Barack Obama is still occupying the Oval Office but on policy for Israel-Palestine he is no longer the president. He is presidential candidate Obama, devoted to saying and doing whatever is necessary to secure American Jewish campaign funding and Zionist lobby organized Jewish votes which, in a close election race, could make the difference between him getting or not getting a second term in the White House.
As I listened to Obama asserting that “Israel is surrounded by neighbours that have waged repeated wars against it” – a big, fat lie and not as Obama further asserted one of the “facts” that “cannot be denied” – a very subversive thought came into my mind.
It was that what America needs is a benign military coup to put an end to the corruption of pork barrel politics which put democracy up for sale to the highest bidders. (One of the highest bidders is, of course, the Zionist lobby in association with the lunatics of Christian fundamentalism in its various forms. These lunatics are historically the real Jew haters and they support the Zionist state and fund its on-going colonization of the occupied West Bank only because they see it, Greater Israel, as the instrument for bringing about Armageddon – the end of the world including the slaughter of the Jews if they don’t renounce their religion and convert to Christianity when Jesus returns).
To the best of my knowledge, no previous American president has ever gone as far as Obama went in shamelessly promoting Zionism’s version of history while more or less ignoring that of the Palestinians. (As I listened, I wondered if three living former presidents – Carter, Bush senior and Clinton – were marvelling at Obama’s complete transformation into a political prostitute).
I thought Uri Avnery’s summary commentary on Obama’s speech was spot on. He wrote:
“Obama treated the two sides as if they were equal in strength – Israelis and Palestinians, Palestinians and Israelis.
“But of the two, it is the Israelis – only they who suffer and have suffered. Persecution. Exile. Holocaust. An Israeli child threatened by rockets. Surrounded by the hatred of Arab children. So sad.
“No Occupation. No settlements. No June 1967 borders. No Nakba. No Palestinian children killed or frightened. It’s the straight right-wing Israeli propaganda line, pure and simple – the terminology, the historical narrative, the argumentation.” (As I document in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Israel’s existence has never, ever, been in danger from any combination of Arab force).
Avnery also commented that in essence Obama “sold the fundamental national interests of the United States of America for the chance of a second term.” My thought on this aspect of the matter is the following.
In a different America, one in which its citizens were aware of the truth of history and why it is not in America’s own interests to go on supporting the Zionist state right or wrong and becoming along with Israel a pariah state in the eyes of a growing number of the citizens of the world, Obama would be impeached. The charge would be treason.
The only thing Obama did not do (perhaps I should say has not done yet) was to give in to Netanyahu’s demand that he distance himself from former President Clinton’s statement that the Israeli leader was not interested in peace that required more than token withdrawals from the occupied West Bank.
Having made up his mind to say “No” to Obama for the first time and whatever the cost, Abbas (given new life by his speech writers) decided there was no longer any need to pull punches. His speech was, I thought, a good presentation of Palestinian grievances and claim for justice.
Then came Netanyahu, the master at selling to gullible American Congressmen and women the notions that day is night, that black is white, that bad is good and that wrong is right. He more or less kicked off with the statement that the UN is “a theatre of the absurd.” Here I must be fair to Netanyahu because there is truth in this statement, but it’s important to know why.
From almost its beginning the UN was corrupted by the influence Zionism brought to bear to make sure that the Partition Plan got General Assembly approval with the minimum necessary majority of votes. When President Truman learned how Zionism with the assistance of 26 its stooges in the Senate had bribed and threatened the representatives of a number of governments and sometimes their leaders, in order to get their countries to change “No” votes to “Yes” or to abstain, he wrote in a memorandum that the interference of pressure groups and the rigging of votes “will be helping the United Nations down the road to failure.” (The documented detail of Truman’s agony as Zionism called more and more of his policy shots is in President Truman Surrenders to Zionism, Chapter 11 of Volume One of my book).
- As I never tire of saying because it bears repeating and repeating, the General Assembly’s Partition Plan proposal did not go to the Security Council and wasvitiated, became invalid. President Truman did not want the Security Council to consider it because he believed that if passed it could only be implemented by force and he was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine. The assertion that Israel was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the Partition Plan is pure propaganda nonsense. Israel’s declaration of independence was a unilateral act in defiance of the will of the organized international community, including the Truman administration, as represented at the UN.
But the greatest corruption of the UN occurred after the 1967 war when with President Johnson’s assistance Zionism was allowed to impose its will on the text of Resolution 242. Because it was a war of Israeli aggression not self-defence, Israel should have been required to withdraw from all the newly occupied Arab territory without imposing any conditions for its withdrawal. In the final text of the resolution Israel’s withdrawal became conditional on the Arabs making peace. Worse still for the prospects of peace and a measure of justice for the Palestinians was Zionism’s success in getting “the” dropped from the final text of 242. The draft text required Israel to withdraw from “the” territories occupied, meaning by obvious implication withdrawal from all Arab land grabbed in the 1967 war. By dropping “the” from the final text, 242 effectively gave Israel the freedom to determine how much of the occupied territory it would withdraw from. Effectively Resolution 242 gave Zionism a veto over any peace process. It also marked the moment when the representatives of the major powers responsible for drafting the resolution concluded that there was no point in trying to hold Israel accountable to international law because it was quite prepared to tell the whole world to go to hell.
In my experience of engagement with the conflict over more than 40 years, there is only one way to interpret almost of Israel’s leaders, and that is to assume that when they speak about making peace, they mean and will do the opposite of what they say. That is certainly so in Netanyahu’s case. Decoded his message to the UN this time around could not have been more clear. Gideon Levy, the conscience of Israeli journalism, put it this way inHa’aretz: “On Friday night the final curtain fell on Netanyahu’s masked ball of a two-state solution. Hiding behind the curtain are darkness and gloom. And in that lies an event of historical performance. It proved to the world that Israel wants neither an agreement nor a Palestinian state, and for that matter not peace, either. See you at the next war.”
All of Netanyahu’s talk about the grave threat a Palestinian state would or could pose to Israel’s security is a scam (defined in my Chambers Dictionary as “a swindle”). He went as far as suggesting that from within a Palestinian state missiles could be fired to bring down Israeli civilian airliners.
Way back in the 1980′s I asked Yasser Arafat what he made of Israel’s assertions that a Palestinian mini state would pose a threat to Israel’s security. He began his answer by asking me to imagine that there was in existence a Palestinian state on all of the pre 1967 West Bank and the Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem its capital or, better still, with Jerusalem an open, undivided city and the capital of two states. Then he asked me to imagine that there were attacks on Israel from within the Palestinian state. “How do you think Israel would respond?” he asked.
I replied: “At a point the IDF would roll over the Palestinian state’s borders and crush it out of existence, and as it was doing so Israel’s leaders would say to the world something like, ‘We think you will now understand why we have to do this.’ And the world would understand.”
Arafat banged the table with his fist. “Exactly!” he said. “That is what would happen!” He added: “After struggling and sacrificing so much for so many years in order to get a small measure of justice, do you think we Palestinians would be so stupid as to give Israel the pretext to take everything from us and close the Palestine file forever?”
I replied: “No, Abu Amar, I don’t think the Palestinians would be so stupid. I also believe that no properly informed and rational Israeli could think they would be.”
Today I go further. If Netanyahu really believes the nonsense he talks about the threat that could or would be posed to Israel’s security by a Palestinian mini state, he is not only the victim of his own and other Zionist propaganda, he is deluded close to, or even at, the point of, clinical madness.
Shortly after Obama had spoken, a very dear Jewish friend of mine telephoned me to say, “At the very least he ought to have guaranteed that he won’t be assassinated before the next election.”