this position. This is a leadership that believes in negotiation as a strategic path to obtaining a state and integration in the world that the United States is shaping.
But in such a world there is personal gain that accrues from chronic submissiveness - benefits enjoyed by the leaders and their immediate circles. This personal gain shapes the tactics.
Is the choice really only between negotiations and armed-struggle theater, the way the Palestinian leadership makes it out to be? No.
The true choice is between negotiations as part of a popular struggle anchored in the language of the universal culture of equality and rights, and negotiations between business partners with the junior partner submissively expressing his gratitude to the senior partner for his generosity.
Palestinian factions call for forming committee to probe Goldstone report delay
".....In a related context, Shihab news agency quoted informed sources in Washington as saying that a meeting between PA representatives and an Israeli delegation took place in Washington to persuade the PA to withdraw its support for Goldstone’s report.
The source told Shihab that the PA officials initially rejected the Israeli request, until Israeli officer Eli Ofarham showed up and displayed on his laptop a videotaped file showing Mahmoud Abbas urging Israel war minister Ehud Barak to continue the war on Gaza.
The sources also revealed that the PA official also listened to a recorded telephone conversation between director of the general staff office Dov Weissglas and Abbas’s aide Tayeb Abdelrahim in which the latter called on Israel to invade the refugee camps of Jabaliya and Al-Shati and said that the fall of those camps would end the rule of Hamas.
Abbas urged Barak to continue the war on Gaza and Abelrahim called on the Israelis to invade Jabalya and Shati refugee camps to finish off Hamas.
Weissglas, according to the record, said that this would lead to thousands of casualties among citizens, but Abdelrahim stressed that they all elected Hamas and chose their own destiny.
The sources added that the Israeli delegation threatened to exhibit these recorded materials to the UN members and the media and demanded the PA officials to pledge in writing not to give any country a permission to adopt Goldstone’s report........"
".....In a related context, Shihab news agency quoted informed sources in Washington as saying that a meeting between PA representatives and an Israeli delegation took place in Washington to persuade the PA to withdraw its support for Goldstone’s report.
The source told Shihab that the PA officials initially rejected the Israeli request, until Israeli officer Eli Ofarham showed up and displayed on his laptop a videotaped file showing Mahmoud Abbas urging Israel war minister Ehud Barak to continue the war on Gaza.
The sources also revealed that the PA official also listened to a recorded telephone conversation between director of the general staff office Dov Weissglas and Abbas’s aide Tayeb Abdelrahim in which the latter called on Israel to invade the refugee camps of Jabaliya and Al-Shati and said that the fall of those camps would end the rule of Hamas.
Abbas urged Barak to continue the war on Gaza and Abelrahim called on the Israelis to invade Jabalya and Shati refugee camps to finish off Hamas.
Weissglas, according to the record, said that this would lead to thousands of casualties among citizens, but Abdelrahim stressed that they all elected Hamas and chose their own destiny.
The sources added that the Israeli delegation threatened to exhibit these recorded materials to the UN members and the media and demanded the PA officials to pledge in writing not to give any country a permission to adopt Goldstone’s report........"
This is an appeal for Jews to make a strong showing in support of the
Goldstone report - within 24 hours. PLEASE SEND YOUR NAME AND
ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION TO THIS EMAIL ADDRESS:
jewssayno@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 9:28 PM
Subject: Please Join Jews Say No: Jewish Appeal to Support the
Goldstone Report
Dear Friends,
We are circulating the following letter and hope you and/or your
organization will sign it. We'd like to get as many signatures over the
next 24 hours and then try to get it placed as a letter or piece in one
of the Jewish (and maybe international) newspapers. We hope you agree
with us that it is critical for our voices to be heard!
Please email us at (jewssayno@gmail.com) if we can add your name.
Thank-you,
Jews Say No
Nicholas Abramson
Elly Bulkin
Nina Felshin
Sherry Gorelick
Jane Hirschmann
Carol Horwitz
Alan Levine
Helaine Meisler
Gail Miller
Carol Munter
Donna Nevel
Ray Wofsky
Dorothy Zellner
Jewish Appeal to Support the Goldstone Report
The primary author of the recently released UN Report on Gaza, the
internationally respected jurist Richard Goldstone, has been attacked
by establishment voices within the Jewish community. When those within
a community try to “excommunicate” and dishonor a truth-teller, it is
our obligation and responsibility to speak out vehemently on their
behalf and on behalf of the truth they bring.
By all accounts, Judge Goldstone, who has a deep connection to Israel,
approached his task with no pre-conceptions about what he and his team
would find as they investigated the circumstances and aftermath of the
Israeli attack on Gaza. Goldstone is a former South African
constitutional law court judge who also served as a prosecutor of the
Yugoslav and Rwandan war crimes tribunals. His credentials for this
task are impeccable.
For following where the truth led him and releasing a report
detailing human rights abuses and violations of international law by
Israel, as well as Hamas, Judge Goldstone should be applauded for his
honesty and integrity. Instead, he and the report have been viciously
and relentlessly attacked by many within the Jewish community.
When it comes to Israel, hard-core censorship and intimidation by those
claiming to speak in the name of the Jewish people have been the order
of the day. Our saying, "Three Jews--four opinions," reflects the
traditional Jewish encouragement to argue and debate. But the reality,
sadly, is that diverse opinions are welcome--except when it comes to
Israel.
We must hold the Israeli government and the Jewish establishment
accountable for attempting to vilify a truth-teller and for suppressing
the truth about Israeli government crimes against the Palestinian
people. We call upon each and every one of us to speak out at every
opportunity--at our community centers and synagogues, in our homes, in
the street, wherever we go.
We must demand that the truth be heard and that those claiming to speak
in our name stop manipulating truths that have been well-documented for
years, long before the Goldstone report. We are also appalled by the
Obama Administration’s reaction to the report. We call for a fair and
impartial investigation of the report’s allegations by non-military
institutions in Israel. Failing that, we call for an investigation by
the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Let us begin the New Year in the pursuit of justice.
Goldstone report - within 24 hours. PLEASE SEND YOUR NAME AND
ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION TO THIS EMAIL ADDRESS:
jewssayno@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 9:28 PM
Subject: Please Join Jews Say No: Jewish Appeal to Support the
Goldstone Report
Dear Friends,
We are circulating the following letter and hope you and/or your
organization will sign it. We'd like to get as many signatures over the
next 24 hours and then try to get it placed as a letter or piece in one
of the Jewish (and maybe international) newspapers. We hope you agree
with us that it is critical for our voices to be heard!
Please email us at (jewssayno@gmail.com) if we can add your name.
Thank-you,
Jews Say No
Nicholas Abramson
Elly Bulkin
Nina Felshin
Sherry Gorelick
Jane Hirschmann
Carol Horwitz
Alan Levine
Helaine Meisler
Gail Miller
Carol Munter
Donna Nevel
Ray Wofsky
Dorothy Zellner
Jewish Appeal to Support the Goldstone Report
The primary author of the recently released UN Report on Gaza, the
internationally respected jurist Richard Goldstone, has been attacked
by establishment voices within the Jewish community. When those within
a community try to “excommunicate” and dishonor a truth-teller, it is
our obligation and responsibility to speak out vehemently on their
behalf and on behalf of the truth they bring.
By all accounts, Judge Goldstone, who has a deep connection to Israel,
approached his task with no pre-conceptions about what he and his team
would find as they investigated the circumstances and aftermath of the
Israeli attack on Gaza. Goldstone is a former South African
constitutional law court judge who also served as a prosecutor of the
Yugoslav and Rwandan war crimes tribunals. His credentials for this
task are impeccable.
For following where the truth led him and releasing a report
detailing human rights abuses and violations of international law by
Israel, as well as Hamas, Judge Goldstone should be applauded for his
honesty and integrity. Instead, he and the report have been viciously
and relentlessly attacked by many within the Jewish community.
When it comes to Israel, hard-core censorship and intimidation by those
claiming to speak in the name of the Jewish people have been the order
of the day. Our saying, "Three Jews--four opinions," reflects the
traditional Jewish encouragement to argue and debate. But the reality,
sadly, is that diverse opinions are welcome--except when it comes to
Israel.
We must hold the Israeli government and the Jewish establishment
accountable for attempting to vilify a truth-teller and for suppressing
the truth about Israeli government crimes against the Palestinian
people. We call upon each and every one of us to speak out at every
opportunity--at our community centers and synagogues, in our homes, in
the street, wherever we go.
We must demand that the truth be heard and that those claiming to speak
in our name stop manipulating truths that have been well-documented for
years, long before the Goldstone report. We are also appalled by the
Obama Administration’s reaction to the report. We call for a fair and
impartial investigation of the report’s allegations by non-military
institutions in Israel. Failing that, we call for an investigation by
the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Let us begin the New Year in the pursuit of justice.
Working for peace is a form of prayer
By Bradley Burston
It's been a decade and a half that fanatics on both sides have ruined our lives. But there's a change coming. Whether the extremists like it or not. The sign came on the eve of the Sukkot festival, when Israel freed a group of Palestinian women prisoners in exchange for a video of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, held by Hamas for well over three years.
The exchange was a quiet tectonic shift. The families of the Palestinian women told Israel television that they hoped that the Shalit family would soon be as happy as they were. A natural response, to be sure, but shocking in contrast to the tone of years past.
The exchange came about not because Ismail Haniyeh and Benjamin Netanyahu wanted it, and certainly not Avigdor Lieberman and Mahmoud Zahar. It came about because Palestinians and Israelis wanted it. They want to see their loved ones come home. And the result may well be a tectonic shift in the peace process, deriving from an issue of crucial importance to huge numbers of Israelis and Palestinians, one overshadowed in most accounts of the Mideast impasse, which is often portrayed as confined largely to questions of borders, holy sites, refugee repatriation and settler repatriation.
A prisoner exchange, in the context of a wider deal encompassing the Israeli siege on Gaza, rocket fire against Israel, and accompanied by Fatah-Hamas rapprochement and close Quartet involvement, could spark powerful, publicly supported momentum toward the establishment of Palestinian statehood and an eventual solution of the conflict.
There was something propitious about the timing of the release of the prisoners and of proof that Gilad Shalit was alive. Another sign may well come later this month. An unapologetically pro-peace and pro-Israel political convention may prove to be a landmark event in American Jewish history, and a turning point in the relationship between Israel and the largest Jewish community in the Diaspora.
The national conference of J Street will see an unprecedented North
American gathering of activists seeking a Mideast future anchored by the co-existence of a safely independent Israel and a justly independent Palestine.
Then there is the matter of Sukkot, a time of deep gladness and imminent judgment. It is a time for leaving the armor of the comfort zone, for going out and setting up a vulnerable shelter which allows neighbors to come not only as guests, but as equals.
May we take the opportunity to forget, for the moment, to hate. May we take our stomped expectations, our crumpled wish lists, our boiling blood and our lanced dreams, and still have the vision to seek a future in which two curiously similar, wholly incompatible peoples can be themselves, both secure, both self-governing, both truly independent. Two states.
Do people outside of the Holy Land have the right to push for changes in the Israeli-Palestinian equation? Absolutely. There are more Palestinians living outside of Palestine than within it, and more Jews living outside of the Jewish state than within it. For those who feel it, Palestine and Israel are certainly part of them, a core of their identity.
But in a region which needs healing much more than it needs hatred, it is more important than ever that activism be oriented toward a goal that can work. God knows, there are enough well-financed extremists working on both sides for a one-state solution that disenfranchises the other. As the real common enemy of both sides, fanatics don't need more help. They are more than capable of delaying peace on their own. They're praying as hard as they can that the two-state solution fails.
Yet prayer can also arouse new awareness, recover lost hope, and broaden compassion, and that is what the two-state solution requires. If it is to succeed, this is the time. If it is to succeed, the groups mentioned below are some of the people who could make it happen. They'll need all the help, and prayers, they can get.
It's only fitting. Working for peace is itself a form of prayer. Bearing the taunts, the frustration, the abuse from your own side and the distrust of the other, and yet retaining the faith and the power to keep on, is worship at its core. Working for peace is doing God's work.
Especially now. Now that extremism has corrupted two of the world's great religions. It has distorted them, taken them over, driven them as tools and engines of fanaticism. It has taken the two religions most zealous in their opposition to idolatry, and commanded them to hold certain collections of stones, certain parcels of soil, sacred beyond human life.
It has taken two peoples descended from one man, and turned them into mortal enemies. It has taken two peoples schooled and skilled as no others in the art of bargaining, negotiation, and reaching agreements, and has forbidden compromise, openness, creativity, compassion, accommodation, as forms of treason and mortal sin. It has taken one God, and taught Jews that Allah is not their Almighty, and Muslims that Elohim is not their All Merciful.
Working for peace is a form of reclaiming holiness lost. Like prayer, working for peace is a way of meeting, at long last, and often in surprise, our own hearts. The heart, that fist of muscle which appears from the outside to be in a continual fight with itself. Working for peace is a way to find out what that fight is really for.
By Bradley Burston
It's been a decade and a half that fanatics on both sides have ruined our lives. But there's a change coming. Whether the extremists like it or not. The sign came on the eve of the Sukkot festival, when Israel freed a group of Palestinian women prisoners in exchange for a video of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, held by Hamas for well over three years.
The exchange was a quiet tectonic shift. The families of the Palestinian women told Israel television that they hoped that the Shalit family would soon be as happy as they were. A natural response, to be sure, but shocking in contrast to the tone of years past.
The exchange came about not because Ismail Haniyeh and Benjamin Netanyahu wanted it, and certainly not Avigdor Lieberman and Mahmoud Zahar. It came about because Palestinians and Israelis wanted it. They want to see their loved ones come home. And the result may well be a tectonic shift in the peace process, deriving from an issue of crucial importance to huge numbers of Israelis and Palestinians, one overshadowed in most accounts of the Mideast impasse, which is often portrayed as confined largely to questions of borders, holy sites, refugee repatriation and settler repatriation.
A prisoner exchange, in the context of a wider deal encompassing the Israeli siege on Gaza, rocket fire against Israel, and accompanied by Fatah-Hamas rapprochement and close Quartet involvement, could spark powerful, publicly supported momentum toward the establishment of Palestinian statehood and an eventual solution of the conflict.
There was something propitious about the timing of the release of the prisoners and of proof that Gilad Shalit was alive. Another sign may well come later this month. An unapologetically pro-peace and pro-Israel political convention may prove to be a landmark event in American Jewish history, and a turning point in the relationship between Israel and the largest Jewish community in the Diaspora.
The national conference of J Street will see an unprecedented North
American gathering of activists seeking a Mideast future anchored by the co-existence of a safely independent Israel and a justly independent Palestine.
Then there is the matter of Sukkot, a time of deep gladness and imminent judgment. It is a time for leaving the armor of the comfort zone, for going out and setting up a vulnerable shelter which allows neighbors to come not only as guests, but as equals.
May we take the opportunity to forget, for the moment, to hate. May we take our stomped expectations, our crumpled wish lists, our boiling blood and our lanced dreams, and still have the vision to seek a future in which two curiously similar, wholly incompatible peoples can be themselves, both secure, both self-governing, both truly independent. Two states.
Do people outside of the Holy Land have the right to push for changes in the Israeli-Palestinian equation? Absolutely. There are more Palestinians living outside of Palestine than within it, and more Jews living outside of the Jewish state than within it. For those who feel it, Palestine and Israel are certainly part of them, a core of their identity.
But in a region which needs healing much more than it needs hatred, it is more important than ever that activism be oriented toward a goal that can work. God knows, there are enough well-financed extremists working on both sides for a one-state solution that disenfranchises the other. As the real common enemy of both sides, fanatics don't need more help. They are more than capable of delaying peace on their own. They're praying as hard as they can that the two-state solution fails.
Yet prayer can also arouse new awareness, recover lost hope, and broaden compassion, and that is what the two-state solution requires. If it is to succeed, this is the time. If it is to succeed, the groups mentioned below are some of the people who could make it happen. They'll need all the help, and prayers, they can get.
It's only fitting. Working for peace is itself a form of prayer. Bearing the taunts, the frustration, the abuse from your own side and the distrust of the other, and yet retaining the faith and the power to keep on, is worship at its core. Working for peace is doing God's work.
Especially now. Now that extremism has corrupted two of the world's great religions. It has distorted them, taken them over, driven them as tools and engines of fanaticism. It has taken the two religions most zealous in their opposition to idolatry, and commanded them to hold certain collections of stones, certain parcels of soil, sacred beyond human life.
It has taken two peoples descended from one man, and turned them into mortal enemies. It has taken two peoples schooled and skilled as no others in the art of bargaining, negotiation, and reaching agreements, and has forbidden compromise, openness, creativity, compassion, accommodation, as forms of treason and mortal sin. It has taken one God, and taught Jews that Allah is not their Almighty, and Muslims that Elohim is not their All Merciful.
Working for peace is a form of reclaiming holiness lost. Like prayer, working for peace is a way of meeting, at long last, and often in surprise, our own hearts. The heart, that fist of muscle which appears from the outside to be in a continual fight with itself. Working for peace is a way to find out what that fight is really for.
Palestinian official: Israel deliberately sparking fire in Jerusalem
By Avi Issacharoff Haaretz Correspondent
A senior Palestinian official on Tuesday accused Israel of deliberately creating "an extremely dangerous situation" in East Jerusalem, to trigger violence, justify a crackdown and tighten its grip on the disputed city.
"Israel is lighting matches in the hope of sparking a fire, deliberately escalating tensions in occupied East Jerusalem rather than taking steps to placate the situation," chief peace negotiator Saeb Erekat said in a statement before meetings later this week with U.S. President Barack Obama's envoy.
Palestinian leaders have issued a series of warnings in the past week after clashes at Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem's Old City between Israeli police and protesters, over alleged attempts by Jewish religious activists to enter the site.
Advertisement
The Western-backed Palestinian government on Monday said it would "confront Israel" diplomatically over the rise in tension, after another day of clashes between groups of stone-throwing youths and police firing tear-gas and plastic bullets.
The United States and Jordan are trying to ease the tensions surrounding the Temple Mount area in Jerusalem, with Jordan asking Israel to prevent the entry of Jews and tourists to the site until the situation calms down, sources close to the situation told Haaretz.
Confrontations continued Monday between Palestinian demonstrators and security forces. One Israeli soldier was stabbed and the number of people detained since the latest disturbances began reached 50.
Since 2003 the Israel Police has allowed free access to the Temple Mount to Jews and tourists from 7:30 to 10 A.M. and from 12:30 to 1:30 P.M., via the Mugrabi Gate.
Before the outbreak of the second intifada in September 2000, these visits had to be coordinated with the Waqf religious trust, which is under Jordanian control. Between 2000 and 2003, non-Muslims were completely barred from the Temple Mount area, until the Israel Police decided unilaterally to reverse the ban.
A senior Jordanian source told Haaretz that the police must keep Jewish religious extremists away from the Temple Mount and keep the Mugrabi Gate closed. "That will calm the atmosphere while respecting the Jordanian role in Al-Aqsa Mosque," he said.
The Palestinian Authority, which also has an interest in calming the situation, is to hold negotiations on the rules for visiting the compound with Israel and the Waqf, with the aim of forging an agreement that will allow tourists to visit under the sole supervision of the Waqf.
Hatem Abdel Qader, PA adviser on Jerusalem affairs, who was arrested on suspicion of incitement three days ago and later released, approves of such an agreement. He says Israel's unilateral decision to let non-Muslims enter the Temple Mount offends Muslim worshipers because the women among the former often dress inappropriately.
U.S. diplomats, meanwhile, are pressuring both the PA and Israel to work to reduce tensions. U.S. officials have spoken with Abdel Qader and stressed that everyone involved must take action to prevent the situation from worsening. "We're not interested in an escalation," one Fatah official said, praising the decision by the Israel Police to keep the Mugrabi Gate closed on Monday.
There were a number of incidents across Jerusalem Monday: Near the Anata (Shuafat) refugee camp a Palestinian teen stabbed a Border Police officer, wounding him moderately, before being arrested. In the evening Palestinians threw rocks at police officers near the checkpoint at the camp's entrance.
In Ras al Amud, east of the Old City, four police officers were injured when Palestinian teenagers threw rocks at them; 10 suspects were arrested. Police officers dressed as Arabs arrested masked Palestinian teens who threw rocks at police after officers kept a large number of Palestinians from approaching the Old City and Temple Mount.
In the Wadi Joz neighborhood there was a confrontation between police officers and about 100 supporters of the Islamic Movement's northern branch when the police tried to approach the Old City. The crowd was dispersed with little violence.
It now appears, however, that the Islamic Movement's northern branch is trying to fan the flames. Sheikh Ra'ad Salah, the branch's leader, called on all Muslims on Monday to come to Al-Aqsa Mosque and remain inside for as long as it takes "to protect Al-Aqsa." He told an Arab television station that the Israeli occupation seeks to build a synagogue on Al-Aqsa Mosque.
"We call on everyone who is able to enter Al-Aqsa Mosque immediately and remain there for as long as required, for the sake of Al-Quds [Jerusalem] and for the sake of Al-Aqsa," Salah said in an interview.
"As long as there is occupation [by Israel], there is danger [to the mosque]. We must be in a state of constant readiness because of the potential damage to 1 billion Muslims. Al-Quds is ours and was, and is, sacred ground for Muslims. That is our position. We will not concede even if we die for this position. We will continue with these measures for as long as Al-Aqsa is under threat."
By Avi Issacharoff Haaretz Correspondent
A senior Palestinian official on Tuesday accused Israel of deliberately creating "an extremely dangerous situation" in East Jerusalem, to trigger violence, justify a crackdown and tighten its grip on the disputed city.
"Israel is lighting matches in the hope of sparking a fire, deliberately escalating tensions in occupied East Jerusalem rather than taking steps to placate the situation," chief peace negotiator Saeb Erekat said in a statement before meetings later this week with U.S. President Barack Obama's envoy.
Palestinian leaders have issued a series of warnings in the past week after clashes at Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem's Old City between Israeli police and protesters, over alleged attempts by Jewish religious activists to enter the site.
Advertisement
The Western-backed Palestinian government on Monday said it would "confront Israel" diplomatically over the rise in tension, after another day of clashes between groups of stone-throwing youths and police firing tear-gas and plastic bullets.
The United States and Jordan are trying to ease the tensions surrounding the Temple Mount area in Jerusalem, with Jordan asking Israel to prevent the entry of Jews and tourists to the site until the situation calms down, sources close to the situation told Haaretz.
Confrontations continued Monday between Palestinian demonstrators and security forces. One Israeli soldier was stabbed and the number of people detained since the latest disturbances began reached 50.
Since 2003 the Israel Police has allowed free access to the Temple Mount to Jews and tourists from 7:30 to 10 A.M. and from 12:30 to 1:30 P.M., via the Mugrabi Gate.
Before the outbreak of the second intifada in September 2000, these visits had to be coordinated with the Waqf religious trust, which is under Jordanian control. Between 2000 and 2003, non-Muslims were completely barred from the Temple Mount area, until the Israel Police decided unilaterally to reverse the ban.
A senior Jordanian source told Haaretz that the police must keep Jewish religious extremists away from the Temple Mount and keep the Mugrabi Gate closed. "That will calm the atmosphere while respecting the Jordanian role in Al-Aqsa Mosque," he said.
The Palestinian Authority, which also has an interest in calming the situation, is to hold negotiations on the rules for visiting the compound with Israel and the Waqf, with the aim of forging an agreement that will allow tourists to visit under the sole supervision of the Waqf.
Hatem Abdel Qader, PA adviser on Jerusalem affairs, who was arrested on suspicion of incitement three days ago and later released, approves of such an agreement. He says Israel's unilateral decision to let non-Muslims enter the Temple Mount offends Muslim worshipers because the women among the former often dress inappropriately.
U.S. diplomats, meanwhile, are pressuring both the PA and Israel to work to reduce tensions. U.S. officials have spoken with Abdel Qader and stressed that everyone involved must take action to prevent the situation from worsening. "We're not interested in an escalation," one Fatah official said, praising the decision by the Israel Police to keep the Mugrabi Gate closed on Monday.
There were a number of incidents across Jerusalem Monday: Near the Anata (Shuafat) refugee camp a Palestinian teen stabbed a Border Police officer, wounding him moderately, before being arrested. In the evening Palestinians threw rocks at police officers near the checkpoint at the camp's entrance.
In Ras al Amud, east of the Old City, four police officers were injured when Palestinian teenagers threw rocks at them; 10 suspects were arrested. Police officers dressed as Arabs arrested masked Palestinian teens who threw rocks at police after officers kept a large number of Palestinians from approaching the Old City and Temple Mount.
In the Wadi Joz neighborhood there was a confrontation between police officers and about 100 supporters of the Islamic Movement's northern branch when the police tried to approach the Old City. The crowd was dispersed with little violence.
It now appears, however, that the Islamic Movement's northern branch is trying to fan the flames. Sheikh Ra'ad Salah, the branch's leader, called on all Muslims on Monday to come to Al-Aqsa Mosque and remain inside for as long as it takes "to protect Al-Aqsa." He told an Arab television station that the Israeli occupation seeks to build a synagogue on Al-Aqsa Mosque.
"We call on everyone who is able to enter Al-Aqsa Mosque immediately and remain there for as long as required, for the sake of Al-Quds [Jerusalem] and for the sake of Al-Aqsa," Salah said in an interview.
"As long as there is occupation [by Israel], there is danger [to the mosque]. We must be in a state of constant readiness because of the potential damage to 1 billion Muslims. Al-Quds is ours and was, and is, sacred ground for Muslims. That is our position. We will not concede even if we die for this position. We will continue with these measures for as long as Al-Aqsa is under threat."
More than 40 Palestinians from 10 cities across the United States met in Chicago, IL on September 26, 2009 for the first major USPCN convening since the Popular Conference in 2008 and several national events in 2009 including the Hanien tour, Bishop Attallah Hanna's visit and our participation in the Viva Palestina convoy to Gaza. Grounded in our attachment to Palestine and justice for all Palestinians, USPCN members and participants reaffirmed our commitment to continue the work of USPCN as a networking body giving a voice and representation to Palestinians in the United States.
Given the current lack of responsible and accountable Palestinian leadership and its absolute complicity to U.S. and Israeli demands violating International law on the ground today, participants voiced the critical need for a democratically elected Palestinian body in Palestine and the Diaspora, including the US. Mahmud Abbas and the PA must be held accountable for their disastrous policies, including the decision to withdraw PA support for the Goldstone Report at the UN Human Rights Council. The Palestinian "government's" failure to challenge Israel's policies towards Gaza, the Aqsa Mosque, and Palestinian prisoners testifies to its utter impotence. Furthermore, Abbas, Fayyad and their inner circle bear complete responsibility for undermining, at the behest of the US and Israel, Palestinian calls for unification.
USPCN upholds and supports all attempts to reach Palestinian national unity as a primary step to defend our national rights as a people. We ask all factions, especially Fateh and Hamas, to make unity against plans to liquidate the Palestinian struggle a top priority, and to remain committed to the principles that unite Palestinians inside Palestine and in exile, namely the right of return, right to self determination, and the end of the colonization and occupation of Palestine.
Steadfast in our commitment to the principles of liberation and return, the meeting in Chicago was productive, with several critical decisions made and projects initiated.
These decisions and projects are as follows:
USPCN Structure
Reviewed and affirmed New York Meeting summary: "We continue working as a network among different individuals and organization, establishing new contacts and local chapters; and the CC (Coordinating Committee) will be the primary resource for coordination".
Adopted a structure for the USPCN body.
Formed and elected a new National Coordinating Committee of 19 members, 16 were elected from their local communities and 3 special skills members are yet to be determined.
USPCN Projects
Participation in the United States Social Forum (USSF) in 2010.
Sponsoring youth camps in the Eastern and Western regions of the U.S. followed by a national youth delegation to Palestine.
Convening a second Popular Conference to take place in 2010.
USPCN Committees
Establishing the Jerusalem Committee: connecting Palestinians in the US to national figures in Palestine (Mosques, churches and social justice groups) to protect Jerusalem from the continuous Israeli attacks and land confiscations.
Resisting visa restrictions on Palestinians: campaign to lift restrictions on Palestinian U.S. citizens' visas to visit Jerusalem and other parts of Palestine
Sister City projects: supporting local family sponsorship programs and encouraging programs that aim at twinning US and Palestinian cities and towns.
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS): supporting the BDS movement by providing outreach and networking assistance when possible in all cities where the USPCN has local committees.
Securing scholarships for Palestinian refugees to attend universities inside Palestine.
Breaking the Siege on Gaza: assist, participate and sponsor solidarity attempts to help lift the siege on Gaza.
USPCN Next Planning Meeting
The participants agreed to hold their next planning meeting in the city of San Francisco on December 11-12, 2009.
For more information or to get involved with the USPCN, please email uspcn@palestineconference.org
Given the current lack of responsible and accountable Palestinian leadership and its absolute complicity to U.S. and Israeli demands violating International law on the ground today, participants voiced the critical need for a democratically elected Palestinian body in Palestine and the Diaspora, including the US. Mahmud Abbas and the PA must be held accountable for their disastrous policies, including the decision to withdraw PA support for the Goldstone Report at the UN Human Rights Council. The Palestinian "government's" failure to challenge Israel's policies towards Gaza, the Aqsa Mosque, and Palestinian prisoners testifies to its utter impotence. Furthermore, Abbas, Fayyad and their inner circle bear complete responsibility for undermining, at the behest of the US and Israel, Palestinian calls for unification.
USPCN upholds and supports all attempts to reach Palestinian national unity as a primary step to defend our national rights as a people. We ask all factions, especially Fateh and Hamas, to make unity against plans to liquidate the Palestinian struggle a top priority, and to remain committed to the principles that unite Palestinians inside Palestine and in exile, namely the right of return, right to self determination, and the end of the colonization and occupation of Palestine.
Steadfast in our commitment to the principles of liberation and return, the meeting in Chicago was productive, with several critical decisions made and projects initiated.
These decisions and projects are as follows:
USPCN Structure
Reviewed and affirmed New York Meeting summary: "We continue working as a network among different individuals and organization, establishing new contacts and local chapters; and the CC (Coordinating Committee) will be the primary resource for coordination".
Adopted a structure for the USPCN body.
Formed and elected a new National Coordinating Committee of 19 members, 16 were elected from their local communities and 3 special skills members are yet to be determined.
USPCN Projects
Participation in the United States Social Forum (USSF) in 2010.
Sponsoring youth camps in the Eastern and Western regions of the U.S. followed by a national youth delegation to Palestine.
Convening a second Popular Conference to take place in 2010.
USPCN Committees
Establishing the Jerusalem Committee: connecting Palestinians in the US to national figures in Palestine (Mosques, churches and social justice groups) to protect Jerusalem from the continuous Israeli attacks and land confiscations.
Resisting visa restrictions on Palestinians: campaign to lift restrictions on Palestinian U.S. citizens' visas to visit Jerusalem and other parts of Palestine
Sister City projects: supporting local family sponsorship programs and encouraging programs that aim at twinning US and Palestinian cities and towns.
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS): supporting the BDS movement by providing outreach and networking assistance when possible in all cities where the USPCN has local committees.
Securing scholarships for Palestinian refugees to attend universities inside Palestine.
Breaking the Siege on Gaza: assist, participate and sponsor solidarity attempts to help lift the siege on Gaza.
USPCN Next Planning Meeting
The participants agreed to hold their next planning meeting in the city of San Francisco on December 11-12, 2009.
For more information or to get involved with the USPCN, please email uspcn@palestineconference.org
Palestinians outraged over Abbas bowing to Israel, US
Ramallah, West Bank – Demonstrators descended Monday on this city's most famous traffic circle, Manara Square, which for years was a launching point of Palestinian protests against the Israeli occupation.
This time, however, the demonstrators were directing their ire against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Local leaders bellowed into the flag-waving crowd, accusing Mr. Abbas of capitulating to US and Israeli pressure. While frustration has been building for several weeks, the catalyst was the PA's decision late last week to delay a vote on the Goldstone report, the most comprehensive international investigation to date of Israeli conduct in the devastating Gaza war.
"This report was an opportunity to expose Israel's behavior," says protestor Omar Mansour, who traveled from Jenin to participate. "This postponement is embarrassing not just for Palestinians, but for everyone in the world who tried to help us attain justice. Even worse, the PA leadership put itself in this position at a time when there are no negotiations to save."
While the demonstration was small – several hundred men and women participated – Abbas faces a serious threat to his credibility and to his ability to enforce public compliance with any promises Palestinian negotiators make in renewed talks with Israel. Mr. Abbas's decision to ask the Palestinian Authority to delay a United Nations Human Rights Council vote on the recommendations of the Goldstone report has sparked widespread anger in the West Bank and Gaza.
"The extent of outrage over this is really tremendous," says Mamdouh Aker, the Commissioner-General of the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights.
The anger appears to extend beyond the Palestinian territories. A day after criticizing the Palestinian Authority for backing down against Israel, Syria canceled an Abbas visit scheduled for Tuesday, reported the Associated Press in Damascus.
Abbas faces censure
The UN investigation, led by South African Judge Richard Goldstone, produced a 575-page document that says there is sufficient evidence that both the Israeli army and Hamas committed war crimes. But the report reserves the bulk of its criticism for Israel.
The UN Human Rights Council was set to approve the report's recommendations – which included asking the UN Security Council to refer war crimes cases to the International Criminal Court if either side failed to launch investigations into their alleged crimes within six months.
Israel has gone on a diplomatic offensive since the report's release in mid-September, challenging its credibility and saying it is full of bias and inaccuracies. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared last week that if the report were to be adopted and forwarded to the UN Security Council, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be plunged into a deep freeze.
Under pressure from both Jerusalem and Washington to give the peace process top priority, Abbas asked the Palestinian leadership at UN headquarters in Geneva to postpone a vote until the council next meets in March. Without Palestinian participation, other Arab and Muslim nations didn't press the matter further.
The deluge of censure that has emanated from almost all major Palestinian political factions since the decision led Mr. Abbas to announce on Sunday the creation of a committee to investigate his decision to postpone. But many Palestinians said that seemed to be an attempt to avoid taking responsibility.
"When we look at this issue, it seems that no one could have taken this decision but Abbas. He should accept responsibility and try to explain what happened," says Dr. Aker of the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights.
Aker said that the three-member committee Abbas announced Sunday would only have teeth if it were run by an independent figure, preferably a judge. "It can't be headed by an insider. It should be headed by a judge and include a representative from the human rights community," he says.
The Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) met on Monday to discuss the issue. One of the members said the council had denounced the PA leadership's decision to postpone the Gaza report.
"What we see is that this opportunity to seek clarity on the events in Gaza has been deferred, and that makes it much more difficult to follow up," says Qais Abdul-Karim Abu Leila, a PLC member from Ramallah.
Hamas has issued perhaps the most stinging criticism of all. On Monday, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh accused Abbas of personally instructing his representative in Geneva to revoke the representative's demand that the Goldstone Report be adopted, and accused him of "betrayal" of his people. Haniyeh said that this was typical of the PA and that Palestinian unity talks would not succeed unless there was change in Ramallah.
Palestinian anger over Arafat-style diktats
The public anger over the delayed vote on the Goldstone report comes on the heels of other incidents in which Palestinians believe their leaders capitulated to external pressures. Foremost among these was Abbas' agreement to meet last month in New York with Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama at the UN General Assembly. Since then, indirect talks have continued in the US under the aegis of US Middle East envoy George Mitchell.
Abbas had initially vowed that neither of these would happen unless Israel agreed to a settlement freeze, which it has not.
"For the Palestinian public, there are three errors we see," explains Khalil Shaheen, a columnist with Al-Ayyam, a Palestinian newspaper.
"The first is that Abbas took the decision to participate in the trilateral summit in New York, and the second was breaking the promise not to conduct any negotiations with the Israelis until they agree to a settlement freeze," he says. Finally, he says, was the decision to postpone the Goldstone report. "This was against the will of the Palestinians. The Palestinian leadership needs to reevaluate the situation and regain trust with the Palestinian public."
Mr. Shaheen says there is a sense that PA decisionmaking does not include consultations with legislators or PLO bodies like the Fatah Central Committee, which was promised more influence at a party-wide conference in August.
"What's important here is that the decisionmaking is taking place outside the government," he says. "I'm afraid we're repeating the same patterns of the Arafat era, in which decisions were taken by one person. I think this is the core issue of the anger over the Goldstone report. There is a problem of taking decisions in the Palestinian Authority, and a feeling that Abbas is leaving the political establishment in the margins."
Ramallah, West Bank – Demonstrators descended Monday on this city's most famous traffic circle, Manara Square, which for years was a launching point of Palestinian protests against the Israeli occupation.
This time, however, the demonstrators were directing their ire against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Local leaders bellowed into the flag-waving crowd, accusing Mr. Abbas of capitulating to US and Israeli pressure. While frustration has been building for several weeks, the catalyst was the PA's decision late last week to delay a vote on the Goldstone report, the most comprehensive international investigation to date of Israeli conduct in the devastating Gaza war.
"This report was an opportunity to expose Israel's behavior," says protestor Omar Mansour, who traveled from Jenin to participate. "This postponement is embarrassing not just for Palestinians, but for everyone in the world who tried to help us attain justice. Even worse, the PA leadership put itself in this position at a time when there are no negotiations to save."
While the demonstration was small – several hundred men and women participated – Abbas faces a serious threat to his credibility and to his ability to enforce public compliance with any promises Palestinian negotiators make in renewed talks with Israel. Mr. Abbas's decision to ask the Palestinian Authority to delay a United Nations Human Rights Council vote on the recommendations of the Goldstone report has sparked widespread anger in the West Bank and Gaza.
"The extent of outrage over this is really tremendous," says Mamdouh Aker, the Commissioner-General of the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights.
The anger appears to extend beyond the Palestinian territories. A day after criticizing the Palestinian Authority for backing down against Israel, Syria canceled an Abbas visit scheduled for Tuesday, reported the Associated Press in Damascus.
Abbas faces censure
The UN investigation, led by South African Judge Richard Goldstone, produced a 575-page document that says there is sufficient evidence that both the Israeli army and Hamas committed war crimes. But the report reserves the bulk of its criticism for Israel.
The UN Human Rights Council was set to approve the report's recommendations – which included asking the UN Security Council to refer war crimes cases to the International Criminal Court if either side failed to launch investigations into their alleged crimes within six months.
Israel has gone on a diplomatic offensive since the report's release in mid-September, challenging its credibility and saying it is full of bias and inaccuracies. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared last week that if the report were to be adopted and forwarded to the UN Security Council, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be plunged into a deep freeze.
Under pressure from both Jerusalem and Washington to give the peace process top priority, Abbas asked the Palestinian leadership at UN headquarters in Geneva to postpone a vote until the council next meets in March. Without Palestinian participation, other Arab and Muslim nations didn't press the matter further.
The deluge of censure that has emanated from almost all major Palestinian political factions since the decision led Mr. Abbas to announce on Sunday the creation of a committee to investigate his decision to postpone. But many Palestinians said that seemed to be an attempt to avoid taking responsibility.
"When we look at this issue, it seems that no one could have taken this decision but Abbas. He should accept responsibility and try to explain what happened," says Dr. Aker of the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights.
Aker said that the three-member committee Abbas announced Sunday would only have teeth if it were run by an independent figure, preferably a judge. "It can't be headed by an insider. It should be headed by a judge and include a representative from the human rights community," he says.
The Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) met on Monday to discuss the issue. One of the members said the council had denounced the PA leadership's decision to postpone the Gaza report.
"What we see is that this opportunity to seek clarity on the events in Gaza has been deferred, and that makes it much more difficult to follow up," says Qais Abdul-Karim Abu Leila, a PLC member from Ramallah.
Hamas has issued perhaps the most stinging criticism of all. On Monday, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh accused Abbas of personally instructing his representative in Geneva to revoke the representative's demand that the Goldstone Report be adopted, and accused him of "betrayal" of his people. Haniyeh said that this was typical of the PA and that Palestinian unity talks would not succeed unless there was change in Ramallah.
Palestinian anger over Arafat-style diktats
The public anger over the delayed vote on the Goldstone report comes on the heels of other incidents in which Palestinians believe their leaders capitulated to external pressures. Foremost among these was Abbas' agreement to meet last month in New York with Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama at the UN General Assembly. Since then, indirect talks have continued in the US under the aegis of US Middle East envoy George Mitchell.
Abbas had initially vowed that neither of these would happen unless Israel agreed to a settlement freeze, which it has not.
"For the Palestinian public, there are three errors we see," explains Khalil Shaheen, a columnist with Al-Ayyam, a Palestinian newspaper.
"The first is that Abbas took the decision to participate in the trilateral summit in New York, and the second was breaking the promise not to conduct any negotiations with the Israelis until they agree to a settlement freeze," he says. Finally, he says, was the decision to postpone the Goldstone report. "This was against the will of the Palestinians. The Palestinian leadership needs to reevaluate the situation and regain trust with the Palestinian public."
Mr. Shaheen says there is a sense that PA decisionmaking does not include consultations with legislators or PLO bodies like the Fatah Central Committee, which was promised more influence at a party-wide conference in August.
"What's important here is that the decisionmaking is taking place outside the government," he says. "I'm afraid we're repeating the same patterns of the Arafat era, in which decisions were taken by one person. I think this is the core issue of the anger over the Goldstone report. There is a problem of taking decisions in the Palestinian Authority, and a feeling that Abbas is leaving the political establishment in the margins."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)