Archives‎ > ‎

Obama, Trump and Palestine, from Peter Myers

(1) Obama uses his final UN Address to promote a Palestinian State
(2) Obama may back UNSC resolution on Palestine state, after the election but before he leaves office
(3) Abbas seeks British apology for 1917 Balfour declaration
(4) US denies reports it will permit a UN Security Council resolution to establish "Palestine"
(5) Israel locks in 10-year Aid deal before US election
(6) Trump: Israel should keep building West Bank settlements
(7) Israel has Colonized the US, much as Britain colonized India
(8) Harder times for Palestine, whoever wins US election
(1) Obama uses his final UN Address to promote a Palestinian State
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 22:57:07 +0000
Subject: Obama Used His Final UN Address To Promote A ‘Liberal World
Order’ And A Palestinian State
From: End Of The American Dream <>
Obama Used His Final UN Address To Promote A ‘Liberal World Order’ And A
Palestinian State
Posted: 20 Sep 2016 09:01 PM PDT
Obama Used His Final UN Address To Promote A ‘Liberal World Order’ And A
Palestinian State
By Michael Snyder, on September 20th, 2016
During Barack Obama’s eighth and final address to the United Nations he
let his true colors show. He staunchly defended globalism, he took
several not very subtle shots at Donald Trump, and he boldly declared
that Israel "cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land".
That statement about "Palestinian land" was extremely alarming to many,
because there are indications that Obama may decide to support a UN
Security Council resolution that establishes the parameters for a
Palestinian state during his final months in the White House. Barack
Obama has promised to squeeze every ounce of "change" out of the
remainder of his term that he possibly can, and his last UN speech
showed what is on his heart at this moment.
According to the Washington Post, Obama’s final UN address represented
"an impassioned plea on behalf of a liberal world order"…
President Obama, in his final speech to the United Nations Tuesday, made
an impassioned plea on behalf of a liberal world order that he admitted
was under growing threat from wars in the Middle East and rising
nationalism at home and in Europe.
Speaking to the U.N. General Assembly for the eighth and last time as
president, Obama sought to rise above the conflicts of the moment and
outline a future of international cooperation, stressing the importance
of the global liberal institutions formed after World War II, including
the United Nations.
Barack Obama is a true believer in internationalism. He appears to be
completely convinced that the best path forward for humanity involves
more integration on all levels – political, economic and even spiritual.
Just check out this excerpt from his speech…
"I believe that at this moment we all face a choice," Obama said. "We
can choose to press forward with a better model of cooperation and
integration or we can retreat into a world sharply divided and
ultimately in conflict along age-old lines of nation and tribe and race
and religion. I want to suggest to you today that we must go forward and
not back."
Obama’s obsession with globalism is one of the reasons why he has so
much disdain for Donald Trump, and his speech at the United Nations
contained quite a few comments that seemed specifically targeted at him.
The following comes from CNN…
He painted a dark picture of the future awaiting Americans, and the
world, if the forces of "aggressive nationalism" or "crude populism" win
out. And he specifically inveighed against building a wall — a
centerpiece of Trump’s proposal on border security.
"A nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself," Obama declared to
the assembled representatives of the UN’s member states.
But even more alarming than his defense of globalism was his wording
about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I can’t remember any previous
president ever using the phrase "Palestinian land" before. Obviously a
"two-state solution" is already an inevitable outcome in Obama’s mind.
Here is the full quote for those that have not seen it yet…
"Surely Israelis and Palestinians will be better off if Palestinians
reject incitement and recognize the legitimacy of Israel. But Israel
must recognize that it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian
To me, this statement is a major red flag.
Could it be possible that Barack Obama plans to stab Israel in the back
by supporting a UN Security Council resolution that permanently divides
the Holy Land before his time in the White House is done?
On Wednesday, Obama is scheduled to meet with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu. As you can see, White House Press Secretary Josh
Earnest says that a discussion about a "two-state solution" will be on
the agenda…
Obama plans to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on
Wednesday to "discuss the need for genuine advancement of a two-state
solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the face of deeply
troubling trends on the ground," according to White House Press
Secretary Josh Earnest.
Barack Obama knows that he only has until January 20th, 2017 to take any
action on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
If he supports a UN Security Council resolution formally recognizing a
Palestinian state and granting them East Jerusalem as their capital, the
next president would not be able to go back and undo that. So this may
be a way for Obama to "leave a legacy" in the Middle East, and he may
especially be tempted to do this if it looks like Donald Trump could win
the election…
A looming Donald Trump presidency would make it more likely for
lame-duck US President Barack Obama to support a United Nations Security
Council resolution laying down the basic parameters for the creation of
Palestinian state, a former top US official said Sunday.
"I suspect that if Trump wins, the president would be more inclined to
go for a Security Council resolution to try to do something that binds,
creates standards for the future that the next president couldn’t undo,"
Dennis Ross said at a conference on the future of Zionism and the
US-Israel relationship. "If Clinton wins, I suspect he [Obama] would be
more sensitive to her concerns as to whether this helps or hurt her."
Less than a week ago, I wrote an article about how UN Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon also appears to want to see movement toward a Palestinian
state before his term ends, and he reaffirmed this position very
strongly on Tuesday…
Earlier on Tuesday, UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon told the UN General
Assembly that the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
would be a two-state solution, and that the one-state option would
"spell doom" for both sides.
"This is madness. Replacing a two-state solution with a one-state
construct would spell doom: denying Palestinians their freedom and
rightful future, and pushing Israel further from its vision of a Jewish
democracy towards greater global isolation," said Ban.
Of course Barack Obama and Ban Ki-moon are both dead wrong about this.
If the UN Security Council passes a resolution that sets the parameters
for a Palestinian state,  it would be one of the worst things that they
could possibly do, and it would set the stage for a major war in the
Middle East.
But the pressure is on, and the world community seems to sense a real
opportunity to divide the land of Israel. ...
Overall, I don’t know if I have ever seen such an international push for
a Palestinian state like we are seeing right now.
And the man that holds all the power is Barack Obama, because a
potential U.S. veto is all that stands in the way of a UN Security
Council resolution that divides the land of Israel and establishes a
Palestinian state.
At this moment we are in the danger zone. Obama has only four months
left to pull the trigger, and Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have both
stated that they do not plan to support such a resolution once they take
So if something is going to happen, it is almost certainly going to be
before January 20th, 2017.
It is unclear what Obama is going to do at this point, but it is not
exactly comforting that the fate of the land of Israel lies in his hands.
*About the author:Michael Snyder is the founder and publisher of The
Economic Collapse Blog and End Of The American Dream. Michael’s
controversial new book about Bible prophecy entitled "The Rapture
Verdict" is available in paperback and for the Kindle on*
(2) Obama may back UNSC resolution on Palestine state, after the election but before he leaves office
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 23:44:22 +0000
From: End Of The American Dream <>
Palestinian Authority Races To Get A UN Security Council Resolution
Before Obama Leaves Office
by Michael Snyder {a Christian Zionist}
Posted: 13 Sep 2016 06:47 PM PDT
A little more than four months from now Barack Obama’s time in the White
House is scheduled to end, and the Palestinians know that their best
chance of getting a UN Security Council resolution addressing their
conflict with Israel is rapidly slipping away. Donald Trump and Hillary
Clinton are both greatly wooing the Jewish vote, and they both are
making very strong pro-Israel statements these days. To many of you it
probably isn’t a surprise that the Palestinians are not exactly thrilled
with the prospect of a Trump presidency, but the truth is that they are
very leery of Clinton as well. If you doubt this, just check out
this Al-Jazeera article. At this point the Palestinians are pretty much
convinced that any action at the UN Security Council must happen while
Barack Obama still holds the reigns of power, and so they are in a race
against time.
At a minimum, the Palestinians would like a UN Security Council
resolution condemning any new Jewish settlement activity in the West
Bank. And that is precisely what they are pushing very hard for
The Palestinian Authority intends to accelerate its attempt to pass a
United Nations Security Council resolution against Israeli settlement
activity in the West Bank, according to WAFA, the Palestinian News and
Information Agency.
"The Palestinian leadership and in cooperation with the Arab League and
the Arab ministerial group will hold contacts at the international level
to speed up convening a Security Council session that should pass a
resolution to stop settlements, which pose unprecedented and serious
threat and creates a situation that would result in grave consequences,"
said Nabil Abu Rude, who is a spokesman for PA President Mahmoud Abbas.
Needless to say, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is
steadfastly against such a resolution, and he is alarmed by statements
made by Palestinian leaders that seem to indicate that they want to
single Jewish person from territories under their control…
The Israeli leader
addressed the longstanding Palestinian Authority demand for a Jew-free
Palestinian state; a requirement famously expressed by PA President
Mahmoud Abbas when he exclaimed, "In a final resolution, we would not
see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands."
"I think what makes peace impossible is intolerance of others. Societies
that respect all people are the ones that pursue peace. Societies that
demand ethnic cleansing don’t pursue peace," Netanyahu stated in the video.
If we see a UN Security Council resolution on Israeli settlement in the
West Bank that would be significant, but there is another possibility
that would be absolutely earth-shattering if Barack Obama chose to go
that direction. Up until now, the U.S. government has always used their
UN Security Council veto power to block any resolution that would
formally establish the parameters for a Palestinian state and grant them
East Jerusalem as the capital of that state. But earlier this year the
Obama administration signaled that such a resolution
was now on the table, and at this point Obama has just four months left
to make a decision one way or the other.
If Obama decides to pull the trigger, such a resolution
would be legally binding on the Israelis and the Palestinians, and
neither Trump nor Clinton would be able to go back and change it once it
is done…
This leaves only one option that isn’t seen as unrealistic, unpalatable,
or insignificant: to set down the guidelines or "parameters" of a peace
agreement—on the four core issues of borders, security, refugees, and
Jerusalem—in a US-supported UN Security Council resolution. Once passed,
with US support, these Security Council-endorsed parameters would become
international law, binding, in theory, on all future presidents and
peace brokers.
Top US officials see a parameters resolution as Obama’s only chance at a
lasting, positive legacy, one that history might even one day show to
have been more important to peace than the achievements of his predecessors.
Back in March, 388 members of Congress from both parties (including
Nancy Pelosi) sent Barack Obama a letter urging him not to support such
a resolution. So there is a considerable amount of political pressure on
him not to do this.
But at this point he is a lame duck with nothing to lose. He always said
that a Palestinian state was high on his list of priorities, and this is
his final chance to do something about it. [...]
We are going to find out what happens one way or the other very soon,
because January 20th, 2017 is just a little bit more than four months
away. [...]
(3) Abbas seeks British apology for 1917 Balfour declaration
Abbas seeks British apology for 1917 Jewish homeland declaration
Latest update : 2016-09-22
Britain should apologize for its 1917 declaration endorsing the founding
of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and should recognize Palestine as a
state, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told the United Nations
General Assembly on Thursday.
Abbas said that the Palestinian people had suffered greatly because of
the Balfour Declaration, in which Britain said it favoured the
establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine but
that this should not undermine the rights of others living there.
"We ask Great Britain, as we approach 100 years since this infamous
declaration, to draw the necessary lessons and to bear its historic,
legal, political, material and moral responsibility for the consequences
of this declaration, including an apology to the Palestinian people for
the catastrophes, misery and injustice this declaration created and to
act to rectify these disasters and remedy its consequences, including by
the recognition of the state of Palestine," Abbas said. "This is the
least Great Britain can do."
Abbas also called on the 193-member world body to exert greater effort
than at any time in the past to establish a truly independent
Palestinian state, as the 50th anniversary of Israel's "abhorrent"
occupation approaches in June 2017, asking the UN to declare 2017 "the
international year to end the Israeli occupation of our land and our
Abbas said "our hand remains outstretched for making peace" but he
questioned whether any Israeli leader is ready to make "a true peace ...
that will abandon the mentality of hegemony, expansionism and colonization."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking a short time later
at the annual gathering of world leaders, directly contradicted Abbas.
"This conflict has never been about the settlements or about
establishing a Palestinian state," said Netanyahu. "It's always been
about the existence of a Jewish state, a Jewish state in any boundary."
He also derided Abbas for focusing on the declaration and alluded to the
possibility of the Palestinians suing Britain for it.
"President Abbas just attacked from this podium the Balfour Declaration.
He is preparing a lawsuit against Britain for that declaration from
1917. That’s almost 100 years ago. Talk about being stuck in the past,"
Netanyahu said.
The mutual recriminations in Thursday’s speeches underlined the low
expectations for any revival of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. As it
happened, the only speech between the two Middle East neighbors was
given by the prime minister of Norway, where the secret
Israeli-Palestinian negotiations took place leading to the 1993 Oslo
Peace talks last collapsed in 2014 and there are few hopes for a
resumption anytime soon in part because of Israeli anger at Palestinian
attacks and Palestinian criticism of Israel’s construction of
settlements on occupied land where Palestinians want to establish a state.
The Balfour Declaration, named for the British foreign secretary at the
time, offered a more nuanced message than Abbas described in his speech.
"His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in
Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their
best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being
clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the
civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in
Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any
other country," it said.
The British mission to the United Nations had no immediate comment.
(4) US denies reports it will permit a UN Security Council resolution to establish "Palestine"
US Denies Reports it Threatened Israel
State Dept. says reports that Obama caused Netanyahu to fold on
Judea-Samaria construction with veto threat are 'false.'
By Nitsan Keidar
First Publish: 10/7/2015, 9:13 AM
The administration of US President Barack Obama has denied reports in
Israeli media Tuesday, according to which Obama threatened Prime
Minister Binyamin Netanyahu against lifting the unprecedented building
freeze in eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.
Channel 2 reported on Tuesday night that Netanyahu folded to pressure
from Obama, who threatened that if Israel approved new construction
following the wave of Arab terror attacks, the US would not veto a
looming UN Security Council resolution that would establish "Palestine"
and declare "settlements" in Judea-Samaria illegal.
During the daily press briefing of the US State Department on Tuesday
night, a journalist asked spokesperson Mark Toner about the Channel 2
"I'm aware of reports such as these, and I can say that they are false,"
claimed Toner. "Our position on the issue of settlement is known to
Israel, and while we don't reveal private conversations, I want to nip
this story in the bud. No sort of ultimatum was issued."
Toner also praised Israel's actions in trying to calm tensions on the
Temple Mount - the holiest site in Judaism where Arab rioters have
repeatedly attacked police - and said the actions match America's desire
to return the status quo to the region. Netanyahu has repeatedly called
to maintain the status quo, by which the Jordanian Waqf that holds de
facto rule of the site bans Jewish prayer.
Despite Toner's claims, Judea and Samaria regional heads who met with
Netanyahu on Tuesday night say he refused their demands to renew
building, directly referencing international pressure.
The report of Obama's threat comes just a week after a report in
Politico that revealed Obama twice refused to veto a UN resolution
establishing a Palestinian state.
According to the report, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid
asked White House chief of staff Denis McDonough twice this year to have
Obama publicly announce he would veto a UN Security Council call
establishing "Palestine." On both occasions, Obama flatly ignored the
Regarding Israeli construction in Judea and Samaria, the 2012 Levy
Report proved Israel's presence in the Biblical heartland of Judea and
Samaria is completely legal according to international law. Despite
being commissioned by Netanyahu, the coalition government has yet to
adopt the report.
(5) Israel locks in 10-year Aid deal before US election
Date created : 2016-09-22
Record Military Deal with Israel + Israel-Honduras links+Trump'soffices
in Israel+ Muslims and Clinton
From: Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics and Engineering Physics)
Sent: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:54:22 +0000
Record New US Military Aid Deal for Israel to Be Signed in Days
By Matt Spetalnick and Luke Baker, Reuters, 13 September 2016
The United States and Israel have reached final agreement on a record
new package of at least $38 billion in U.S. military aid and the 10-year
pact is expected to be signed within days, sources close to the matter
told Reuters on Tuesday.
The deal will represent the biggest pledge of U.S. military assistance
ever made to any country but also includes major concessions granted by
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to officials on
both sides.
Those include Israel's agreement not to seek additional funds from
Congress beyond what will be guaranteed annually in the new package, and
also to phase out a special arrangement that has allowed Israel to spend
part of its U.S. aid on its own defense industry instead of on
American-made weapons, the officials said.Drawn-out aid negotiations
have underscored continuing friction between U.S. President Barack Obama
and Netanyahu over last year's U.S.-led nuclear deal with Iran, Israel's
arch-foe. The United States and Israel have also been at odds over the
But the right-wing Israeli leader decided it would be best to forge a
new arrangement with Obama, who leaves office in January, rather than
hoping for better terms from the next U.S. administration, according to
officials on both sides.
A deal now allows him to avoid uncertainties surrounding the next
president, whether Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump,
and to give Israel's defense establishment the ability to plan ahead.
Obama's aides want a new deal before his presidency ends, seeing it as
an important part of his legacy. Republican critics accuse him of not
being attentive enough to Israel's security, which the White House
strongly denies.
The deal, known as a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, calls for at
least $3.8 billion a year in aid, up from $3.1 billion annually under
the current pact, which expires in 2018, officials say. Netanyahu had
originally sought upwards of $4.5 billion a year.
The new package for the first time will incorporate money for Israeli
missile defense, which until now has been funded ad hoc by Congress.
U.S. lawmakers have in recent years given Israel up to $600 million in
annual discretionary funds for this purpose. Officials say Israel has
agreed not to lobby Congress for additional missile defense funds during
the life of the new MOU, a pledge expected to be made in a side letter
or annex to the agreement. But the wording is likely to be flexible
enough to allow exceptions in case of a war or other major crisis.
Barring a last-minute snag, the new agreement is expected to be
officially rolled out within days, possibly as early as this week, one
source close to the matter said. Another source familiar with the
negotiations confirmed that the signing would be "in the coming days".
It will not be signed by Obama and Netanyahu, who have had a fraught
relationship, but instead by lower-ranking officials, in keeping with
the way the two governments have formally sealed previous deals of this
type.Netanyahu gave ground on several major points. He conceded to a
U.S. demand for a gradual phasing-out of the amount of aid money - now
26.3 percent - that Israel can spend on its own military industries
rather than on American products. The provision originated in the 1980s
to help Israel build up its defense industry, which is now a major
global player.
Netanyahu also agreed to end Israel's use of 13 percent of the U.S.
money on military fuel purchases, officials said. Obama and Netanyahu
will both be in New York next week for the opening of the U.N. General
Assembly, and officials have not ruled out the possibility of a meeting
on the sidelines.
Negotiators working behind closed doors had all but completed the new
package several weeks ago. But an announcement was quietly put on hold
as objections were raised by a key pro-Israel lawmaker, Republican U.S.
Senator Lindsey Graham, who had called for a more generous and less
restrictive aid package, sources familiar with the matter said.
It was unclear, however, whether the administration's differences with
Graham had been resolved or it had decided to go ahead with the
announcement anyway. U.S. congressional approval is needed each year for
disbursement of the aid to Israel as part of the annual budget process.
But little opposition is expected in Congress, where support for
Israel's security is strong.
(6) Trump: Israel should keep building West Bank settlements
Republican front-runner rejects construction freeze as precursor to
peace talks with Palestinians, blasts ‘devastating’ Gaza rocket fire
into Israel
By Times of Israel staff May 4, 2016, 1:53 am
Israel should keep building settlements in the West Bank, Republican
front-runner Donald Trump said on Tuesday, linking construction to the
continued rocket threat that Israel faces from the Gaza Strip and which
has seen it drawn into three wars against Hamas-run Gaza in recent years.
Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email and never miss our top
stories   Free Sign up!
In an interview with the British Daily Mail on Tuesday, Trump said there
should be no pause in settlement construction, a position at odds with
that of the Obama administration, which in 2009 encouraged Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to implement a freeze new construction for
10 months in an effort restart stalled peace talks with the
Palestinians. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas refused to
negotiate until the very end of the freeze, which Netanyahu then refused
to extend.
Asked if there should be a pause in settlement building, Trump was
quoted answering as follows: "No, I don’t think it is, because I think
Israel should have – they really have to keep going. They have to keep
moving forward… I don’t think there should be a pause… Look: Missiles
were launched into Israel, and Israel, I think, never was properly
treated by our country. I mean, do you know what that is, how
devastating that is?"
"You have hundreds and, I guess, thousands of missiles being launched
into Israel, who would put up with that? Who would stand for it?" he added.
In July 2014, Israel launched Operation Protective Edge in an effort to
stop rocket fire from the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip into Israel, which came
after Operation Brother’s Keeper in the West Bank following the
kidnapping and murder by a Hamas-affiliated cell of three Israeli
teenagers earlier that summer. Over the course of the 50-day war, Hamas
and other Gaza terror groups launched thousands of rockets
indiscriminately into Israel.
Sporadic rocket fire into Israel continues, to which Israel usually
responds with air strikes.
Trump’s stance favoring settlements is at odds with traditional US
opposition to the settlement enterprise. Settlements are seen as an
impediment by proponents of the two-state solution, which who would see
a Palestinian state alongside Israel in most of the West Bank and all of
Gaza. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, dismantling all settlements
there. Hamas took over in a coup against the Palestinian Authority in 2007.
Trump said that despite supporting continued settlement building — a
sticking point for the Palestinians who insist all construction must
stop while negotiations take place — he’d like to help restart peace talks.
"With all of that being said, I would love to see if peace could be
negotiated. A lot of people say that’s not a deal that’s possible. But I
mean lasting peace, not a peace that lasts for two weeks and they start
launching missiles again. So we’ll see what happens," he said.
Asked about Netanyahu, Trump said he was a "very good guy" whom he
didn’t know that well.
"I think I’d have a very good relationship with him,’ Trump said, adding
that he thinks "Obama has been extremely bad to Israel."
Israel began building settlements in the West Bank after it captured the
territory, hitherto controlled by Jordan, in the Six Day War in 1967.
Today, over 250,000 Israelis live in West Bank settlements and outposts.
(7) Israel has Colonized the US, much as Britain colonized India
From: "Come Carpentier [shamireaders]"
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 12:32:19 +0530
Has Israel Effectively Colonized the United States?
We normally think of colonizers as large countries, and the colonized as
smaller and weaker nations. But this is not always the case.
Colonization does not require occupation. It merely requires the
subjugation of the colonized. With ambition, superior information and
calculation, and the right mindset, smaller nations can (and have in the
past) colonized and dominated larger and nominally more powerful countries.
India was successfully colonized by tiny Britain in the 18th century.
The vehicle for colonization was the East India Company. It was only
after the Indian mutiny that Britain acted directly and sent in troops
to establish the British Raj. For the next 200 years India was drained
of its wealth, its economy was restructured to support England’s needs
and global ambitions, and its people militarized to fight and die on
behalf of the British crown. The Indian leaders who remained were
willing participants in this venture; those who felt otherwise were
destroyed or marginalized.
In a similar vein, Israel today is in the process of colonizing the
United States, which is vital to its global projection and exercise of
power. The steps Israel is taking are visible to all (as was the case
with British designs on India) and yet it is remarkably difficult to
connect the dots while such a takeover is in process. Or, to do anything
about it.
Colonization does not mean total control of everything
It means total control of what matters. The British were interested in
Indian wealth, and a standing army of Indians willing to die for their
wars. They couldn’t care less about India’s internal petty politics that
did not directly or indirectly impact their mission. An effective
"divide and conquer" strategy pit Indians against each other and
discouraged any kind of coordinated response, or sedition. The British
leveraged their "outsider advantage" to objectively collect data with
which to calculate and coordinate which Indian princes to support in
battles, and which to connive with. Like pieces on a chessboard, Indian
leaders exhausted themselves through internal battles, and were
prevailed to seek cover provided by the British. Small amounts of
leverage can change outcomes (as the Israeli lobby AIPAC has shown, in
its path to dominating Congress and regional/local US politics), and
over the years the British were able control and align India to the
British crown. Less than 10,000 English controlled colonial India, which
at that time had a population of 300 million.
It is instructive to note that while there were relatively few white
Englishmen, a class of local "brown sahibs" was developed, to actually
run things. This elite class was educated in English ways, and rewarded
monetarily and through social stature. Britain was too small a country
to ultimately matter by itself, but by leveraging India the English
could pursue their global ambitions. India was the "Jewel in the
(British) Crown".
Today, Israel has effective control of US policy in the Mideast, and
similar goals. Much has already been written about Israel’s control of
Congress. Israel is now edging towards control over the US Executive
Branch, with both presidential candidates supported by billionaires
whose #1 agenda is Israel (Saban and Adelson). The Supreme Court will be
one-third Jewish, and justices have community ties and families. As
Israel demonstrated through its successful intimidation of Judge
Goldstone, jurists are human and everyone has their price.
Israel’s "occupation force" in the US has long included AIPAC as well as
the dense network of community organizations at the State and local
levels. Through relationships that have been developed over years and
with unlimited funds at their disposal, the "Israel Lobby" ensures that
votes go the right way, and that opponents are squashed when Israel
demands unity. In 2003 at the onset of George Bush’s Iraq war this
occupation force was multiplied through the inclusion of Christian Zionists.
Critics of the Israel Lobby are marginalized by whatever means
available, including being called anti-Semitic. The Lobby has been
effective in securing massive aid packages for Israel even though
Israel’s per-capita GDP exceeds that of several European nations.
Israeli insiders permeate the US government, and it is US policy that
there be "no light" between the countries so that where Israel is
concerned there is no debate. Israel’s top priorities are the top
priorities of the US. There are of course instances where this does not
happen (such as, Iran) but the direction points to a tighter colonial
noose in the years ahead.
The media matters: establishing beliefs and narratives
The colonizer must be a "Sacred Object" above criticism or objective
review, and dangerous critics must be either destroyed or marginalized.
No Englishman in India spoke of the mother country and its ways with
anything other than reverence, even though during periods of the British
Raj England was in turmoil. Within England there was a free press and
active debate; but this was not permitted in India, about Britain. The
only acceptable posture was that of reverence.
Today Israel has a free press, and it is easy to read translations of
the Hebrew language press. Israeli commentators compare Netanyahu to
Hitler, Israel is called a racist apartheid state based on evidence, and
the extreme violence against and ongoing abuse of Palestinians is well
documented. But, these same conversations are forbidden in the US. No
newspaper would report them, nor are they permitted in polite company.
Transgressors are labeled anti-Semitic, whether Jewish or not.
In the US today, boycotts are seen as a permitted non-violent form of
free speech. Citizens have the right to boycott whatever they want from
wherever they want without risk of penalty. The sole exception is Israel.
The British conquests were "for God and country", and therefore
justified. The British were superior, the natives inferior. This setup
the moral justification for the mayhem wrought by the British as they
colonized Asia and the Mideast. At that time, all men were not born
equal, and it took the US Constitution to establish that self-evident fact.
Israel is seeking to revert to those days, by acting as though Arab
lives are inferior, and (more recently) promoting Islamophobia to serve
their Christian Zionism wing. In 2003, uber Zionist Bernard Lewis posed
as "Arab expert" and advised president Bush that the only language Arabs
understood was force. This helped to justify the attack on Iraq, as part
of a neocon plan to "creatively destroy" the sovereign Arab states in
Israel’s neighborhood, to facilitate Israel’s dominance. The Nazis at
Nuremberg were shown greater respect than Saddam and his Ba’at
leadership, and the contempt for Arabs was in full display.
Today, Israeli Jews are in the process of destroying Palestinian society
and erasing Palestinian culture, with impunity. Churches and mosques are
both being destroyed, though Israel would prefer to keep the spotlight
on mosques, to fan a religious war between Islam on one side, and
Christians and Jews on the other.
While the Israeli press records and debates Israel’s bad behavior,
Americans are forbidden to publicly debate Israeli behavior critically.
Three Recent Examples:
1/ During the Congressional debate around the Iran deal president Obama
had negotiated, Senator Chuck Schumer said he would vote "against"…not
because of any independent analysis, but because this is what Netanyahu
wanted. In other words, he publically said that he would follow the
Israeli prime ministers’ direction, over that of his own president.
Because, as he said, he was "guardian of Israel".
A sitting US senator proclaimed allegiance to a foreign country, and
nobody asked him to resign!
2/ The Israeli Prime Minister addresses the full US Congress to lobby
against the Iran nuclear deal. When the deal does go through, Israel
demands more US aid! And, is likely to get it. One can try various
definitions of "blackmail" to see which one fits.
The US president is impotent in dealing with Israel. The so-called "pro
Israel lobby" effectively functions like an agent of Israel. The Israel
lobby is playing the role of the East India Company, in Britain’s
colonization of India.
3/ The Israel Lobby interferes massively in US foreign policy in the
region. The "mainstream" media such as NYT spins events to reflect
Israel’s views (bureau chiefs are typically Jewish and resident in
Israel). The Iraq war cost $1 trillion+ and cost thousands of US lives,
created ISIS, and was pushed by the Lobby. Israel benefits from the
The colonization of the US by Israel is becoming increasingly explicit.
It is now increasingly seen as "normal" to have a double standard: one
for Israel, another for the rest of the world. The boycott-Israel
movement is an example of that: you can boycott anything or anyone, but
not Israel. This is true power, and the face of colonization.
(8) Harder times for Palestine, whoever wins US election
Harder times for Palestine if Clinton wins US election
It is clear that Hillary Clinton will not be visiting any Arab capital
with a proffered fig leaf.
13 Sep 2016 06:44 GMT |
Stanley L Cohen
Stanley L Cohen is an attorney and human rights activist who has done
extensive work in the Middle East and Africa.
Have the Palestinians ever faced a worse American electoral season? A
sociopathic, New York "strong-man" narcissist versus a neo-liberal
Zionist: whoever succeeds - and anything can happen this time - we know
it won't be good for Palestine. Both candidates gave almost identical
speeches to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC)
convention this spring.
The temptation is to think Republican Donald Trump - with his love for
authoritarian "winners" like Israel, and his vow to "bomb to hell" out
of every problem - makes a better friend to Israeli aggression. Yet the
record reminds us, with Hillary Clinton's long history of defending
Zionism, the Palestinians are between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
The ironies run deep with this Democratic candidate. Clinton holds the
unprecedented distinction of being the only major party nominee, man or
woman, ever to have actually visited the Gaza Strip - a historic trip
she made at her husband's side in the final weeks of 1998, when US
President Bill Clinton faced impeachment at home.
Together during the first state visit by an American president to the
occupied territories they attended the opening of the new Gaza airport,
the signing of a revised Palestine National Charter, and meetings to
shore up the Wye River Accords.
Demolition of Palestinian aspirations
I recall visiting the new $83m airport with local Rafah friends, months
after her visit, and not a single commercial flight had been permitted.
The terminal stood shimmering and empty in the blazing midday heat, a
mirage. The paint still smelled fresh, and for kicks, we raced in civil
defence Jeeps down one of the empty runways, past the control tower and
The next year, the whole place would be blown to bits by Israeli
warplanes, the tower a smoking ruin, the runways full of bomb craters.
The Clintons were long-gone by then, and no one in the US government
raised a hint of objection to what was both the symbolic and the
practical demolition of Palestinian aspirations to fly free of the
occupation - Gulf State and German money had built the place, who cared
if the Israelis wanted it destroyed?
A year later, Clinton's greeting with Suha Arafat stoked tabloid
hysteria screams of "blood libel", as if the First Lady, by embracing a
Muslim woman, had committed treason - and she moved swiftly to a vocal,
pro-Zionism position, where she remains today.
During that very same visit, Clinton campaigned to win the US senate
seat for New York, while in "the 51st state".
Every candidate makes pilgrimage there, to assure New Yorkers that they
love Israel more than the next guy: it is a sloppy mess, with
politicians competing for AIPAC approval, by kneeling to kiss the ring
of a foreign power.
As a senator, she has visited the illegal wall destroying Palestinian
life, praising it for its guarantee of Israeli 'security'; she visits
Jerusalem, and repeatedly calls it 'Israel'...
Yet Hillary out-did them all in her fawning, gratuitously inserting the
Zionist formula for Jerusalem's subjugation in an official letter to an
Orthodox Jewish union, writing that she believed the city to be "the
eternal and indivisible capital" of Israel, while promising to move the
US embassy there from Tel Aviv.
The verbal formulation has long been a shibboleth of Israeli
expansionism - Republicans in the Congress had passed a bill - the
Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 - ordering President Clinton to move the
embassy, or face budget consequences.
However, the law contained a presidential waiver, and Clinton invoked it
to get out of complying. This grotesque pantomime has has been repeated
every year for the past 20 years, as Congress renews the law, each
president opts out, and the embassy remains in Tel Aviv.
Naive or manipulated?
At the time, many wondered if the First Lady had been naive, or
manipulated - her adoption of the language of Israeli conquest and
annexation stood in sharp contrast to her party, her husband's official
position,and international law. It also contradicted the US State
Department's policy.
If she did not understand its dangerous implications, then her
competency was in question; otherwise, it represented a shift for the
party, signalling quiet abandonment of the Palestinians.
Her record since then speaks for itself. As a senator, she has visited
the illegal wall destroying Palestinian life, praising it for its
guarantee of Israeli "security"; she visits Jerusalem, and repeatedly
calls it "Israel"; and as a 2008 presidential candidate, her campaign
extolled Israel's "right" to an "undivided Jerusalem as its capital".
Since the beating she took for embracing Madame Arafat, Clinton is like
the child who has touched a hot stove - she fears the Palestinians and
their cause, and will not take it up again.
Palestinians will find no comfort at her official website. A look at her
current Israel page, "Hillary Clinton and Israel: a 30-Year Record of
Friendship, Leadership and Strength", gives the general drift of her
Zionism - record-breaking military budget increases for Israel's
war-making machine; opposing the Goldstone Report into rights violations
during the Gaza conflict; criticising the United Nations for its votes
against Israel; intelligence sharing with Mossad; and so on.
She promises, when she is president, to "defend Israel on the world
stage" by opposing "anti-Israel bias" in international forums (the
International Criminal Court and human rights venues), vowing the
Security Council will never help Palestine; and to "stand up against"
the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement, while cutting off efforts
to recognise Palestinian statehood.
It is clear that Clinton will not - as Obama did - be visiting any Arab
capital with a proffered fig leaf. If, as Shakespeare warns us, "What's
past is prologue," Clinton can be expected as president to mount the
ramparts of Fortress Israel, and vigorously wave the flag - more
aggressively than Bush or Reagan, or any president before her,
portending hard times for Palestine.
Stanley L Cohen is a lawyer and human rights activist who has done
extensive work in the Middle East and Africa.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not
necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Peter Myers