ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

They warned us. The geniuses at Peace Now warned us. The brilliant diplomats warned us. The think tanks warned us. Even the Arab dictators warned us. For decades now, they have been warning us that if you want "peace in the Middle East," just fix the Palestinian problem. A recent variation on this theme has been: Just get the Jews to stop building apartments in East Jerusalem and Efrat. Yes, if all those Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem would only "freeze" their construction, then, finally, Palestinian leaders might come to the table and peace might break out.

And what would happen if peace would break out between Jews and Palestinians? Would all those furious Arabs now demonstrating on streets across the Middle East feel any better?

What bloody nonsense.

Has there ever been a greater abuse of the English language in international diplomacy than calling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the "Middle East peace process?" As if there were only two countries in the Middle East.

Even if you absolutely believe in the imperative of creating a Palestinian state, you can't tell me that the single-minded and global obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the expense of the enormous ills in the rest of the Middle East hasn't been idiotic, if not criminally negligent.

While tens of millions of Arabs have been suffering for decades from brutal oppression, while gays have been tortured and writers jailed and women humiliated and dissidents killed, the world—yes, the world—has obsessed with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

As if Palestinians—the same coddled victims on whom the world has spent billions and who have rejected one peace offer after another—were the only victims in the Middle East.

As if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has anything to do with the 1,000-year-old bloody conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, or the desire of brutal Arab dictators to stay in power, or the desire of Islamist radicals to bring back the Caliphate, or the economic despair of millions, or simply the absence of free speech or basic human rights throughout the Arab world.

While self-righteous Israel bashers have scrutinized every flaw in Israel's democracy—some waxing hysterical that the Jewish democratic experiment in the world's nastiest neighborhood had turned into an embarrassment—they kept their big mouths shut about the oppression of millions of Arabs throughout the Middle East.

They cried foul if Israeli Arabs—who have infinitely more rights and freedoms than any Arabs in the Middle East—had their rights compromised in any way. But if a poet were jailed in Jordan or a gay man were tortured in Egypt or a woman were stoned in Syria, all we heard was screaming silence.

Think of the ridiculous amount of media ink and diplomatic attention that has been poured onto the Israel-Palestinian conflict over the years, while much of the Arab world was suffering and smoldering, and tell me this is not criminal negligence.

Do you ever recall seeing a UN resolution or an international conference in support of Middle Eastern Arabs not named Palestinians?

Of course, now that the Arab volcano has finally erupted, all those chronic Israel bashers have suddenly discovered a new cause: Freedom for the poor oppressed Arabs of the Middle East!

Imagine if, instead of putting Israel under their critical and hypocritical microscope, the world's Israel bashers had taken Israel's imperfect democratic experiment and said to the Arab world: Why don't you try to emulate the Jews?

Why don't you give equal rights to your women and gays, just like Israel does?

Why don't you give your people the same freedom of speech and freedom to vote that Israel does? And offer them the economic opportunities they would get in Israel? Why don't you treat your Jewish and Christian citizens the same way Israel treats its Arab and Christian citizens?

Why don't you study how Israel has struggled to balance religion with democracy—a very difficult but not insurmountable task?

Why don't you teach your people that Jews are not the sons of dogs but a noble, ancient people with a 3,000-year connection to the land of Israel?

Yes, imagine if Israel bashers had spent a fraction of their energy fighting the lies of Arab dictators and defending the rights of millions of oppressed Arabs. Imagine if President Obama had taken one percent of the time he has harped on Jewish settlements to defend the democratic rights of Egyptian Arabs—which he is suddenly doing now that the volcano has erupted.

Maybe it's just easier to beat up on a free and open society like Israel.

Well, now that the cesspool of human oppression in the Arab world has been opened for all to see, how bad is Israel's democracy looking?

Don't you wish the Arab world had a modicum of Israel's civil society?

Would you still be worrying about "stability in the Middle East?"

You can preach to me all you want about the great Jewish tradition of self-criticism—which I believe in—but right now, when I see poor Arab souls being murdered for the simple act of protesting on the street, I've never felt more proud of being a supporter of the Jewish state.

But Israel must never give up, no matter how tempting, in reaching an agreement with the Pals. After all, the settlement in Northern Ireland came after many, many, decades of fighting.

Again, Israel is the only real democracy in the Middle East. Its Palestinians get equal treatment, and as a whole are more prosperous than the other people in the ME. The Pals are at fault for losing some land, and this is because of their incessant attacks on Israel and unwillingness to enter into a fair settlement.

19 February 2011 Last updated at 04:44 GMT
Israeli settlements: US vetoes UNSC resolution

Palestinian teenagers sit opposite the Jewish settlement of Modiin in the West bank, 18 February Modiin is one of the West Bank Jewish settlements in dispute

The US has vetoed an Arab resolution at the UN Security Council condemning Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories as an obstacle to peace.

All 14 other members of the Security Council backed the resolution, which had been endorsed by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

It was the first veto exercised by the Obama administration which had promised better relations with the Muslim world.

A Palestinian official said the talks process would now be "re-assessed".

Washington was under pressure from Israel and Congress, which has a strong pro-Israel lobby, to use its veto.

The Obama administration's decision risks angering Arab peoples at a time of mass street protests in the Middle East, the BBC's Barbara Plett reports from the UN.

It had placed enormous pressure on the Palestinians to withdraw the resolution and accept alternatives, but these were ultimately rejected.

Given the ferment in the Arab world at the moment, that is not a good position for Washington to be in.

While stating that it opposed new settlements, the Obama administration argued that taking the issue to the UN would only complicate efforts to resume stalled negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on a two-state peace deal.

"Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides," said the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice.

The resolution, sponsored by at least 130 countries, declared Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories were illegal and a "major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace".

Speaking from Ramallah in the West Bank, PLO secretary general Yasser Abed Rabbo said the US veto was "unfortunate" and "affected the credibility of the US administration".

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the US veto, adding that his country remained committed to "a solution that will reconcile the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations for statehood with Israel's need for security and recognition". ......

Analysis
Barbara Plett BBC UN correspondent

On paper this was a defeat for the Palestinians but they and representatives of other Arab nations seemed to be in a buoyant mood. They had held out some hope that America would abstain, but not much, so the veto was predictable.

The degree of support, on the other hand, was overwhelming: some 130 countries co-sponsored the resolution, and all the other members of the Security Council voted for it.

The result was strong endorsement of the Palestinian position on Israeli settlements - that they are illegal, and an obstacle to peace - which isolated Israel. It also isolated the United States.

No matter what reasons America gave for the veto (it insisted bringing the matter to the Security Council complicated chances for peace talks) or how fulsomely it criticised settlement building (as a folly and threat to peace) it appeared out of sync with the international consensus, and as Israel's only defender.

Given the ferment in the Arab world at the moment, that is not a good position for Washington to be in.

A SHORT HISTORY OF
US VETOES OF UN PEACE
RESOLUTIONS

The United States has vetoed 35 UN resolutions related to the middle east. (Palestine; 24, Lebanon; 8, Syria; 1, Libya; 2)
Shortly after the 1967 war, the US asserted that Israel had to comply with the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Territories, but it was only four years later, in 1971, that the US declared Israel’s actions there to be contrary to the Convention. It took another four years for the US to declare the building of settlements in the occupied territories as being illegal and an obstacle to peace. Yet, two days after declaring its position to the UN (1976), the US vetoed a resolution calling on Israel to stop changing the status of Jerusalem and put an end to settlement building on Arab land. It was only in March 1979 that the US allowed the Security Council to address the situation by abstaining on the UNSCR 446, which stated that the Fourth Geneva Convention applied to the Arab territories occupied by Israel, including Jerusalem[1].



However, at this point, the Resolution was more or less meaningless and it was certainly not going to change Israel’s plans for yet more settlements. Despite the fact that US President Jimmy Carter kept on declaring settlements to be illegal, only three out of seven Security Council Resolutions (during his four years in office) on the issue of settlements were supported by the US.



In 1979, a UN commission reported the existence of 133 Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories, and almost 100,000 settlers. The number of settlements began rising substantially once the ultra-nationalist Menachem Begin became Israeli Prime Minister in 1977. By the end of his term (1983), there were almost 200 settlements. By the end of Yitzhak Shamir’s term, a further fifty settlements had been built; there were now around 245 000 settlers in the Occupied Territories[2].



In 1981, less than a month after he took office, President Ronald Reagan expressed his opinion that the expansion of the settlements was not a constructive move, but they were ‘not illegal’… ‘maybe unnecessarily provocative’[3]. President Reagan was a strong admirer and supporter of Israel and showed no sympathy for Palestinians, which obviously meant that there was no chance of his Middle East policy-making being even-handed. Israeli supporters filled almost every portfolio in his foreign policy team, and no regional experts in the State Department had any influence on his policies whatsoever. His term in office also coincided with AIPAC’s membership rising dramatically, and saw the launch of the Hasbara Project, which was set up by Israeli supporters and media commentators as an information campaign to try to regain a positive image of Israel. This came after it had been damaged following Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982[4].



The first Bush Administration offered some hope for change when Secretary of State, James Baker, addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 1989, stating that Israeli settlement expansion had to end. This new Administration also referred to East Jerusalem as Occupied Territory and declared that the settlement issue was one of the main obstacles for peace and one of the first concerns to Palestinians[5].



However this coincided with Jews from the Soviet Union flooding into Israel by their thousands. Shamir, then Israeli Prime Minister, declared that Israel needed to expand its settlement building to be able to house all these immigrants, even if this meant building in the Occupied Territories[6]. James Baker later declared that the U.S. would guarantee a loan for building housing for the Soviet immigrants, but on the condition that the loan was not used to build settlements in the Occupied Territories. Shamir gave Baker assurances about the use of these funds; however, in October he declared that the agreement did not cover Arab East Jerusalem[7].



The Clinton Administration expressed its position on the issue by defending the policy supporting the “natural growth” of settlements. As the Oslo accords began to take shape, the U.S. re-iterated that settlements had been a cause of tension, but both sides were now working together to resolve this. However during the Rabin-Peres Administration, the number of settlers increased by almost fifty percent[8], but these facts were often overlooked, Didi Remez, the spokesman for Peace Now, explained, ‘most Israelis were and are fundamentally unaware of the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. For them, 1993-2000 were years of Peace’[9]. A report published by B’tselem explains that the Oslo Accords had not dealt with the issue of settlements and thus enables Israel to continue with its policies of land expropriation. According to the report, Israel established 30 new settlements in the Occupied Territories, of which 17 during the signing of the Wye Memorandum[10].



When Netanyahu came to power in 1996, Warren Christopher, then Secretary of State, was asked what the US’s policy was on the issue of settlements. He declared, “I think we’ll have to adapt our policy to the current situation. That is our policy.”[11] In December 1996, Netanyahu spoke out firmly in support of continued settlement expansion, saying that he wanted to match the previous Government’s rate of settlement growth. The hypocrisy of his Government went even further when in 1998, during the Wye Plantation agreement, his Foreign Minister, Ariel Sharon, met with settlement leaders and urged them to ‘grab the hilltops’. This resulted in the establishment of 42 new settlement sites[12].

READ ON AT,

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/USveto.html

Given its history as Israel's proxy, the United States has long been an obstacle to peace in the Middle East, and complicit in Israel's oppression of the Palestinian peoples.

Given its history as Israel's proxy, the United States has long been an obstacle to peace in the Middle East, and complicit in Israel's oppression of the Palestinian peoples.

Israel has few friends in Gaza, and now the blockade on the Egyptian side may be ending.
Israel's policy towards its neighbours might now begin to count against it.

Well no, it isn't about "freezing" construction of apartment buildings, it's about ending Israel's discrimination against and oppression of the Palestinian peoples. Peace will break out only after Israel ceases and desists in doing this.

Israel's criminal discrimination against and oppression of the Palestinian peoples is the crux of the enormous ills in the Middle East. It's what threatens a region wide war. It should be dealt with accordingly.

Advocate wrote:

But Israel must never give up, no matter how tempting, in reaching an agreement with the Pals. After all, the settlement in Northern Ireland came after many, many, decades of fighting.

Actually it was several centuries. Moreover peace came only when the transplanted Scottish Protestants gave up completely on their dream of permanent supremacy in a country ruled by themselves, and accepted political equality with the faster growing population of Irish Catholics. I don't think the Israelis are anywhere near to accepting that reality.

3. The expropiation of territory from Palestinians by Israel and Zionist Israelis has been continuous and systematic for over forty years. It wasn't the "fault" of the Palestinians that this happened - it was the greed of Zionist settlers and the faulty "security" thinking of the Israeli government that motivated the settlements.

4. Advocate's concept of a "fair" settlement would give Jews everywhere the right to settle in Israel, but would prevent the return of the Palestinians driven out of their land in 1947 and 1967. The Palestinans, and most people in the region, don't regard that as "fair". Neither do I.

Analysis
Barbara Plett BBC UN correspondent

On paper this was a defeat for the Palestinians but they and representatives of other Arab nations seemed to be in a buoyant mood. They had held out some hope that America would abstain, but not much, so the veto was predictable.

The degree of support, on the other hand, was overwhelming: some 130 countries co-sponsored the resolution, and all the other members of the Security Council voted for it.

The result was strong endorsement of the Palestinian position on Israeli settlements - that they are illegal, and an obstacle to peace - which isolated Israel. It also isolated the United States.

No matter what reasons America gave for the veto (it insisted bringing the matter to the Security Council complicated chances for peace talks) or how fulsomely it criticised settlement building (as a folly and threat to peace) it appeared out of sync with the international consensus, and as Israel's only defender.

Given the ferment in the Arab world at the moment, that is not a good position for Washington to be in.

One American veto outweighs every single anti-Semite at the UN.

Oralloy wrote:

One American veto outweighs every single anti-Semite at the UN.

I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond ... but I think you are living in the past, oralloy.

Some quick catching up with recent developments might be in order.

There has been no change. We retain our ability to veto resolutions in the UN Security Council.

Oralloy wrote:

There has been no change. We retain our ability to veto resolutions in the UN Security Council.

And you think that amounts to anything important at all?
Seriously.