Netanyahu, Obama, and Peace in 2009

One step forward, two steps back. Unfortunately that is the sentiment today when reading through some of the latest reports from inside Israel and across the political spectrum.

To begin with, I encourage you to read an enlightening summary editorial in yesterday’s UK Guardian discussing the real prospects for peace in light of both the Obama Presidential victory and the ongoing uncertainty of the Israeli political system.

Let’s look at the facts:

1) A 5-month ceasefire with Hamas in Gaza has all but disintegrated; with now almost daily reports coming in of Israeli retaliation for the symbolic Qassam rocket attacks originating from the Gaza borders.

2) Fatah and Hamas have renewed their friction, with PA President Mahmoud Abbas threatening to call an early election designed to oust Hamas once and for all.

3) Frightening though it sounds, there is now the very real (if not probable) chance of Likud winning the next election on February 10th. This means a return of Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu (a man who will immediately abolosh any talks around the West Bank and Jerusalem - and will almost certainly accelerate additional settlements and extension of the now infamous separation barrier).

Never one to voice support for an Israeli politician (much less a member of Ariel Sharon’s hobbled Kadima party), but unless rival Tzipi Livni closes the gap in Israeli opinion from the hardline right, we must face the very real prospect of a return to Likud-style oppresion of the West Bank and Gaza (perhaps on a scale even worse than the years experienced under Sharon).

Lest we forget, it was Netanyahu who opposed the withdrawl from Gaza. And to help contrast his politics with that of Sharon, check out this chilling quote made at the time of Sharon’s plan to return control of Gaza to the Palestinian leadership:

Sharon gave and gave and gave, the Palestinians got and got and got, and my question is, what did we get? Nothing and nothing and nothing.

Point of order: this is Sharon we are talking about here!

There can be no illusion, Israel is heading back to the politics of 2000; back to the sparks that ignited the Second Intifada and that now threaten to extend that conflict well into 2010. What electricty we all shared at an Obama victory should (yet again) be tempered and restrained. With Netanyahu in power, there is little the new President will affect or ‘change’ in this part of the world. And now more than ever, we should fear the escalating of tensions between Israel and Iran (a country Netanyahu has repeatedly threatened with a preemptive strike - a claim that may well prove true once he takes power in February).

Those are the facts. And so is this: frightening times are ahead, rather than behind.

I’ll close this post with a quote from an exceptional piece by Gideon Livy in today’s Ha’aretz aptly titled ‘Israel Elects Its Bush‘:

Netanyahu will once again deceive, Obama will keep his distance due to other urgent problems, opportunities will be missed and the fire will flare up again. This is what we want, and this is what we will get. Nonetheless, the inauspicious polls do contribute one thing: They rip off the disguise. An Israel that votes Likud does not want peace - no ifs, ands or buts.

Can Israel Really Claim Self-Defence?

In the Western world, one of the easiest statements of clemency argued by aggressive military and political leaders has always been the act ’self-defence’. In fact, this scenario is played out in court cases, inter-personal dramas, and relationships throughout the world - awarding the claimant instant absolution for what is surely an instinctual and existential act of self-preservation (whether by a human, a group, or even a State).

We have an unfortunate use case this morning, care of the Israeli Air Force, who earlier today used F-16’s to carry out an air strike against Palestinian militants in Gaza. Citing self-defence, the IDF claims it was simply ‘eliminating a threat from radicals preparing to launch mortars into Israel’.

First, a little caveat: This post is in no way being written to defend that kind of military resistance. But it does raise an interesting and much needed debate. Can the claim of ’self-defence’ be a reasonable line of argument for an Occupying force?

For years, Israel’s response to any form of resistance to their Occupation in Gaza or the West Bank has always been dismissed by their leaders as unapologetic acts of ’self-defence’. But let us break that term and this situation down to its roots and see if that argument really makes sense.

During the Second World War, would the retribution enacted by the German Army on the population of Occupied French towns be considered self-defence? What about the decimation of Warsaw following that uprising of 1944? Or more recently, would you consider Russia’s actions in Georgia self-defence? How about Vietnam or Chechyna or Afghanistan in the 1980’s…see what I’m getting at?

The organising principal of any ’self-defence’ argument is whether a militarily superior occupying force (please note the use of the word ‘occupying’) can ever claim self-defence - and in the court of public opinion, actually get away with it.

Noam Chomsky summarizes this principal better than I can:

These little terms and phrases that we accept as absolutes - in fact, moral absolutes - such as the right to self-preservation, are being twisted and spun on such a regular basis that we lose sight of their true meaning. Perhaps that is the plan. But we have to look with better eyes than that. Ultimately, we must ensure we are not looking to politics or the media or fine public speakers for our basis of right and wrong.

Left to their devices, basic human rights such as ’self-defence’ take on a very ugly reality and often result in  the exact opposite of what they were designed to represent.

Time to re-claim our diction - and time for world leaders to stop hiding behind transparent phrasework.

Gaza: Intentional Humanitarian Disaster

In case you had forgottten about the situation in Gaza given the media fury over the U.S. Presidential Election and the Global Economic Crisis, I am unhappy to report the situation remains critical.

Earlier today Defense Minister Ehud Barak decided to shut off all fuel supplies to Gaza and to again seal the tiny prison contaning over 1.5 million trapped Palestinians.

Blaming the recent Qassam rocket attacks being fired by Hamas into Israel (which incidentally have not harmed a single Israeli ), the country continues its policy of collective punishment of the Gaza residents.

Without fuel over 40% of Gaza will be blacked out by tonight, the electrical power plants unable to run past their reserve fuel stocks which will be exhausted by 16:00 GMT this afternoon. This means no power to hospitals, schools, and homes. It is also being reported that flour reserves in Gaza will be depleted within 48 hours. That means no food either.

In effect this is an intentional humanitarian disaster being invoked by a regional superpower with the full knowledge of the West and the media.

Just because it’s not on the 6 o’clock news doesn’t mean it has disappeared.

Not only that, it’s actually getting worse.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

For a short video by Press TV on this week’s visit by European MP’s to Gaza, please see the below:

Obama’s First Act as President-Elect

It pains me to write a negative post about Barack Obama following such an historic and moving victory this week - one that actually had me feeling proud of America (for perhaps the first time in my life).

Unfortunately, as predicted in earlier posts, the real change is yet to come, and I’m less than pleased to see President-Elect Barack Obama’s first major act this week has been the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as his White House Chief-of-Staff.

Many pundits regard this position as not only a key first appointment, but as perhaps one of the most powerful positions in the administration.

(sigh)

Here are the facts. Emanuel is the son of hardline Israel sympathizers who spent a great deal of the 1940’s helping to smuggle weapons to the Irgun Zionist militia (including weapons used in the bombing of the King David hotel in 1946). He volunteered to help support the Israeli army during the first Gulf War in 1991, and maintains close and deep ties to AIPAC - ties that include accompanying (and coaching?) Obama during his infamous speech to the political action committtee in June.

Emanuel’s own father was quoted this week in the Israel paper, Ma’ariv as saying:

Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he be? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House.

During his time in Congress, Emanuel has often been described as more pro-Israel than even Bush himself - most notably in June 2003, he signed a letter criticizing Bush for being ‘insufficiently supportive of Israel’. The further content of this letter was to validate Israel’s use of assassination tactics against Palestinian leadership targets.

Could there be a clearer sign of the new administration’s stance toward Israel and the Palestinians? Needless to say, this is extremely disappointing regardless of the election euphoria that still remains.

We’ll be watching subsequent appointments very carefully…

Israel: 1

Palestine: 0