I Must Write As Long As Israeli Settlers Burn Palestinian Schools

by James M. Wall

A regular reader wrote recently and asked why I write so often about Palestine and Israel.

It was a good question and after some time for reflection I have an answer for him, inspired by a 1971 Johnny Cash song, “The Man in Black”.

Cash had been asked why he always wore black. He explains that he did so because he identifies with the poor and the hungry, the prisoners, the lonely and the old, and those who are dying in a war in a distant land, at that time, the Vietnam War.

A few years later, after “The Man In Black” became a best-selling album, Cash said:

“With the Vietnam War as painful in my mind as it was in most other Americans’, I wore it ‘in mournin’ for the lives that could have been.’ … Apart from the Vietnam War being over, I don’t see much reason to change my position … The old are still neglected, the poor are still poor, the young are still dying before their time, and we’re not making many moves to make things right. There’s still plenty of darkness to carry off.”

The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and our American wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, are today providing “plenty of darkness”. Together, these wars are today’s Vietnam.

I am aware that I cannot sing, or write simple, powerful poetry as Cash has done. But I must write about the darkness that covers our nation as it continues its pursuit of empirical conquest at a tremendous cost at home, under the guise of “fighting terror”. Indeed, “terrorism” is today’s version of the Communism that Nixon and Kissinger used as their excuse for “defending” South Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s.

Johnny Cash originally recorded “The Man in Black”  before a college audience in May, 1971, one year after the Kent State Massacre when, during a student protest against the invasion of Cambodia, Ohio national guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.

In May, 1971, Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, were still conducting a secret war, the details of which were only fully revealed on June 30, 1971, when the US Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers in the New York Times.

The story of how those Papers were finally published in the Times is vividly presented in the 2010 documentary, The Most Dangerous Man in America. The title refers to Daniel Ellsberg, the Harvard professor who courageously risked his freedom to deliver the Pentagon Papers to the Times.

Henry Kissinger, who once taught with Ellsburg at Harvard, bitterly described his former academic colleague as “the most dangerous man in America.”

Ellsberg writes of his experiences in his 2002 book, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers.

Along with the vast majority of the American public, Johnny Cash was unaware of the Vietnam war narrative which Nixon and Kissinger tried to keep secret, when he wrote the lyrics for  “The Man in Black”. What he did know was that young Americans and many Vietnamese were dying needlessly.

The lyrics are at the end of this post.

Today, with wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the West Bank Bank and Gaza our military forces, and our surrogate Israeli military forces, are involved in an overall war against what a previous American president misnamed as “the global war on terror”.

This 2010 midterm election have essentially ignored the thousands and hundreds of thousands who are dying in distant lands because of our wars. Instead,  public attention is riveted on the craziness of the Tea Party candidates, some of whom may very well end up in the Congress.

The American public does not know about the Israeli settlers who set fire to a Palestinian girls’ school building near Nablus this past week. Juan Cole, whose Informed Comment blog is a flashing light of warning to the American public, tells the story of the attack on the school:

The phrase “ethnic cleansing” conjures up a swift, comprehensive act of expulsion. But in reality, moving a large population off its land is the death of a thousand cuts, a slow, inexorable process of stealing property, harassment, forcing people into a condition of malnutrition.

The Native Americans in the Americas, the Aborigines in Australia, and the Palestinians in Israel/Palestine were only sometimes forced off their land suddenly and en masse. The gradual processes told, in the long run.

The amazing thing about what is being done to the Palestinians in the Palestinian West Bank by Israeli illegal aliens is that it is happening in full view of the world, reported on by wire services, and yet remains invisible to Western publics.

The world reacts in horror when the Taliban in Afghanistan torch girls’ schools. But Israeli squatters just set fire to the store room of a Palestinian girls’ school, and the whole school would have gone up in flames if that warehouse had not been near a water main. The Israeli illegals left behind graffiti saying ‘regards from the hills.’

Cole also reports that earlier in October,

Israeli squatters set fire to a Palestinian mosque in Bethlehem.

[Also this autumn] there is the seasonal vandalism against olive trees in Palestinian orchards, which reached a fever pitch this year. The Israeli authorities prosecute few of these offenses and almost never hand down a punishment to an Israeli squatter.

The 10 million olive trees in the West Bank and Gaza, occupying some 45 percent of the farmland, are the matrix of Palestinian existence. An attack on olive trees is a form of economic warfare of the first water.

The American public knows far more about the fumbling responses of the Republican candidate for Joe Biden’s old Delaware senate seat, than it does about the needless death of a 2-year-old Gaza child who was prevented by the Israeli army from traveling the short distance outside Gaza for specialized treatment. The Palestinian organization, Physicians for Human Rights, has that story on its website:

Nasma Abu Lasheen died on Saturday, October 16, 2010 in Gaza. Israel failed to issue her an urgent entry permit for life-saving medical treatment at Ha-Emek Medical Center in Afula, Israel. She was two years old.

Abu Lasheen, a young resident of Gaza diagnosed with Leukemia, was referred for emergency treatment in Israel on October 6, 2010. When requests to the Israeli Army for an entry permit went unanswered for several days, by way of B’tselem, the family contacted Physicians for Human Rights- Israel (PHR-Israel) for additional help.

That very same day, on October 13, 2010, PHR-Israel contacted the Gaza District Coordination Office (DCO) demanding a permit be issued immediately to the baby and her father to enable their entry into Israel. A military approval was finally granted the next afternoon, October 14, 2010.

Abu Lasheen’s medical condition had been deteriorating rapidly and by the time the permit was received, the treating doctor in Gaza, Dr. Mohammad Abu Sha’aban, said she was too sick to travel. Nasma died in the early morning hours of October 16, 2010.

Ziad Abbas works for the Middle East Children’s Alliance on a project to bring clean water to the children of Palestine. He grew up in Palestine. He writes in Counter Punch, that his work is especially personal to him because of  his own childhood experiences of growing up deprived of water.

Israel controls and uses 89% of the water resources in the West Bank, leaving 11% for the 2.5 million Palestinians. The Israeli Occupation continues to limit Palestinian access to clean water as form of collective punishment by controlling the water resources and distribution and by destroying the water that we are able to get.

During Israeli military incursions, and especially during curfews, when we could not leave our homes, Israeli soldiers would shoot the water storage tanks on our roofs. Our water would pour down the sides of our buildings unused.

During the recent attack on Gaza, Israel targeted the entire water infrastructure including the largest water purification system in Gaza. They also targeted electrical generators that supported water purification and sewage treatment.

I write about these things because American churches are still hung up on not offending their Jewish neighbors, thus choosing interfaith harmony over justice.

I write about these things because major denominational meetings, like this past summer’s General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, USA, dickered and delayed and finally decided to study further how they might best deal with the “problems” in the Middle East.

Since that Presbyterian GA meeting, two-year-old Abu Lasheen died waiting for permission to travel to an Israeli hospital. Since that meeting, Israeli settlers set fire to a Palestinian girls school, leaving behind graffiti on the wall that said, “regards from the hills”. Something about the insensitive arrogance of that graffiti implies there was not enough room on the wall to add, in Clint Eastwoodian fashion, “we’ll be back.”

I write about the American media’s blindness to the narrative of the suffering in Palestine because Tom Friedman continues to fool his liberal readers by pretending to criticize Israel when his criticism always includes the AIPAC approved list of what he insists are “facts”, but which are either outright lies or distortions of reality.

The most recent example was Friedman’s October 20 column which calls on Israel to help President Obama line up world opposition to Iran by reaching a friendly agreement with Palestinian negotiators.

Friedman opens his column with a set of “stubborn facts” which are really just a repeat of the acceptable Israeli narrative which, of course, he assures his readers are “stubborn facts”.  Only, they are not.

Here is the start of Thomas Friedman’s latest  column, followed by corrections:

Say what you want about Israel’s obstinacy at times, it remains the only country in the United Nations that another U.N. member, Iran, has openly expressed the hope that it be wiped off the map. And that same country, Iran, is trying to build a nuclear weapon.

Israel is the only country I know of in the Middle East that has unilaterally withdrawn from territory conquered in war — in Lebanon and Gaza — only to be greeted with unprovoked rocket attacks in return.

Indeed, if you want to talk about spoiled children, there is no group more spoiled by Iran and Syria than Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militia.

Hezbollah started a war against Israel in 2006 that brought death, injury and destruction to thousands of Lebanese — and Hezbollah’s punishment was to be rewarded with thousands more missiles and millions more dollars to do it again. These are stubborn facts.

Friedman’s “stubborn facts” are stubborn, alright. They are falsehoods or distortions he clings to “stubbornly”.

Iran’s President Ahmedinejad never used the phrase, “wipe Israel off the map”. That was an initial mistranslation into English which the media loved and never let go. The media has refused, as Friedman does here, to go back and obtain the original statement by Ahmedinejad in a speech he gave to a Persian audience.

The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran’s first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, when he said that “this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time” just as the Shah’s regime in Iran had vanished.

He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The “page of time” phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about.

Another error: It is true that Israel took its military forces out of Lebanon and Gaza, but it did so because the cost in Israeli lives had become too expensive to maintain the garrisons in those two areas.

The invasions had proved to be a major loss for the vastly superior Israeli forces, a fact Friedman ignores as he praises Israel for its “unilateral withdrawal” from the two countries it had invaded and failed to control.

Friedman writes that “Hezbollah started a war against Israel in 2006 that brought death, injury and destruction to thousands of Lebanese.”

Israel did launch a massive invasion of Lebanon in 2006, but who fired the first shot has been debated. Israeli sources have confirmed that Israel’s invasion plans were already on the drawing board when a border skirmish erupted, giving Israel the excuse it wanted to launch a war that, indeed, “brought death, injury and destruction to thousands of Lebanese.”

Who brought those deaths, injuries and destruction to the Lebanese? Israel, of course.

Careful research would quickly demonstrate to Friedman and every other pro-Israel pundit and politician that Friedman’s “stubborn facts” are either false or distorted.

I will continue to write on Israel and Palestine as long as pundits like Thomas Friedman have access to the pages of the New York Times, and the American public remains ignorant of the actual facts on the ground in Israel and Palestine.

The Man in Black, lyrics by Johnny Cash

Well, you wonder why I always dress in black, Why you never see bright colors on my back,  And why does my appearance always have a somber tone. Well, there’s a reason for the things that I have on.

I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down, Livin’ in the hopeless, hungry side of town, And I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime, But still is there because he’s a victim of the times.

I wear the black for those who never read, Or listened to the words that Jesus said, About the road to happiness through love and charity, Why, you’d think He’s talking straight to you and me.

Well, we’re doin’ mighty fine, I do suppose, In our streak of lightnin’ cars and fancy clothes, But just so we’re reminded of the ones who are held back, Up front there ought ‘a be a Man In Black.

I wear it for the sick and lonely old, For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold, I wear the black in mornin’ for the lives that could have been, Each week we lose a hundred fine young men.

And, I wear it for the thousands who have died, Believen’ that the Lord was on their side, And I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died, Believen’ that we all were on their side.

Well, there’s things that never will be right I know, And things need changin’ everywhere you go, But ’til we start to make a move to make a few things right, You’ll never see me wear a suit of white.

Ah, I’d love to wear a rainbow every day, To tell the world that everything’s OK, But mabe I can carry off a little darkness on my back,

‘Till things are brighter, I’m the Man In Black.

The photo at the top of the page is of two Bedouin girls, in school uniform, returning to their houses after a school day in Abu Farda near the West Bank city of Qalqilia on October 6, 2010. MaanImages/Khaleel Reash.

The Youtube above, and the lyrics by Johnny Cash may be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLkmC2VuXA8.

Posted in Media, Middle East Politics | 16 Comments

Bibi Coalition Echoes Groucho’s “Duck Soup”

by James M. Wallgroucho_marx_in_duck_soup

The Times of Israel, Israel’s leading right wing newspaper, can usually be counted on to lead the cheers for any Benjamin Netanyahu Israeli government. Not this time.

After his recent narrow election victory Netanyahu turned to a right wing collection of politicians to construct his latest coalition. 

Haviv Rettig Gur, The Times’ political correspondent, wrote that “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition-building has been “a disaster,” even “a farce.” He blames it on Netanyahu’s strange amalgam of cabinet ministers. 

 The list of seemingly incoherent appointments is a long one. The minister of justice has no background in law, the minister of science none in science, the minister of tourism is also in charge of the police and prisons.

There is a full minister in the Communications Ministry, but he’s not the communications minister; that title is reserved for the prime minister, who is also the minister of health (but promises not to act as such) and of foreign affairs, a portfolio effectively leaderless at a time of growing diplomatic tensions. The absorption minister is also the strategic affairs minister, while the transportation minister is also in charge of a newly christened “Intelligence Ministry.” And on and on.

In the 1933 movie comedy classic, Duck Soup, Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho Marx, shown above) is building his own coalition to govern Freedonia.  

Netanyahu’s series of appointments to his 2015 Israeli cabinet reads like the draft for a movie sequel to Duck Soup, in which Freedonia’s next-door enemy Sylvania, sends two spies to infiltrate Groucho’s government, Chicolini (Chico Marx) and Pinky (Harpo Marx).

Chico marxGroucho sees Chicolini (left) on the street and promptly selects him as his Minister of War. Next thing you know, Groucho has insulted the Sylvania ambassador because he does not trust him as a partner for peace. 

The rich widow of the former Freedonia president, Gloria Teasdale (played by Margaret Dumont) plays politics with her late husband’s money. A female 1930s version of the Koch Brothers or Sheldon Adelson, Mrs. Teasdade offers to  keep Freedonia’s economy flourishing but only if Groucho becomes Freedonia’s leader.

In the clip below, the widow Teasdale tells Groucho she doesn’t want her money financing a war. 

Groucho ponders her request. After a brief internal debate with himself, he decides he cannot trust Sylvania. He insults the Sylvania ambassador and instantly, war threatens! 

“This means war.”

Ha’aretz,  more moderate than the Times, also predicts a dark future for Netanyahu’s 2015 coalition. In their May 18 editorial, Ha’aretz’s editors ask, “Who Will Save Israel from Bibi”? 

Simple logic strongly suggests that the new government formed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will not bring peace, certainly not on its own initiative. Netanyahu renounced the two-state solution during his election campaign, does not consider Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas a partner, and sees the United States administration as the enemy.

All this is enough to suppress any hope for a diplomatic turnaround.

Will Netanyahu engage in his own internal Groucho debate in any future standoff? Or will he simply refuse to accept anyone as a partner for peace even as he claims more Palestinian land for Israel? 

In a follow-up profile of Ayelet Shaked, Netanyahu’s choice for Justice Minister, Ha’aretz offers this analysis:

Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked by AFPThe Justice Ministry doesn’t usually garner much interest among Israelis. It is, after all, a mid-level prize, modest compared to more lucrative ministerial posts like Defense, Finance and Foreign Affairs. However the announcement last week that Ayelet Shaked (left) of Habayit Hayehudi would be Israel’s new justice minister seems to have struck a raw nerve. .  .  .

A rather obscure (but combative) right-wing activist up until a few years ago and the only secular woman in the otherwise religious Zionist party led by Naftali Bennett, Shaked has entered politics with the outspokenness and indignation of an activist.

Among other things, she is one of the originators of the so-called “nation-state bill” that aims to turn Israel’s democratic values into unwanted subordinates of its Jewish identity. One of the major pieces of legislation she intends to promote as minister is her own so-called “NGO bill,” which limits the donations received by human rights groups and other left-wing organizations.

In Mondoweiss, Allison Deger reported that: “In her inaugural speech to the foreign ministry last Thursday, Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely explained she is on a mission to convince the world that Israel inherited the occupied Palestinian territories from God.

Motti Kimchi:Ynet“This land is ours. All of it is ours. We did not come here to apologize for that,” said Hotovely in a meeting of the foreign ministry.

During the address she went on to quote from religious scholars explaining why Israel is not an occupier over the West Bank. Israel’s i24 translated:

“Rashi says the Torah opens with the story of the creation of the world so that if the nations of the world come and tell you that you are occupiers, you must respond that all of the land belonged to the creator of world and when he wanted to, he took from them and gave to us.”

Switching to English, Hotovely closed “by stating she will ‘demand’ world leaders ‘declare Israel as a Jewish national state,’ and back settlement growth in the occupied Palestinian territories”. Mondoweiss posted this short video from The Guardian, of Deputy Minister Hotovely’s closing words (to view the video click below):  

[https://embed.theguardian.com/embed/video/world/video/2015/may/22/israel-world-west-bank-deputy-foreign-minister-tzipi-hotovely-video]

Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked’s picture is by AFP.  The video of the Hotovely’s closing speech is from The Guardian. The picture of Minister Hotovely is by Motti Kimchi of Ynet.

Posted in -Movies and politics, Middle East, Middle East Politics, Movies, Netanyahu, Palestinians | 2 Comments

Obama Panders in the D.C. Adas Israel Synagogue

by James M. Wallgaza5

All that is said or written about President Barack Obama during these final days before 2016, must be said or written within a darkness that reminds us that our current president will soon be replaced by either Hillary Clinton, or any one of a dozen right wing Republicans, any one of whom will, in comparison, make Obama look like St. Francis of Assisi.

Before his nation’s Memorial Day week-end, President Obama managed to make us even more aware that the Candidate of Hope is certainly no St. Francis.

Against a background of three successive Israeli death-dealing invasions of Gaza, President Obama delivered a speech in Washington’s Adas Israel Conservative Jewish synagogue Thursday.

With no reference to the Gaza invasions, President Obama bragged about being a member of the Jewish “tribe” the way a nerdy kid might try to convince leaders of a Chicago South Side gang that he is truly “with you fellows”.

American liberal Jewish writers gave the speech favorable reviews. My review is more negative.

The speech was a campaign effort to win votes in favor of Obama’s attempt to persuade Congress to support his Iran nuclear arms agreement. The President feels he needs American Jewish support.

It was a worthy cause, to be sure, but at what price did he solicit those votes?

I have read the speech in search of at least one sign that Barack Obama knows he is our last best American hope to release the world from its bondage imposed by the modern state of Israel.

There were no signs, not one. To me, it was a surrender speech coupled with the plea:  Let us keep our horses and our deal with Iran, and we will give you our love.

In this instance, “love” means protection in the United Nations, and all the military fire power Israel’s heart desires. 

Nathan Gutman gave the speech a favorable review in the Jewish Forward:

Obama chose a complex and subtle message for his Jewish American Heritage Month address at Adas Israel congregation, Washington’s prime Conservative synagogue, where many of the city’s Jewish government official, high profile politicos and journalists come to worship. He sought to explain, not to retract, his criticism of Israel and was met with a welcoming crowd.

“I have high expectations for Israel the same way I have high expectations for the United States of America,” Obama said, explaining this is the reason he feels “a responsibility to speak out honestly about what I think will lead to long-term security and to the preservation of a true democracy in the Jewish homeland.”

His audience applauded freely as Obama reminded them that in the White House he had surrounded himself  with Jewish advisors. 

He made his customary, grinning nod to Rahm Emanuel, who added his White House Chief of Staff job to his ability to raise money from Corporate America, to emerge as a U.S. Congressman and now as the mayor of Chicago.

Gutman quotes Obama:

And as an honorary member of the tribe, not to mention somebody who’s hosted seven White House Seders and been advised by two Jewish chiefs of staff, I can also proudly say that I’m getting a little bit of the hang of the lingo. But I will not use any of the Yiddish-isms that Rahm Emanuel taught me because I want to be invited back. Let’s just say he had some creative new synonyms for “Shalom.”

Obama repeated his “aw-shucks” appreciation of the honorary “Jewish president” title bestowed on him by Atlantic magazine’s Jeffrey Goldberg, the Jewish writer who served his tour of duty with the Israeli Defense Force by “making friends” with a Palestinian prisoner he was guarding.

In another rhetorical flourish, he praised the makers of Jewish history and Jewish values. Then sadly, he jumped over Israel’s invasion, destruction and subsequent occupation of Palestine, and landed squarely in the midst of the modern state of Israel, where Obama gave unqualified support for Israel’s absolute “right to exist”.

Does that “right” without question, include the right to create the prison of Gaza?

Obama ignored the Nakba. He quit being an historian of Jewish values and became a southside Chicago politician begging for votes in Tel Aviv. You want jobs? Your uncle need medical help? We are here for you. How about all the weapons your heart desires?

Donald Johnson is especially harsh on the speech under a headline, ‘The grotesque injustice of Obama’s speech at the Washington synagogue”.

He writes that President Obama was “pandering” to what Johnson correctly identifies as Israel’s “sense of entitlement”.

“Obama is pandering to alleged liberals at this synagogue, liberal Zionists, and he gets laughter for saying that Palestinians are not easy partners”. 

President Obama surrounded his mention of a future Palestine state with a heavy emphasis on Israel’s need for security, and a tasteless quip: He said:

Just as Israelis built a state in their homeland, Palestinians have a right to be a free people on their land, as well. (Applause.)

Now, I want to emphasize — that’s not easy. The Palestinians are not the easiest of partners. (Laughter.) The neighborhood is dangerous. And we cannot expect Israel to take existential risks with their security so that any deal that takes place has to take into account the genuine dangers of terrorism and hostility.

“‘Taint funny, McGee”, as Molly McGee would have said to her husband Fibber. It is not only not funny, but it underscores the pandering nature of the speech.

President Obama reminded his Jewish audience that he has visited the Jewish town of Sderot, which has suffered through rocket attacks from Gaza. By virtue of its proximity to Gaza, Sderot is the only community living in constant danger of the largely ineffective Gaza rockets.

That too is tasteless, comparing Sderot to the invasion destruction and on-going violence in Gaza. The President touches on Gaza suffering by couching it with “rights” language for Israel:

The rights I insist upon and now fight for, for all people here in the United States compels me then to stand up for Israel and look out for the rights of the Jewish people,” Obama said. “And the rights of the Jewish people then compel me to think about a Palestinian child in Ramallah that feels trapped without opportunity. That’s what Jewish values teach me. That’s what the Judeo-Christian tradition teaches me. These things are connected.”

Obama’s speech might have referenced a child in Gaza. No way.  Imagine the scene in the speech-writers office, as writers, eager to please a totally Jewish audience, argue:”Don’t use a city in Gaza, use Ramallah. Do not use a city which will remind the listeners of what happened in Gaza”.

The speech says: “And the rights of the Jewish people then compel me to think about a Palestinian child in Ramallah that feels trapped without opportunity.”

The “rights” of the Jewish people have emerged as Israel’s favorite right-wing trope.

Obama says the unnamed child in his speech “feels” trapped?  This unnamed child does not just “feel” trapped. He or she, unspecified as to gender in the speech, IS trapped inside a military occupation.

In public speeches , Obama likes to point to a member of his audience, young or old, and identify the member by name, age and circumstance. In this speech, he made no pretense of ever having spoken with a Palestinian child trapped in an occupation prison. 

Obama does know that Palestinian children are growing up under occupation. They don’t just feel trapped, they are in fact, trapped behind the occupation’s prison walls..

You know that to be true, Mr. President. You should say so and stop all this pandering.  You have two years left. Use those years to redeem the campaigner of Hope.

The picture at top is from Oxfam. It appeared in Mondoweiss and shows a “check point”, a closely-guarded entrance to a walkway from Gaza to Israel at the Erez crossing. The 1948 picture from the Nakba is was provided by the Israeli Goverment Press Office on May 4, 2008. It  shows two Palestinian women fleeing with just tthe possessions they are able to carry as they make their way toward Lebanon from villages in the Galilee during the early stages of the Nakba. 

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Deception, Thy Middle Name is Divert

by James M. Wallal watan Jerusalem

The New York Times’ Jerusalem bureau slavishly responds to unfolding Israeli stories as though the computers there are set on robotic control to: “Divert, Divert”.

The most recent Times “Divert, Divert” example came in an overlong Times examination of what Pope Frances said in a Vatican private exchange with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Divert is the operative word through which Israel keeps the world from focusing either on positive Palestinian stories, or on Israel’s treatment of Palestinians under its military control.

It does so with the dutiful assistance of publications like the New York Times.

The picture above shows two Israeli soldiers arresting a Palestinian child in East Jerusalem. That photo is not from The New York Times.  It is from a daily Arabic newspaper Alwatan, published in Oman.

The most recent New York Times diversion story carries the ludicrously misleading headline: “Vatican Seeks to Quiet Uproar Over Pope’s ‘Angel of Peace’ Remark”.

What prompted this so-called “uproar”? The Times reports further:

Did the pope tell Mr. Abbas “You are an angel of peace,” as many news outlets, including the main Italian news agency ANSA, The Associated Press and The New York Times, reported?

That phrasing pleased Palestinians, but infuriated some Israelis and Jewish leaders around the world.

Or was the pope encouraging Mr. Abbas with the words, “May you be an angel of peace,” as other major Italian news media, like La Repubblica and La Stampa, reported, a formulation that suggested more exhortation than commendation, and sounded better to pro-Israeli ears.

It all seemed to boil down to the difference between the verb “sei,” Italian for “you are,” and “sia,” which means “may you be.” Pro-Israeli advocates were quick to pick up on the discrepancies, but Vatican officials did little to clarify the matter.

Little done by the Vatican to clarify? Not true. 

In a statement issued by Vatican spokesman the Rev. Frederico Lombardi, the Times informs its readers, still pushing its Israeli narrative, that Father Lombardi engages in what the Times called ” some of his own diplomatic ambiguity”. 

The reader is expected to believe the following words from Father Lombardi are ambiguous?

 The pope had presented Mr. Abbas with a gift often given to visiting presidents: a bronze medal that represents an angel of peace. In the statement, he said that the word angel refers to a “messenger.”

When the pope presents the medal, Father Lombardi said, “he offers a few words of explanation of the gift as well as an invitation to a commitment to peace on the part of the recipient.”

The Times dutifully reports that, according to The Vatican, “angels are, in fact, ‘messengers'”. Right, and in baseball, a double play is making two outs on the same play.

Father Lombardi further informs the Times that the Vatican never reports on what the Pope says during private discussions, and that what is expressed during an exchange of gifts is not meant to be recorded.

“What he says in private conversations are not official declarations, so they are not officially documented,” he said. “It was a conversation between two people, not a moment of official declarations.”

The Times then solemnly declares that “Israel has made no public statement on the issue, apparently having no interest in a public spat with the Vatican.”

Oh, so now it is just a public spat. Well, that’s not the way Emmanuel Nahshon, the spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, sees it.

Nahshon got word to the Times that he had actually heard a recording of the conversation, had consulted with Israel’s ambassador to the Vatican and was satisfied that the pope had said, “May you be an angel of peace.”

A private conversation between the Pope and a guest was recorded and now is in the hands of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. Does this mean the Vatican is bugged?

The Times then adds to its story about the honoring of President Abbas by quoting Israel’s Nahshon:

He is far from an angel of peace,” Mr. Nahshon said of Mr. Abbas, adding, “If he was, perhaps by now there would be peace.”

As the story grinds to an end, we finally receive a word from someone who knows how to interpret this story of a “spat” for what it really is, a typical pro-Israel diversion from the more important and positive reports about the Vatican and Palestine. 

Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s executive committee, laughed when asked about the controversy, saying she was not about to provide “a biblical exegesis on ‘may you be’ or ‘you are’.

“Either way,” she said, speaking by telephone from Ramallah in the West Bank, “the analogy and the connection is there.”

Ms. Ashrawi was not at the meeting in the Vatican and said she had not bothered to call and ask exactly what words were spoken to Mr. Abbas. She pointed to the wider context of Mr. Abbas’s visit, including the recognition issue and the canonization of two 19th-century nuns.

The canonization refers to an earlier Times report that “Two Arab Nuns From Palestine Are Canonized by Pope Francis”, which began:

“Two 19th century nuns from Ottoman-ruled Palestine were made saints at a ceremony in St. Peter’s Square on Sunday, just days after the Vatican recognized Palestinian statehood.”

For a more complete take on the canonization story, click here. This story adds a detail left out of the Times account, answering the question of why President Abbas was in Rome in the first place.

Wham, bam, two big stories: Canonization of two Palestinian women, side by side with  Palestinian statehood recognition by the Vatican. That is the big news out of the Vatican.

Not so for the Times. After its initial report on canonization and recognition, the Times turns quickly to the “importance ” of the difference between “may you be” and “you are”, concluding with soothing words from Abe Foxman, leader of the Anti-Defamation League: 

“The good news is that there are all sorts of efforts to step back,” he said, referring to the Vatican spokesman’s efforts to smooth the atmosphere. “That is more important than how that phrase got there,” he said, adding, “Whatever it is, whether it was misspoken, miswritten or misread, we welcome it.”

By welcome, we must presume Mr. Foxman means, the Times report on the Vatican’s linguistic clarification?

Less welcome to Mr. Foxman, we may also presume, are the facts that Pope Francis has presented President Abbas with “a bronze medal that represents an angel of peace”, canonized two Palestinian nuns, and recognized Palestine as a state. Neil Flickr

A closing reminder to American Protestant church leaders who will meet in a variety of venues this summer to continue their debates on how best to relate to their Jewish neighbors (Jewish neighbors, not Israeli neighbors).

The words above are written on one of the many walls Israel built to keep Palestinians within their own homeland.

In their deliberations, these church leaders will need to remember that, as the wall proclaims, “Criticism of Israel is Not Anti-Semitic”. They also need to remember that Israel is a nation that believes it must divert rather than face the reality of its conduct. 

The picture at top was taken in East Jerusalem. It appeared in Alwatan, a daily Arabic newspaper published in Oman and distributed internationally. The words witten on a Palestinian wall is a Neil Flickr photo from Mondoweiss.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

“I’m From that Hell Called Gaza”

by James M. WallPalestinian girls walk past buildings in Gaza Thomas Coex AFP Getty

Former President Jimmy Carter has concluded his trip to the West Bank area of Palestine. He “deeply regretted” that he was unable to visit the Gaza enclave of Palestine.

President Carter traveled with former Norway Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. It was their fourth Elders’ mission to Israel and Palestine since 2009.

The two Elders were prevented for security reasons from seeing for themselves, in Carter’s words, “Gaza’s 1.8 million people [who] are besieged, isolated and desperate”.

As the occupying military power controlling both Gaza and the West Bank, Israel offered no explanation as to why it could not provide adequate security for Carter and Brundtland.

Had the Elders gone into Gaza, they would have spoken directly to Gaza mothers like the one who wrote to British author Stuart Littlewood:

I’m from that hell called Gaza. Extreme poverty, unemployment and insecurity destroy life and future of people who can hardly survive…. It is difficult for us to live or to leave. Gaza, my beloved home, is like a curse!

The injustice in Gaza and the West Bank is, indeed, a curse. It is a curse President Carter knows all too well. He grew up in the segregated state of Georgia, the same state that Martin Luther King, Jr., called home.

Dr. King lived and died confronting the curse of segregation in the American South.

His letter from the Birmingham jail is a vivid witness of his frustration and grief over the failure of white southern clergy leaders to give support to peaceful street demonstrations against that curse.

The evil of injustice in Gaza is an especially insidious evil because it is largely ignored by those in a position to confront it. It was the injustice in Gaza that brought Carter and Brundtland to Israel and Palestine.

It was the injustice and brutality of segregation in Georgia that led to King’s presence in a Birmingham jail cell.

The letter he wrote from jail on April 16, 1963, was addressed to seven southern white clergy leaders who had signed a joint letter to ask him to reduce his agitation against segregation.

The report Jimmy Carter wrote after his trip to Israel/Palestine echoes that letter, for it too, was written in sadness and barely concealed anger. 

Carter’s report, like King’s letter, tells a story of how one nation, Israel, with the support of the American government, degrades the humanity of an entire population.

King had gone to Birmingham, Alabama to demonstrate against the evil of segregation. In his letter he wrote:

I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

President Carter’s own report, written 52 years later, laments his inability to enter Gaza to personally witness its devastation and suffering. Carter begins:Jimmy-Carter-Israeli-Palestine-Gaza-newsletter_600

Gro Harlem Brundtland and I have just returned from Jerusalem, where we undertook our fourth Elders’ mission to Israel and Palestine since 2009.

Our focus on this trip was on peace and reconciliation – not just between Israel and the Palestinians, but also between Fatah and Hamas to secure viable and lasting Palestinian unity.

We also wanted to draw attention to the desperate humanitarian situation in Gaza eight months after the devastating war of summer 2014.

We deeply regretted not being able to visit Gaza to see the situation at first hand, but what we heard from independent experts and UN officials confirmed our worst expectations.

What we saw and heard only strengthened our determination to work for peace and the lifting of the blockade.

The situation in Gaza is intolerable. Eight months after a devastating war, not one destroyed house has been rebuilt and people cannot live with the respect and dignity they deserve.

Gaza’s 1.8 million people are besieged, isolated and desperate. They cannot enjoy any of the aspects of normal life, from trade and travel to health and education, that people in my country – and indeed in Israel – take for granted. (To read the full report, click here.)

How did the western world respond to Israel’s blocking a Gaza visit by the Elders? The U.S. mainstream media played its usual role as guardian of Israel’s public image.  

Mainstream media ignored the story of the Elders’ inability to witness for themselves what Carter terms, “Gaza’s 1.8 million people [who] are besieged, isolated and desperate”.

Shame on these media leaders, and shame on all who remain silent. Shame on U.S. secular and religious leaders who debate the issue as a way of avoiding its reality

Israel is more than just aware that the Elders, an organization of world leaders, initially called together by Nelson Mandela, investigate world problem areas like Gaza and the West Bank.

Israel hates any and all exposure of its conduct.  

When a former U.S. president joins a former Norway prime minister to travel to the region to call attention to the imprisonment of an entire population, Israel knows its American benefactors are always there, standing by to help.

“Attention should be paid”, as Arthur Miller once wrote, by American church leaders, American media leaders, and money-hungry American politicians. 

This summer, starting in late June, the Episcopal Church in the U.S. will assemble for  national leadership policy making.

On its agenda will be a resolution for delegates to  discuss a proposal on how their corner of God’s moral army should  respond to Israel’s decades-long occupation.

A half century after mainstream American churches remained racially divided in their organizational structure, here come the Episcopalians, still debating  oppression.

Check out this non-mainstream secular media story on the upcoming discussions. In one of its resolutions to be considered on Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) are these words:

Fundamentally, we believe that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a U.S. civil rights issue for our time. It is an American issue because Washington repeatedly vetoes United Nations resolutions criticizing Israeli settlement building and other violations of international law; it conveys billions of dollars annually to Israel in unrestricted foreign military aid, requiring no accountability as required by law for the use of U.S.-supplied weapons and munitions to enforce the Occupation; and because publicly-traded U.S. corporations profit from the Occupation.

Well-stated, but will it pass or will it be watered down? 

Delegates who address this resolution must decide: Will they join the seven southern clergy who, 52 years ago, told Martin Luther King Jr., to “go slow” on racial segregation?

Or will they stand with Martin Luther King, Jr., and former President Jimmy Carter, and say the time for debate is over?

If they vote their consciences, they know it is well past the time to drag down the curtain of invisibility our religious and secular leaders have placed around “that hell called Gaza”.

I call the question, Bishop. 

The picture above of two young girls walking through the ruins of Gaza, is by Thomas Coex /AFP/Getty Images  It is from the NPR website..

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments

Gaza Crisis “Unsustainable and Intolerable”

by James M. WallCarter-Brundtland

Former President of the United States Jimmy Carter and Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway, concluded their trip to Israel and Palestine with a statement calling for “meaningful steps to stop the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and reconcile the different Palestinian factions”.

The statement, released  by the Elders’ media office, said Carter and Brundtland “regretted that they were unable to go to Gaza on this visit but expect to have future opportunities to travel there, to witness the situation firsthand”.

The two Elders said they remain convinced that “only a two-state solution can bring a just and lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians”.

Carter and Brandtland are two of The Elders, “independent global leaders, brought together by Nelson Mandela, who offer their collective influence and experience to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity”.

In her statement following the visit, Brundtland, who is currently the Deputy Chair of The Elders, said:

We came here to visit Gaza, the West Bank and Israel. As you know, we were unable to go to Gaza. We deeply regret not having had the opportunity, on this occasion, to see the situation there at first hand.

However, over the past three days we have received comprehensive briefings from many independent experts, including Israelis and Palestinians and the UNRWA Commissioner-General, which unfortunately have confirmed our worst expectations.

The situation in Gaza is unsustainable and intolerable. A complete paradigm shift is essential. This shift demands the lifting of the siege. It also requires an end to Israel’s policy of separating the West Bank and Gaza.

It demands freedom of access for goods, not least the large amounts of reconstruction material that are so badly needed,

It demands freedom for Gaza to export – to the West Bank, Israel and the rest of the world – so that its economy can be revitalised

It demands freedom of movement for people, so that families can be united, students can study in the West Bank or abroad, and patients can receive the medical care they need.

In short, all the aspects of normal life that people in our own two countries, and in Israel, take for granted.

Without this paradigm shift, which most of the world recognises as vital, we fear that further conflict is inevitable.

In his separate statement, Carter added that “reconciliation between [the Palestinian parties] Fatah and Hamas, and the full establishment of the government of National Consensus in Gaza, is vital to end further suffering”.

trioOn Saturday, the final day of their trip, Carter and Brundtland conferred with Palestine President Abbas in Ramallah.

The Palestinian media news outlet, Ma’an, reported that Abbas used his meeting with the Elders “to emphasize the importance of speeding up reconstruction efforts in Gaza, in particular pressing the need for donor countries to meet their pledges”. 

In Ramallah Saturday, Carter and Brundtland also met with key members of the Palestine Liberation Organization and other political figures to discuss the struggle to achieve Palestinian unity.jimmy-carter-gro-harlem-bru

Included in the discussion were: Nabil Shaath, Husam Zumlot and Mohammed Shtayyeh from Fatah; Mustafa Barghouti, Secretary-General of the Palestinian National Initiative (PNI) (Al Mubadara); Majida Al-Masri, Former Minister of Social Affairs; Basam Salhi, Palestinian People’s Party; and Omar Shehada, from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Chief Editor of Al-Hadaf Magazine.

Mustafa Barghouti, well-known Palestinian political figure, is at the far right corner in the picture above.  President Carter and Gro Harlem Brundtland are across the table at left.

The trip’s original schedule had called for the Elders to travel to Gaza to confer with Hamas and other political figures. That trip was cancelled for reasons still not disclosed.

Before the Elders arrived, Israel’s government had already announced it would not allow any of its leaders to meet with the Elders.  Also forbidden was what would have been essentially a ceremonial visit between Israeli President Reuven Rivlin and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. 

This is the action of a nation which has locked itself into a self-imposed  isolation from any outside interaction it deems unfriendly.

Israel holds tight military control over the West Bank and Gaza. This suggests that the only reasonable explanation for the cancellation of the Elders’ Gaza visit, is that Israel wanted to hide as much as possible the destruction of Gaza from outsiders, especially those with the influence of the Elders. 

Brundtland, no doubt knows this, but ever the diplomat, she said that while it was unfortunate that she and Carter had not been able to visit the Gaza Strip, she emphasized that they had discussions “with people who know the issues in Gaza.”

Since highlighting the humanitarian crisis in Gaza was one of the delegation’s “key aims” during the visit, they were deprived of first-hand personal observation.

This has not, however, deterred them from using their visit to highlight the suffering in Gaza. which, most recently, was left behind by the devastating Israeli military attacks on Gaza in the summer of 2014.

The Elders said that since their last visit to Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories in October 2012, they have watched “with dismay the intensification of animosity and misunderstanding between the two parties.

Their statement insisted: “the steadily deteriorating situation in Gaza must be reversed: the enclave has been under siege for eight years, and in 2014 suffered the third of three devastating wars since 2008/09.” The statement added, “Reconstruction is painfully slow.”

It was evident in statements following their three-day visit to Israel and a part of Palestine, that Jimmy Carter and Gro Harlem Brundtland will continue to use their influence to end Israel’s self-imposed world isolation, an isolation damaging both to Israel and Palestine.

The two of them, a 90 year old former U.S. president, and his much younger colleague from Norway, have become a crusading international dynamic duo determined to end the immediate Gaza suffering that is both “unsustainable and intolerable”.

The picture at top of former President Carter and former Norway Prime Minister Brundtland, is from The Elders’ website. The second picture is from Ma’an News. The lower picture is from The Elders.

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

Why Was Carter’s Gaza Meeting Cancelled?

by James M. Wallgro-harlem-brundtland-jimmy-carter-ziad-abu-amr_620x400

Former President Jimmy Carter, and former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, met with Palestinian Deputy Prime Minister Ziad Abu Amir, Thursday, at the Council of Ministers in Ramallah.

During the meeting, Carter and Brundtland discussed with Dr Abu Amir, “matters concerning Palestinian reconciliation”.

The announcement of the Ramallah meeting came from the Elders’ website. The site describes the Elders as a non-governmental group of “independent global leaders working together for peace and human rights.”  

On Wednesday of this week, the Palestinian news agency Ma’an, reported that Carter’s previously planned Thursday visit to Gaza was “removed” from his itinerary “without reason”.

Absent any official explanation, speculation is rampant as to what led to the cancellation, raising the question, why was Carter’s Gaza meeting  cancelled and what prompted the cancellation?

The Elders’ site earlier reported that Carter and Brundtland came to Israel/Palestine directly from a successful Elders’ delegation visit to Moscow where six members of The Elders, led by Elders’ Chair, Kofi Annan, concluded a successful visit which included a two-hour meeting with the six Elders and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

After their arrival in Jerusalem, Carter and Brundtland hosted a roundtable to discuss “approaches to solving a broad range of issues facing the region”. The return trip to the Middle East is intended to “support the two-state solution and highlight Gaza’s humanitarian crisis”.

The roundtable included Katleen Maes from the United Nations OCHA* (see below), who talked of  “a humanitarian overview”; Nathan Thrall from ICG*, who discussed Fatah-Hamas and GNC political dynamics; Tania Hari from Gisha*, on Israeli policy towards Gaza; and Lani Frerichs who talked about policy tools for greater accountability.

Carter’s trip to Gaza was to have been the first stop of the three-day Elders’ visit to Palestine and Israel.

Ma’an describes the curent Elders’ visit to the Middle as one designed “to address pressing political issues and bring international attention to the current humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip”.

Israel had earlier agreed to allow Carter to enter Gaza on this trip, but, according to Israeli media. “in response to Carter’s decision to meet with Hamas leadership, Israeli President Rivlin said April 20, he would refuse to meet with the former president due to his ‘anti-Israel’ positions”.

In his role as an international mediator, Carter has long maintained that meetings with “the perceived enemy” is essential to any reconciliation between groups, tribes or nations. While president, Carter was instrumental in organizing and directing the historic Camp David reconciliation between Egypt and Israel.

Earlier in April, a PA government delegation from Ramallah held meetings in Gaza with Hamas officials, seeking answers to troublesome issues, including salaries to government employees. That meeting failed to resolve any substantial problems.

Rivlin’s refusal to meet with Carter on this trip, according to the Jerusalem Post, followed a recommendation from the  Israeli Foreign Ministry that Rivlin not meet with Carter, “in order to convey the message that those who harm Israel will not meet with the [Israeli] president.

Over the decades since he left office as U.S. President in 1980, Carter has met frequently with leaders on both sides in international conflicts.

The Elders have an intense interest in bringing peace to this region. In October, 2012, former Prime Minister Brundtland visited a hospital in East Jerusalem which also treats patients from Gaza and the West Bank. (right).

Gro Harlem Brundtland at a hospital in East Jerusalem which also Elders treats patients from Gaza and the West Bank, October 2012

Carter’s schedule this week was to have included a meeting with Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh “to discuss national reconciliation”, according to Hamas leader Ahmad Yousef.

Under an accusatory headline, PA Sought Cancellation of Carter’s Visit to Gaza, the Middle East Memo points to a Palestinian news outlet, Quds Presse, which quotes a “well informed Palestinian source” who claims the Palestinian Authority had sought the cancellation. 

The Middle East Memo offers no specific names behind the accusation. So far this is the only explanation in print:

A well informed Palestinian source said yesterday that the Palestinian Authority (PA) had sought the cancellation of the former US President Jimmy Carter’s visit to the Gaza Strip.  Quds Press reported.

Since the source, Quds Press, is known to be affiliated with Hamas, it is possible that a faction within Hamas wants to accuse the PA of scuttling Carter’s trip, in order to further hamper the unity talks.  

Further reports on why Carter’s visit to Gaza was either cancelled or simply postponed, could emerge during the remaining Elders’ visits in Israel and the West Bank. 

As usual in such situations, finding the answers to why and who wanted to keep Carter from Gaza, we must begin by asking who benefits from the failure of the Palestinian Hamas-Fatah unity talks, and who possesses the clout to influence the cancellation. 

That could mean the usual suspect, the Israelis, or a faction within one of the two Palestinian parties involved. Or it could be an outside force seeking to keep this conflict alive.

With Israel continuing to control Gaza’s borders, it is difficult to imagine any force other than Israel with the ability to bar Carter from Gaza. 

Meanwhile an Elders’ delegation remains in the region. It is expected to return to Ramallah Saturday, May 2, to meet with Palestinian President Abbas.

The picture above from Ramallah is from the Elders’ website. The picture from a hospital in East Jerusalem is from the Middle East Memo site.

*OCHA is the part of the United Nations Secretariat responsible for bringing together humanitarian actors to ensure a coherent response to emergencies. OCHA also ensures there is a framework within which each actor can contribute to the overall response effort.

*The International Crisis Group ICG is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organisation committed to preventing and resolving deadly conflict.

*Gisha was founded in 2005 and is based in Tel Aviv. Gisha aims “to protect the freedom of movement of Palestinians, especially Gaza residents”.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Carter Going to Gaza for Fatah-Hamas Talks

Middle East Monitorby James M. Wall

The Turkish Anadolu Agency (AA) reported Sunday that former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is expected to arrive in the Gaza Strip on Thursday to meet with Palestinian Hamas officials.

A Palestinian security source, who requested anonymity, told the Agency “Carter will arrive in Gaza on Thursday through the [Israeli-controlled] Erez border crossing to meet with leading Hamas officials,”

Maher Abu Sabha, head of the Palestinian border authority, told AA that the director of Carter’s office would arrive in Gaza Sunday accompanied by a security delegation to prepare for Carter’s “imminent visit”.

As of late Sunday, no U.S. news sources had reported on the purpose of the expected visit.

A week ago, Israel officials, advised of the Carter visit, announced that “Israel has officially decided to boycott Carter’s visit”.  The officials added that “Israel would not bar Carter from entering Israel or from crossing to Gaza”.

The Middle East Monitor added in its visit announcement that Carter “is undertaking Saudi-backed mediation efforts between rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah”.

Carter recently met with prominent Saudi officials and urged their intervention to achieve reconciliation between Palestinian factions. His intervention was welcomed by the Saudi officials in Riyadh, the same Palestinian source told the Anadolu Agency.

This Palestinian source added, “The Saudi government has begun preparations for mediation between the two [Palestinian] movements to reach a ‘Mecca II’ agreement.”

“The Saudi government is seeking guarantees from both Fatah and Hamas that they’re serious about reconciliation before mediation efforts would start,” the source added.

Carter had recently visited Qatar and met with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal who assured him that his movement is serious about reconciling with Fatah, the source said.

Carter visited the Gaza Strip in 2009 where he held several meetings with leading Hamas figures, including the group’s deputy leader Ismail Haniyeh.

The first Mecca agreement between Hamas and Fatah was reached in 2007 through the efforts of Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz.

This agreement followed the formation of a Palestinian unity government which held West Bank and Gaza legislative elections in January, 2006.  President Carter was prominently involved in monitoring that election.

To the shock and amazement of the U.S. government of President George W. Bush, Hamas won that election decisively, sending a majority of legislators to a newly formed Palestinian Parliament.

Instead of supporting the electoral will of the Palestinian voters, President Bush, through CIA forces in the region, sided with Fatah and helped train military forces aligned with Fatah.

Israel cooperated in the action by arresting a large number of recently elected members of the legislature and, in some cases, held them for long periods of time. This effectively prevented the recently elected legislature from holding any formal meetings.

The historical background of the current Fatah-Hamas standoff was presented in careful detail in a New Republic article, February 13, 2013 by John B. Judis. entitled, Clueless in Gaza: New evidence that Bush undermined a two-state solution.

Judis turns first to Elliott Abrams to examine what became of the official narrative of the start of the Palestinian government split in 2007.  He also reports on an effective debunking of that narrative.  He begins:

A decisive turning point in the recent political history of Palestine came in June 2007, when Hamas defeated Fatah’s security forces in Gaza and took over uncontested administration of the strip. This was the moment that Palestine became divided in two with rival governments in charge—Hamas in Gaza and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority in West Bank—which meant the end of a single, coherent Palestinian leadership that could negotiate with the Israelis.

The political effects of “Hamas’ ousting of Fatah are clear enough”, writes Judis, who then traces the birth of the prevailing narrative of the Fatah-Hamas split.

Washington’s prevailing narrative about that version of the narrative has been “self-serving”, in a book written by Elliott Abrams, Tested by Zion: The Bush Administration and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

Judis writes that Abrams worked for George W. Bush’s National Security Council, supervising American policy in the Middle East. His book offers the standard line,

charging that Hamas staged a “coup” in Gaza because it feared that “time might bring greater strength for what Hamas saw as Fatah and we saw as the legitimate PA national security forces.” Abrams acknowledges that Hamas leaders might have believed there was “a conspiracy to crush it,” but dismisses the possibility that there actually was one, and that the United States might have played any role in it.

Abrams’ account, Judis writes,  

is in marked contrast with the testimony put forth independently by two journalists, Paul McGeough and David Rose, by a former British intelligence official, Alistair Crooke, who had served as a special advisor on the Middle East to the European Union, and by UN Under-Secretary General Alvaro de Soto.

Key parts of this alternative narrative have been confirmed by leaked government documents and contemporary newspaper accounts and by David Wurmser, who was Middle East advisor at the time to Vice President Dick Cheney.

This version of events is considerably more damning about Washington’s role in the events leading up to the Hamas “coup”. According to the alternative narrative, the Bush administration blundered at every turn in its dealings with the Palestinians.

It encouraged an election on the assumption that Abbas and Fatah would win. When Hamas was victorious, it sought to nullify the results and to block a unity government between Fatah and Hamas, even though such a government might have actually become a credible partner in peace negotiations.

And the Bush administration helped arm Fatah’s security forces against Hamas, which stoked the civil war and led to Hamas taking over Gaza. According to this narrative, Hamas was basically right about American intentions.

. .. Abrams’ reputation is tarred by his admission that he withheld documents from Congress during the Iran-Contra investigation. On the other side, Rose published credulous accounts in 2001 linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda.

But I believe that the alternative narrative fits the outward events much better than what Abrams recounts in his book.

The remainder of the Judis article puts these conflicting narratives in the context of contemporary American diplomacy.

It is not a pretty picture, both because of the impact of the Bush and Abrams 2007 record, and because Judis demonstrates what an Israel-U.S. controlled narrative, dutifully reported and maintained by western media, does to hold the western public in bondage to Israel’s grip on public opinion.

Jimmy Carter remains as one of the very few American public figures willing to break with that grip and broker a unity agreement between Hamas and Fatah.

The fact that Benjamin Netanyahu refuses to meet with an ex-U.S. president, and prevents any of Israel’s leaders with even a courtesy visit with Carter, is but one more sign of Israeli disdain of any and all, who do not embrace Netanyahu’s vision of Israel’s exceptionalism.

Beginning with his meetings in Gaza Thursday, Carter plows ahead, ignoring Netanyahu’s insults, determined to use his abilities to build toward a united Palestinian government.

The picture above, of Jimmy Carter, is from the Middle East Monitor.

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

Hot and Cold Violence Sustains Israel’s Occupation

by James M. WallPalestinian-children-coll-009

Two news items surfaced Tuesday, April 21, that offer contrasting world views of Israel’s Occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.

Item number one is from the daily news report issued by the International Middle East Media Center (IMEMC). 

Item number two is an alert from End the Occupation informing readers that Maryland Democratic Senator Ben Cardin has introduced an anti-BDS amendment to a pending bill in the Senate Finance Committee.

If passed,  this amendment would make it a “principal trade negotiating objective of the United States” to “discourage politically motivated actions” that “limit commercial relations” with Israel and Israeli businesses, including those operating in Occupied Palestinian Territory.

In less formal senatorial language, what Senator Cardin offers is an anti-BDS (Boycott Divestment, Sanctions) amendment designed to protect the modern state of Israel from a non-violent tactic to expose and hopefully reduce the daily atrocities of Israel’s occupation.

In recent years BDS has grown in worldwide influence. Any action aimed at Israel’s occupation of Palestine alarms AIPAC. When AIPAC is alarmed, Liberal and Conservative Zionist senators of both political parties, receive their marching orders.

Senator Cardin, the new ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is the senator pushing this anti-BDS amendment. He was elevated to his post after the resignation of the previous Democratic ranking member, New Jersey’s Sen. Robert Menendez, an ardent Zionist, who voluntarily stepped down as ranking member Wednesday, April 15.

His resignation was prompted by his indictment on federal charges of bribery and conspiracy. Menendez pledges to fight the allegations. He remains a member of the committee and the senate. 

Neither of these stories, one from IMEMC, and the other from End the Occupation, is expected to receive much exposure in mainstream U.S. media outlets.

Both items however, carry long range consequences and offer a moral challenge to the consciences of the American public.

Item number one from IMEMC reports that on Tuesday, April 21, at dawn, Israeli soldiers invaded a number of villages and towns in the southern West Bank district of Hebron.

night_invasion_hebron  alfajertv.comThe soldiers searched homes, and kidnapped three Palestinians. Three other Palestinians were given military orders for future interrogation. Soldiers also kidnapped one Palestinian in Bethlehem.

It is a familiar story, repeated daily in various locations throughout Palestine. It is a story that represents nothing less than an ongoing Israeli strategy to intimidate and subdue the Palestinian people.

The Senate amendment, according to End the Occupation “is designed to pressure the European Union (EU), which is currently negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) with the United States, to reverse course on the steps it has taken in recent years to oppose Israeli settlements.”

The exact text of the amendment has not been released, but it is assumed to be similar to a bill—S.619, the United States-Israel Trade Enhancement Act of 2015—Senator Cardin introduced last month.

The pro-Israel forces in the U.S. have apparently spread their anti-BDS campaign into state legislatures. For example, the Illinois House and Senate could vote by Friday ​on ​Illinois bills, ​HB4011 and SB1761.

These two​ bills​ are designed to “prohibit state agencies and state retirement services from entering into contracts or investing in companies that choose to boycott Israeli businesses because of Israeli human rights violation​s”.

In his April 17 Guardian article, author Teju Cole distinguishes two forms of violence employed by Israel to control the people and land of Palestine: Hot violence and cold violence.

As Teju Cole explains, hot violence is openly visible. Some hot violence takes place in the daily deaths and kidnappings of Palestinian citizens. Some hot violence is also seen in the destruction of Palestinian homes by the IDF.

Cold violence is different from overt killing and military invasions. Cold violence takes its time until it finally gets “its way”. In his Guardian article, published in England, but not in the U.S., Cole describes the cold violence he found in Sheikh Jarrah, a predominantly Arab and old, East Jerusalem neighborhood.

“Children going to school and coming home are exposed to it. Fathers and mothers listen to politicians on television calling for their extermination. Grandmothers have no expectation that even their aged bodies are safe: any young man may lay a hand on them with no consequence. The police could arrive at night and drag a family out into the street.

Putting a people into deep uncertainty about the fundamentals of life, over years and decades, is a form of cold violence. Through an accumulation of laws rather than by military means, a particular misery is intensified and entrenched.”

For more than 50 years, western Christians have known about the occupation. What they choose to ignore are the cold and hot violence Israel employs with impunity.

The American Episcopal church will hold its national conference, starting June 24. Resolutions related to Israel’s occupation and  BDS will be on the agenda. Other denominational bodies will meet in annual sessions this summer.  Some will discuss and debate BDS,

To paraphrase the line from Shakespeare’s Henry V, “there are men and women asleep in their beds tonight who will one day rue their failure to halt Israel’s cold and hot violence in Palestine.”

Or, like the good Germans who avoided noticing the smoke from Nazi extermination centers, those men and women asleep in their beds tonight will one day cry, “we did not know”.

They do know, but good Germans, and good Americans, learn to lie when confronted with painful truth.

In +972, an Israeli-based progressive blog, Palestinian Yael Marom writes about young Palestinians who are doing something about their lives under oppression in Gaza.

“Life in Gaza has always been hard. But after Israel’s last attack it became impossible to live here. The problems became worse and the conditions deteriorated to the point that it is no longer possible to live humanely — and nobody cares,” Sajida Alhaj, 21, says in a Skype interview.

Alhaj is part of a group of young activists in Gaza that last month published a call for a mass protest in the Strip on April 29, demanding an end to the siege, the occupation and the human and civil rights abuses that accompany them.

The activists are calling on anyone who believes in freedom, justice and equality, the world over, to join them and organize parallel protests in their own countries, to express solidarity and to recognize their suffering.

“The situation in Gaza is disastrous,” she says. “We are calling on people to support Gaza by demonstrating in front of the Israeli and Egyptian embassies in every country, and force them to open the borders and break the siege — let building materials in to allow rebuilding, and let sick people out for medical treatment.”

In the current issue of the MAY 7, 2015, New York Review of Books, Freeman Dyson reviews Steven Gimbel’s new book, Einstein: His Space and Times

Gimbel’s book describes Albert Einstein’s “deep involvement with the Zionist movement, promoting the settlement of Jews in Palestine”. What led Einstein to embrace the settlement movement?

Gimbel writes:

“Einstein saw these settlements as a benefit both to Jews and to Arabs, giving Jews a place to live and prosper, and giving Arabs a chance to share the blessings of progress and prosperity.

In 1929, when some Palestinian Arabs organized a violent opposition to Jewish settlement and killed some Jews, the British colonial government suppressed the rebellion and enforced a peaceful coexistence of Jews and Arabs. But Einstein understood that this enforced coexistence could not last”.

Before his death in 1955, Einstein wrote an article under the title “Jew and Arab” from which Gimbel quotes:

“The first and most important necessity is the creation of a modus vivendi with the Arab people. Friction is perhaps inevitable, but its evil consequences must be overcome by organized cooperation, so that the inflammable material may not be piled up to the point of danger.

The absence of contact in every-day life is bound to produce an atmosphere of mutual fear and distrust, which is favorable to such lamentable outbursts of passion as we have witnessed.”

Sixty years after Einstein’s death, the hot and cold violence which sustains the Palestinian Occupation continues to be the violent tactic-of-choice for the state of Israel, which entered the region not to find “contact in every-day life”, but to conquer the indigenous population. 

Einstein was wrong about the settlements. This brilliant and caring man did not anticipate the governments Israelis would choose to lead them. 

The photograph at top of young Palestinians dipping their buckets into standing water on a Sheik Jarrah building is by Amir Cohen of Reuters.​ 

The photograph of an IDF soldier involved in a nighttime incursion into the Hebron district, is from alfajertv.com.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Gideon Levy: A Prophetic Voice from Israel

by James M. WallOLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Gideon Levy is a veteran columnist for Haaretz, a leading newspaper in Israel. He is a prophet, a man passionately committed to telling truth not just to power, but to people. 

As part of his mission, Levy came to Washington last week to speak at the National Press Club.

Levy’s speech was part of an all-day conference on the Israel Lobby organized by the Institute for Research/Middle East Policy (IRMEP) and the Washington Report for Middle East Affairs (WRMEA), two major U.S. progressive organizations.

Phillip Weiss reported in Mondoweiss: “Levy said he had come to plead with the American public to take control of Israel/Palestine policy before all is lost”.

At first, Levy had assumed the invitation was to speak to AIPAC, the pro-Israel organization which has firmly entrenched itself into the American fabric as the  premier Israel lobby organization.

“I said, That’s the chance of my life. I am going to come there to Washington and tell them, with friends like you, Israel does not need enemies.”

He quickly realized he was to speak not to AIPAC, or even the Anti-Defamation League, but to a conference which is “crucial and so important” in sounding the alarm about the Lobby.

Levy saw the conference as a sign that there will be change in the United States. “And we jump on any sign.”

In his speech, Levy acknowledged that earlier he had jumped on the 2008 beginning of J Street, the pro-Israel, pro-peace group, saying, “Here it comes! But it didn’t come.” When Obama was elected, he cried in joy. “And it didn’t come.”

Levy came to Washington with the simple message that change in the situation between Israel and it neighbors will have to come from the U.S.  He feels that Israel is a “lost case”.  Change will not come from an Israeli society which “has surrounded itself with shields, with walls, not just physical walls but also mental walls.”

He sees three principles which allow “Israelis to live easily with the brutal tyranny that is the occupation”. His judgment is harsh in the tradition of Israel’s Eighth Century prophets:

1, “We deeply believe we are the chosen people. Then we have the right to do what we want.

2, Never in history has the occupier presented himself as the victim. And not only the victim– but the only victim around.

3, Israelis have undertaken the “systematic dehumanization of the Palestinians.” And this allows Israelis to live with everything. Because the occupation does not involve questions of human rights.”

Living with the “systematic dehumanization of the Palestinians” is not a sickness unique to modern Israelis.  The U.S. public does not see others as we would want to be seen, which makes it easy for the Israel Lobby to lead our public further into the stupefaction of a racism that does not see occupation as the evil it is.

The 2016 U.S. presidential campaign began in earnest this past weekend with all consistent slick talk from candidates addressing the self-absorption of a public waiting to be sold new products.

Former First Lady of Arkansas and the U.S., former U.S. Senator, former failed presidential candidate, former U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, launched a campaign of appeals to American self-absorption shaped by product-peddlers.

No rich fat-cats in this ad: (click below)

Difficult to tell what the ad is selling, other than a softer and kinder image of Clinton than the one currently etched in the public’s mind  

As the Republicans roll out their campaigns, it will become clearer, with each new launch, that what they are peddling is Not-Obama.  Not an encouraging future for the next 18 months, so just hit the mute button. This too, will pass.

Meanwhile, there is a country to run and problems to be confronted.  Currently, it is Barack Obama who steers the ship.

Fortunately, six years into the job, he is a leader who “gets it”, a leader who knows how the Israeli government does nothing to lead its public out of the wilderness of racism and stupefaction.

So far, it appears Obama will do what he can to confront the “systematic dehumanization of the Palestinians” and continue to choose diplomacy over military action on the world stage. 

His biggest challenge is to make those choices in spite of the restraints U.S. voters have placed on him with a Republican-run conservative Congress.

The few prophetic voices we have, like Gideon Levy, will continue to remind us of the false prophets who have led us into the darkness.

The photo of Gideon Levy, above, is by Phillip Weiss. It appeared in Mondoweiss.com

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

After Deal Palestine Turns To UN For Statehood

by James M. WallGerman Foreign Minister Steinmeier, EU High Rep Mogherini, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarifat,  Russian Deputy Political Director Karpov and British Foreign Secretary Hammond following nuclear talks in Lausanne

Iran and six world powers (including the U.S.) have reached an unexpected political agreement for a final Iran nuclear deal.

Iran Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif broke the news on April 2, with a twitter message that the negotiators have “found solutions; ready to start drafting immediately”.

We have “succeeded in making history,” Zarif said at a follow-up press conference at Lausanne, Switzerland. He added: “If we succeed, it is one of the few cases where an issue of significance is solved through diplomatic means.”

Zarif and European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini (shown above), gathered with other foreign leaders to pose for pictures after the official announcement of the nuclear deal.

Speaking from the White House rose garden, President Barack Obama announced that we have “reached a historic understanding with Iran, which, if fully implemented, will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

On Monday, April 6, encouraged by the U.S. refusal to yield to Israel’s opposition to the nuclear deal, Palestine’s U.N. ambassador Riyad Mansour announced that the Palestinians are “ready and willing” to see if the U.N. Security Council has “the political will” to adopt a resolution with a deadline for ending Israel’s occupation and establishing a Palestinian state.

Ambassador Mansour said at a press conference at the U.N. headquarters in New York, that adoption of a U.N. resolution with a timetable would be “one of the most effective measures to combat extremism in our region, because extremists receive their fuel from the injustice of the Palestinian people.”

“’If there is a just solution to this conflict … in a short period of time, then you’ll take away from them the main source of recruitment and mobilization,” he said, adding that it would also contribute to resolving perhaps 70 percent of the ‘burning issues in the Middle East”.

 Mansour said ‘the United States holds the key.'”

Palestinian leaders were encouraged by a statement from President Obama that “he will reassess U.S. policy toward Israel following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s comment before last month’s election that he would not allow the establishment of a Palestinian state on his watch”.

This could mean that Washington would no longer shield Israel in actions before the Security Council.​ 

This “danger” that Israel may have lost some of its protective shield at the U.N. has stirred considerable agitation within the Israel Lobby forces in the U.S. and among members of  Congress.

Al Monitor reports on this moment of opportunity for the U.S. to escape the control Israel maintains over its policy in the Middle East, pointing to the announcement that France “is preparing a new UN Security Council resolution on negotiations that would seek to enforce a two-state solution in the decades long Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

For that resolution to succeed, France and its allies at the U.N. “will need the cooperation of Israel’s traditional guardian, the United States”.

Faced with heavy opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran from members of the U.S. Senate, the United States has been less than clear over just how far it will go in resisting Israeli control.

Some Middle Eastern diplomats have expressed the hope that with the success of the deal between the P5+1 states and Iran, the U.S. might feel it has the momentum to support the Palestinian move to the U.N. for Palestinian statehood.

UN Ambassador to Jordan Dina Kawar, told reporters on April 2, “I like to think that now this deal has been signed, Secretary of State John Kerry will have the time and momentum to try to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

So far, the signs of change are slipping away. After the success of the nuclear deal with Iran, a blow to Israel, the U.S. has worked hard to shore up its relationship with Israel.

Shortly after the agreement was reached, President Obama “quickly reiterated his commitment to Israel’s security, noting that he had asked his national security team to step up collaboration with the new government on defense measures between the two countries”.

To add to what may be causing a return to the old Obama, the president is facing a vigorous counter-attack against the Iran deal inside Congress, an attack orchestrated by Israel.

Haaretz reports on the form this counter-attack will take. “Israel will adopt two lines of attack as it tries to thwart – or at least modify – the international nuclear agreement with Iran in the coming weeks, a senior [Israeli] official said.

Through its loyal U.S. forces, in and out of Congress, Israel “will lobby the U.S. Congress to pass legislation that would make it difficult, or even impossible, to approve a comprehensive deal with Iran if one is reached by the June 30 deadline” for a final agreement between the negotiating parties.

Israel’s counter-attack will, at the same time, press the White House for “improvements”  in the terms of the agreement. The Israeli official indicates that:

“Israel will try to persuade as many congressmen and senators as possible to support the bill sponsored by Sen. Bob Corker (Rep.), chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The bill sets a 60-day period from the moment an overall agreement is reached with Iran, during which Congress and the Senate will check and review its every detail.

The bill obliges senior officials of the Obama administration to submit detailed reports to Congress and attend a series of hearings about the agreement. It also says that legislation of U.S. sanctions may be revoked only if the Congress and Senate foreign affairs committees make a joint decision supporting the agreement within those 60 days.

The current draft of Corker’s proposal cannot prevent the agreement, but only delay its implementation for some time and put bureaucratic obstacles in its path.”

The Israeli official added that Israel will seek to persuade members of Congress “to introduce a clause stipulating that the agreement with Iran should be seen as an international treaty”. A U.S.-signed international treaty would require Senate approval, an approval which is not required for the current negotiated agreement. 

Through its nuclear agreement with Iran and the P5+1 nations, the U.S. has brokered a successful path away from war. That path could be blocked if the U.S. Senate votes to halt the agreement. 

Such an action would indicate that a majority of the Senate would have supported a move to have U.S. war or peace policies dictated by Israel.

If President Obama fails to prevent the Senate from blocking his major foreign policy achievement, he still has the opportunity to demonstrate his freedom from Israeli control by supporting, or not blocking, France’s U.N. resolution for Palestinian statehood.

The decision is his to make. He has two years remaining in his presidency. He must choose how he wishes to spend those two years, in servitude to Israel, or as a free leader of a sovereign nation.  

The picture above is from the website al monitor.com.

Posted in Middle East Politics | 7 Comments