First, the latest news from the Gaza siege:
Video footage shows Israel firing on nonviolent protest in Gaza
International Solidarity Movement (ISM) volunteer Bianca Zammit shot up by the Israeli military during a nonviolent protest in Gaza. In addition, 22-year old Hind Al Akra was shot in the stomach and 18-year old Nidal Al Naji was shot in the leg. All three are now in stable condition.
Philip Weiss reported on the title story about Chuck Schumer’s dual loyalties a few days ago.
It was Ben Smith, a British peace activist, who picked up a disturbing radio interview of Chuck Schumer by Nachum Segal, who is apparently to the right of Schumer. Schumer repeatedly sides with Israel over Obama and essentially states that the collective punishment of the Palestinian people in Gaza is tough luck.
Phil Weiss also notes that Schumer falsely claimed that all Americans share his feeling. But read the comments at Politico for a different reality, that “people ain’t buying,” and “the American street is enraged by Schumer’s allegiances” (in particular, his Israel first perspective).
The interview begins with an excerpt of Schumer’s reference to State Department spokesman PJ Crowley’s description of Hillary Clinton’s exchange with Netanyahu made public. If we recall, a pissed Clinton made clear that the Israeli government had to demonstrate “not just through words but through specific actions that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process.”
“And Crowley said something I have never heard before, which is, the relationship of Israel and the United States depends on the pace of the negotiations.”
“That is terrible. That is the dagger because the relationship is much deeper than the disagreements on negotiations, and most Americans–Democrat, Republican, Jew, non-Jew–would feel that. So I called up Rahm Emanuel and I called up the White House and I said, ‘If you don’t retract that statement you are going to hear me publicly blast you on this…'”
[Ben Smith:] Schumer said the White House had backed off that statement, but that now “many of us are pushing back, some of the Jewish members will be meeting with the President next week or the week after, and we are saying that this has to stop.”
Schumer then speaks about pacifying the Palestinians:
…there is some economic growth in the West Bank. It’s growing at 7-8%, Netanyahu brags that — when he came here I spent a lot of time with him – That there are multiplex theatres in places like Ramallah and Janeen. At the same time that is happening, there is prosperity with the more moderate Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and Hamas in Gaza is being squeezed and people there are doing very badly. Not only because Israel has blocked off the border and not let anything into Gaza, and I support Israel in doing that, and it may be tough on the Palestinian people, but when they vote for Hamas they are going to have to suffer the consequences…
SEGAL: Senator Schumer, the perception among New York state residents, and I’m one of them as you know, is there likely is no one closer in the Senate to the President than you.
SCHUMER: That’s not quite true, but I have an ear and frankly I spent time on the phone just yesterday talking to him about this, and telling him that I didn’t quite understand the United States policy, because even if the goal is to bring about talks of peace, it was counter-productive because it’s encouraging the Palestinians not to sit down.
SEGAL: More than ¾ of the Senate, including a lot of democrats, signed the letter to Sec. of State Clinton rebuking the administration for these confrontational stances toward Israel. Were you surprised that names like Kerry, Dodd, Durbin, Leahy and Reid were not included in that letter?
SCHUMER: Well I think Senator Reid signed the letter, some didn’t sign but the majority of both parties signed. And we’ll have other letters and other meetings to keep pushing that. I think you can say there are a handful of people who are not sympathetic to Israel in the Senate of each party, but 90% of the Senate is overwhelmingly in support of Israel. And one of my jobs, as you know is to rally those forces to do strong poll work for this year (couldn’t hear this part perfectly). Believe me I think the policy has to change, and I’m working hard to make it change and I think it will. Every administration at the beginning has this view even Ronald Reagan, the best friend Israel ever had, do you remember his first 2 years? When George Schultz wanted to sell AWACs to Saudi Arabia? Every administration has this idea to talk tough to Israel and make nice to the Arabs and the Palestinians and that’s the way to bring about peace. It’s counter-productive, it’s actually the opposite…
Luckily in terms of Jewish people we have good representation in terms of the Supreme Court. That will continue. One thing I want to assure your listeners Nachum, my name as you know comes from a Hebrew word. It comes from the word shomer, which mean guardian. My ancestors were guardians of the ghetto wall in Chortkov and I believe Hashem, actually, gave me name as one of my roles that is very important in the United States Senate to be a shomer to be A. a shomer for Israel and I will continue to be that with every bone in my body for of the other is against me.
So, not only is Chuck’s dual loyalty again out in the open, but his Israel first stance is evident, as is its right wing nature.
Obama wins a bone:
APNewsBreak: East Jerusalem construction frozen
Barak defies outpost demolition law
Jonathan Cook
The National
April 26. 2010
NAZARETH // Ehud Barak, Israel’s defence minister, has indicated he will defy an Israeli court that has ordered the demolition of 18 settler homes in the West Bank, in what is widely seen as a test of the government’s commitment to halting settlement expansion.
The homes are to be found in what Israel terms “outposts” – small, land-hungry settlements it has promised the United States it will dismantle. Unlike the main settlements, which violate international law, the outposts are also illegal under Israeli law.
Mr Barak wrote on April 14 to the Supreme Court, arguing that it would not be “sensitive or humane” to destroy the outpost houses for the time being because they include the homes of the widows of two Israeli soldiers killed in action.
Mr Barak’s officials are reported to be secretly trying to find a way to legalise the two outposts to avoid enforcing the ruling.
His resistance to carrying out the court order appeared to contradict his warning last week that Israel must take steps to end the occupation. “The alienation that is developing with the United States is not good for Israel,” he told Israeli radio.
http://www.jkcook.net/Articles3/0479.htm#Top
Over the decades of my life I have become less and less impressed with words and more and more interested in looking at someone’s behaviour and actions. For this reason I have never been optimistic about any Israeli government’s interest in coming to a reasonable agreement with the Palestinians (or the Syrians, or the Lebanese) without enormous pressure from the external world, including the United States. Someone needs to hit Israel upside the heat, and force it to comply with international law, that is all.
There is no incentive for Israel to comply with international law when the US and other nations welcome their diplomats and engage in commerce with them, and the UN remains stiffled with even persecuting them for war crimes, seen first-hand by the world. Canada albeit under a right wing leader, Harper, just struck a commemorative stamp in honor of Israel.
BDS may be the only hope, but it will have to affect the street, as governments will probably not participate, except for the Middle East nations, this time perhaps including Turkey.
But I think it will be essential for the Palestinians to declare their statehood because it will never come from the US-Israel talking merry-go-round.
There is no point in the Palestinians declaring a state, because the Israelis will never let them have a viable one. I also think that declaring one traps them into accepting whatever non-sovereign state-simulating status Israel claims to be a truly sovereign nation.
Well that would appear to be just what the Israelis have in mind: the 40% solution. I think I wrote about that sometime in the past.
The alternative is the incessant talking to nowhere, which was seen during Camp David/Taba negotiations and the Olmert “tea with Abbas” spurts of peace talking. The Israelis are great at talking. They have been talking since Begin’s administration and will talk you into a talk-a-thon if you let them. And that is what happened. We have no peace, just facts on the ground, and a dwindling piece of pie, while the Israelis keep eating it.
And the whole time they are talking (aka lying) the are confiscating and demolishing and building like mad.
More talk isn’t a pleasant option, either. But declaring statehood immediately takes away the threat of the other major option – becoming Israeli citizens (though Cook’s article on the nature of Israeli citizenship exposes an interesting twist to the option).
Perhaps I am wrong about the effect of declaring statehood, and it would strengthen the Palestinian position. But I don’t see how.
It may all depend on the US position. It is now accepted that lack of peace and Israel’s continuing occupation/colonization is hurting the US with respect to the Muslim and Arab world.
We just can’t continue being a patsy for Israel’s extremists, the Likuds who will not desist from creating an Apartheid nation, which will pull us into the quagmire more deeply than we are now in, as sponsors of it all.
Apropos of nothing in particular, I want to point out that the I/P issue is generally discussed with a pretty static background. But both Peak Oil and the growing power of the BRIC countries will change the context. As to how, I haven’t figured out yet.
Iran getting the bomb would change the context, too. But I don’t think they are anywhere close, if they are even trying for one in the first place – which I doubt.
I, too, doubt they are. At most they might share Japan’s strategy: develop a domestic nuclear capability, which has definite advantages for them (less domestic oil consumption = more to sell abroad = more revenue to the State; as oil runs out they could be positioned to sell power to the neighborhood, thus seamlessly replacing the lost oil revenue), and that can also be fairly quickly converted to weapons development should the need arise. That seems to me to be a smart, and pretty safe approach. No weapons until/unless you clearly need them, the advantages of producing your own power, plus the capability to divert nuclear power production to weapons production should a serious threat develop.
Salam Fayyad, Palestinian Prime Minister, Focuses On Building State
Is Fayyad on the right track? If he declares a state in 2011 as he has suggested, isn’t that state ipso facto an Apartheid state controlled in all of its aspects by Israel? And since Israel will not be able to formally engage in “transfer” of 2.5 million Palestinians, doesn’t this Israel-approved project have failure written all over it?
Just what kind of a state will or can be declared? No sovereign borders abut Jordan, no East Jerusalem and the Jordan valley, not any of the lands taken by Israeli settlements, a state that will amount to no more than 40% of the West Bank.
This is an Apartheid state, and Israel will be able to say, they chose it, what could we do? They didn’t want to negotiate, even though Netanyahu already declared that Israel will keep all but that 40%. Then we will no doubt have comparisons of Palestine with the cantons of the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and other mini-states located inside of larger countries.
‘…with the cantons of the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and other mini-states located inside of larger countries.’———————–
What does that mean? I doubt if anyone living in either the Netherlands or Luxemburg would agree with your characterization of their statehood.
Read Jonathan Cook today at antiwar.com and see how ‘Jews’ descriminate against ‘Arabs’ in Israel, a state to which apparaently no citizen belongs.
That was just a speculation on how Israel might characterize a group of Palestinian bantustans, or an Apartheid existence. It is not a formuation anyone would choose, especially since the West Bank does abut Jordan, the logical border west of Israel.
And yes, there is considerable discrimination of Palestinian citizens inside of Israel, and Cook has documented it for several years.
There is considerable discrimination against non-European Jews in Israel, let alone Palestinian citizens. One of my areas of special interest is Arab Jews and their history in the Arab world and with respect to Zionism and Israel. I think just knowing for what real reasons (as opposed to the propaganda reasons) and by what devices Jews were brought from the Arab countries to Israel, and how they were treated once they got there would likely change many people’s perception of Israel. And of course there were a number of indigenous Palestinian Jews who had no family connection with European Jews and they were treated as badly by the European Jewish colonists and in Israel as were immigrants from the rest of the Arab world. Many of them ended up as very committed anti-Zionists, as did quite a few European-origin Palestinian Jews with generations of family history in Palestine.
As for non-Jewish Palestinian “equal” citizens of the Jewish State, much of the discrimination against them is codified in the laws of The Only Democracy In The Middle East(TM).
Looks like your views have just been confirmed by Noam Chomsky. I just put up his latest article.
I have not been able to read the whole article yet. I can only read so much before I have to stop for awhile. It is beyond painful to see such strong arguments for what I know to be true. I wish someone could convince me against it. It makes me deeply angry, it makes me despair, it makes me feel utterly helpless. It also makes me know that we cannot stop ever even when we know our efforts will make no difference because if we stop we are giving our consent.