President Obama ought to have trouble sleeping at night knowing that by allowing Israel to continue its illegal settlement activity on the occupied West Bank he has made himself, and his country, openly complicit in the Zionist state’s defiance of international law. In a different America that ought to be enough to have any president removed from office.
Do I have a picture in my mind of a different America? Yes. In a recent interview with Der Spiegel, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Adviser, said that most Americans are “stunningly ignorant” about the world. By definition a different America would be one in which Americans were aware of the fact that almost everything they have been conditioned to believe about the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel is Zionist propaganda nonsense. (Properly informed Americans would understand, for example, why continued, unconditional White House and Congressional support for the criminal state of Israel is not in America’s own best interests and is, actually, provoking a real and growing threat to them).
My main point comes down to this. Now that he doesn’t have to honour any of the promises Secretary of State Clinton is said to have made to Prime Minister Netanyahu in a desperate (and predictably doomed) effort to persuade him to deliver a 90-day settlement freeze, Obama does have one last card that he could play.
For an Israel that is becoming a pariah state in the view of many people around the world, the promise that mattered most was that Obama would go on doing what all of his predecessors have done – veto any resolution in the Security Council that was not to Israel’s liking.
In the coming days, weeks and months it’s not impossible that the Security Council will be asked to vote on resolutions condemning Israel. One might call for recognition of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 (pre-war) borders. This would be, effectively, a demand for Israel to end its occupation. Another might call for sanctions to be imposed on Israel if it goes on defying international law.
Until Obama’s decision not to confront Netanyahu over settlements, there was little or no prospect of a resolution aimed at calling Israel to account getting as far as the Security Council. But that prospect is now a real one because the European Union is openly exasperated by Obama’s lack of leadership on the matter. (Privately, some if not all EU leaders may well share Eric Margolis’s view that Obama has shown himself to be “utterly without spine” and “terrified” of the Zionist lobby).
In her public statement, Catherine Ashton, the EU’s foreign affairs chief, said this: “I note with regret that Israel has not been in a position to accept an extension of the moratorium as requested by the US, the EU and the Quartet. The EU position on settlements is clear – they are illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace.”
But that was a only the tip of an EU iceberg. For some months my sources have been telling me that almost without exception European governments, behind closed doors, are really “pissed off” with Israel, and were hoping that once the U.S. mid-term elections were out of the way, Obama would be ready to read it the riot act and apply some real pressure.
A hint of what lies below the tip of the EU iceberg was made public in a letter 26 members of the European Former Leaders Group (EFLG) wrote to Herman van Rompuy, President of the European Council, with copies to the governments of its 27 member states. It called for strong measures against Israel in response to its colonial policy and refusal to abide by international law.
One of the letter’s main proposals was that the EU should announce that it will not accept any unilateral changes to the 1967 border that Israel carried out against international law, and that the Palestinian state must cover an area the same size as the area occupied in 1967, with East Jerusalem its capital. To leave as little room as possible for ambiguity, the letter also recommended that the EU should support only minor land swaps on which the two sides agreed.
The signatories were:
Chris Patten, UK,
(co-chair), former Vice-President of the European Commission; Hubert Védrine, France,
(co-chair), former foreign minister; Andreas van Agt, Netherlands, former prime minister; Frans Andriessen, Netherlands, former finance minister and former Vice-President of the European Commission; Guiliano Amato, Italy, former prime minister; Laurens Jan Brinkhorst, Netherlands, former minister and vice-prime minister; Hans van den Broek , Netherlands, former foreign minister and EU Commissioner; Hervé De Charrette, France, former foreign minister; Roland Dumas, France, former foreign minister; Benita Ferrero-Waldner, Austria, former European Commissioner; Felipe Gonzales, Spain, former prime minister; Teresa Patricio Gouveia, Portugal, former foreign minister; Lena Hjelm-Wallén, Sweden, former deputy prime minister; Lionel Jospin, France, former prime minister; Jean Francois-Poncet, France, former minister and senator; Romano Prodi, Italy, former President of the EU Commission and prime minister; Mary Robinson, Ireland, former President; Mona Sahlin, Sweden, chairman Swedish Social Democratic Party; Helmut Schmidt, Germany, former chancellor; Clare Short, UK, former minister; Javier Solana, Spain, former High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy; Thorvald Stoltenberg, Norway, former prime minister; Peter D. Sutherland, Ireland, former Director-General of the WTO; Erkki Tuomioja, Finland, former foreign minister; Vaira Vike-Freiberga, Latvia, former president; Richard von Weizsäcker. Germany, former President.
They noted that “The year 2011 will be of critical importance in determining the fate of the Middle East, perhaps for many years to come.” And one year on from their last report in December 2009 they said (my emphasis added):
“We appear to be no closer to a resolution of this conflict. To the contrary, developments on the ground, primarily Israel’s continuation of settlement activity in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) including in East Jerusalem, pose an existential threat to the prospects of establishing a sovereign, contiguous and viable Palestinian state also embracing Gaza, and therefore pose a commensurate threat to a two-state solution to the conflict…
We consider it vital that the Council should identify concrete measures to operationalize its agreed policy and thence move to implementation of the agreed objectives. Europe cannot afford that the application of these policy principles be neglected and delayed yet again. Time to secure a sustainable peace is fast running out… It is eminently clear that without a rapid and dramatic move to halt the ongoing deterioration of the situation on the ground, a two-state solution, which forms the one and only available option for a peaceful resolution of this conflict, will be increasingly difficult to attain…
The EU has stated unequivocally for decades that the settlements in the OPT are illegal, but Israel continues to build them. Like any other state, Israel should be held accountable for its actions… It is the credibility of the EU that is at stake. The EU position could not be clearer, but – as we have argued above – failure to act accordingly, in the face of contraventions and disregard by Israel, undermines the EU and its credibility in upholding international law…
At stake are not only EU relations with the parties directly involved in the conflict but also with the wider Arab community, with which the EU enjoys positive diplomatic and trade relations.”
One possible translation of that is something like, “Europe can no longer allow its own best interests to be damaged by support for Israel right or wrong.”
It’s no secret that Israel’s deluded leaders and many of its brainwashed Jewish people don’t give a damn about what the EU really thinks because, they believe, only America matters. That has been the situation to date, but could it be about to change?
There’s a case for saying “Yes, perhaps”, but not in the way Israelis might imagine. In their letter the 26 said that “key U.S. figures” had suggested to them that “the best way to help President Barack Obama in his efforts to promote peace was to make policy that contradicts US positions” and which imposed consequences and costs on Israel.
One possible implication is that European leaders have been made aware that Obama needs and wants to be able to say behind his own closed doors something like: “If we don’t require Israel to act in accordance with international law, we’re heading for trouble with Europe and will become as isolated in the world as Israel is. We cannot let this happen.”
Which brings me back to Obama’s last card. The fact is that he does not have to instruct the US ambassador to the UN to vote against Israel in the Security Council. An American abstention would be enough to empower the nearest thing we have to world government to be serious about calling and holding the Zionist state to account for its crimes. And that could be, I repeat could be, a game changer.
If you liked this post, then...
- Share it with others using this button:
- Comment on it using the form below.
- Subscribe to my blog via email or RSS to get "new post" alerts.
- Follow me on Twitter (@alanauthor).
Good article, Mr.Hart, but it will never happen. If Obama ever did what you suggest, he would out on his butt in 10 minutes. Secondly, the U.S. cares not a whit about EU concerns, except to keep it as divided as possible. U.S. and Israeli policies and goals are identicle. If Israel is breaking international law, can you believe the US. is not?
How can a pariah state aka USA be to be against another pariah state aka Isarael?
Correct version
How can a pariah state aka USA be against another pariah state aka Israel?
Since the begining US, UK, France etc. the creators of the zionist state, thought they master the control over their creature but the contrary is now revealed: zionists no longer obey to the gentles (did they ever obey ?). They no longer take orders from any US or european state. We know what happened with the zionist nuclear project and the way they behave with the UN "resolutions". With all my due respect, you don't know what the zionists know about their own ugly secret project. Until the day when everything will be revealed. But, alas, it'll be late. Too late for US & EU ...
Obama has no choice but to be spineless. He can be removed from office at will by the Neocon factions because problems with his citizenship may disqualify him from serving as President. The so-called "birther" movement has been simmering on the back burner since before the election. Every time Obama steps out of line, someone turns up the burner on the pot. I've long since abandoned the idea that this is mere "conspiracy theory". Obama could have put these rumors to bed long ago simply by releasing the pertinent records. There is no way he has not done so simply to create an opportunity to embarass his "opposition".
Israel is not invincible, though Zionists convince themselves giving reasons such as control of the media and of the US political parties and even of the Federal Reserve, Israel's nuclear devices etc. The American People are slowly waking up to what Zionism means to them. They are witnessing their future become bleaker as the US economy worsens, thus becoming less able to pump billions of dollars into Israel. If the People of the World call Israel's bluff, Israel may implode rather than explode.
It's not promising because he is backing down to make things easier for the Democrats to win the mid-term elections.
This is because without compromise on foreign policy, it's unlikely progress will be made on domestic policy - which is where the votes are.
And unless the Democrats do well, it's unlikely he would win a second term. Unless of course he is prepared to by-pass the mainstream media and show how foreign policy impacts on domestic policy.
Therefore if he is backing down to win a second term, why would he then risk the second term by not supporting Israel at the UN?
The question is would a second term Obama be 'off the leash' to do what's right, or would he fold again and put domestic policy before foreign policy?
Robert Battersby wrote:
"If the People of the World call Israel's bluff, Israel may implode rather than explode."
People of the world minus people in USA denounce every day the zionist racist state behavior.
But what about the USA people ?
USA people can't say one day we didn't know. Did german people during second worldwide war know what was going on in the nazi camps ? Don't USA people know what is going on in Ghaza and Jerusalem with the huge mean in information technology they own ? And in their own country ?
The key of the palestinian issues is in the hand of people in USA.
I'm not a great supporter of either EU or the current UK government. Until the UK recognizes that it is a mere pawn in this game between the US and EU there will never be a consensus against the Zionists.
Yes, the issue of land grab is most important in this because with time the land will all be grabbed and there be no contest for anything more unless it's in surrounding Arab territories... land grab there? That wouldn't suprise me if it was a success but neither will I give up hope that justice will prevail despite despots in these states will continuing to capitulate and cooperate with the US.
The comments about our beloved Yasser Arafat are totally misguided. He was unique among leaders for his belief in the cause and it looks as if he is irreplaceable.
I've read your books, Alan, among many others. Arafat is the most maligned leader of this century. Why? 'Cos he hadn't any money!
To those of you who forget what justice and truth really were...read history..between the lines...
Obama is just another pawn...no clout in the Jewish lobby means failure over there hence internationally.
Well, I must say that this is probably the most historically ignorant and biased article on the Middle East I've read in a long time. It has al the familiar trappings, ad nauseam : "illegal settlement activity" "occupied West Bank" and " the Zionist state's defiance of international law." etc, etc
There is not a shred of historical evidence that there is, or ever were, even such an ethnic, racial or national 'people' as the Palestinians, and certainly no 'Palestine' ever existed in the past as a nation, a sovereign state, with a government, borders, etc. The 'Palestinians' are, to put it simply, Arabs who mostly came from Jordan, as did their beloved Arafat.
There are only two sides to this debate: the Israeli side and the Arab side. There is no European or American side. The Arabs have manipulated the West for financial contributions to the tune of billions of dollars per year to support 'pro-Palestinian' organizations. All of the money goes into the politicians pockets and armaments to to be used against Israel. All of it, and none find its way to better the quality of life for the average 'Palestinian.'
The 'Palestinians' have suffered immensely more at the hands of their Arab brothers than through anything the Israelis have done to them.
If the Arabs are so passionate about their support of the 'Palestinians' why do they let them squalor in poverty. Funny how big oil money never finds its way to the poor 'Palestinians.' The Arabs who are rich beyond measure beg the West for financial aid on behalf of their poor 'Palestinian' brothers.
It is clearly in their best interest to keep the conflict going. Images of children throwing rocks at Israeli tanks and 'Palestinians' fighting for "statehood" might work to pick up a few more dollars from a gullible and ignorant West, but the West is getting fed up. It is becoming all the more obvious that the obstacle to peace are the Arabs themselves who undermine all efforts and sabotage all agreements.
One needs only to look at a map of the Middle East to come to the realization that the only explanation for the enormous international attention, the huge financial investments, the risky diplomatic commitments, and the overall conflict over the tiny sliver of land called Israel can only be by design. The Arabs pretend, but have diluted everyone else into believing, that they are in the process of resurrecting a stolen once sovereign 'State', one that never existed. The Arabs have repeatedly stated that they want to drive them into the sea and will not rest until they do. An Israeli retreat to the pre-1967 borders will not solve the ongoing problem for Israel or the 'Palestinians.' And certainly no ridiculous 90 day freeze on construction will deter the Arabs from their stated goal.
Those international laws, which the author is so fond of repeating as being violated by Israel, gave Israel its statehood, but curiously, that particular international law is the one that is not recognized by the Arabs. If the 'Palestinians' refuse to recognize the state of Israel, wherein is their appeal to international law?
Therein lies the hypocrisy. Therein lies the coercion. Therein lies the evil.
Alan I am not sure whether you will answer A A S's comment, Would it be worth it?
It had been a very very long time since I had not read such, such OK I will say it crap.
It seems that "hasbara" has decided to have a go at you Alan.
Facts won't go away, truth will prevail, Palestine will live forever!
Alexander Arthur Smith wrote:
"bla bla bla ..." the classic zionist propaganda the world now is aware of.
A day is coming when no one on earth could trust or listen to the zionists. Their lies and deceptions are now brought to light. The evidences are clear. Their ugly and terrific project can not succeed: they are playing exactly the character of Alien in the Earth spacecraft ... Humanity or else the Zionism, the Impostor.
This guy would not even do as a dog catcher!