Israel & Palestine

03 Tuesday Jan 2017

Posted by michelinewalker in Israel, Middle East, Palestine, Terrorism, United States

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Israel, John Kerry, Palestine, the Two-State Solution, the United National Security Council, US aid to Israel

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday, at the State Department (Photograph by Zach Gibson / Getty)

The Security Council Punch Knocks Netanyahu Down from Hubris to Humiliation

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.761042

https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2016/12/266119.htm

At the moment, I am completing a factual post about the 68-year old conflict between Israeli and Palestinians and the nearly 50-year old occupation of the Golan Heights by Israel. But I must first provide figures reflecting the assistance provided Israel by the United States.

In 2012, the US provided $3,705,000,000 in military help

FMF – Foreign Military Financing (direct military aid)
ESF – Economic Support Fund (open-ended monetary assistance that can be used to offset military spending and arms purchases, as well as for non-military purposes)

See Israel–United States military relations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_military_relations

us-israel-memorandum-of-understanding-640x452

Figures from another source are:

The U.S. provides Israel $10.2 million* in military aid each day,
while it gives the Palestinians $0** in military aid.

See If Americans knew
http://ifamericansknew.org/stat/38billion.htmlhttp://ifamericansknew.org/stat/38billion.html

See Israel-Palestine Timeline: the Human Cost of the Conflict
http://israelpalestinetimeline.org/

The United Nations Security Council: US Abstention

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/23/us-abstention-allows-un-to-demand-end-to-israeli-settlements (video)

On 23 December 2016, the United Nations Security Council condemned Israeli settlements on territory not belonging to Israel. The United States did not veto the vote. US Secretary of State John Kerry, addressed the State Department on 28 December 2016.

One may read the full text at:

Remarks on Middle East Peace: John Kerry

https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2016/12/266119.htm

In his address Mr Kerry stated that:

Israel’s permanent representative to the United Nations, who does not support a two-state solution, said after the vote last week, quote, “It was to be expected that Israel’s greatest ally would act in accordance with the values that we share,” and veto this resolution. I am compelled to respond today that the United States did, in fact, vote in accordance with our values, just as previous U.S. administrations have done at the Security Council before us.

—ooo—

My factual post on the Israel-Palestine conflict may not be published as it may be misinterpreted. But I will write the following.

The Jewish Diaspora

The Jewish Diaspora started in the 8th century BCE and ended during the Third Jewish-Roman war, when Roman Emperor Hadrian (24 January 76 – 10 July 138) crushed the Bar Kokhba rebellion. Jesus lived in Roman-occupied Palestine.

In 132 CE, the remaining Jews, under Bar Kokhba, rebelled against Hadrian. In 135 CE, Hadrian’s army defeated the Jewish armies and Jewish independence was lost. As punishment, Hadrian exiled more Jews, sold them into slavery, changed the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, turned it into a Roman pagan city and forbade the Jews from living there. Judea and Samaria were renamed by Hadrian to Syria Palaestina, after the Assyrians and Philistines respectively, both as an insult to the Jews and as a means of erasing the land’s Jewish identity.
(See Jewish Diaspora, Wikipedia.)

Islamisation & Colonialism

In the 7th century in particular, Arabs conquered territory spreading from Asia to the Iberian Peninsula. Islamisation continued under the Seljuq Turks. The Ottoman Empire was a large empire that included Palestine and nearly reached Vienna.

After the fall of Constantinople (1453), the capital of the Byzantine Empire, a large part of eastern Europe was conquered. The Ottomans were Turks, not Arabs. But they were and are Muslims. The genocide of Armenians was perpetrated under a Pan-Islamism ideology as the Ottoman Empire was about to fall. In 1916, the yet to be defeated Ottoman Empire was partitioned under the terms of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Colonialism died a slow death. It lingers to this day.

At any rate, Britain France and the Russian Empire constituted the Triple Entente. They were the signatories of the Zykes-Picot-Agreement. However, although it agreed with the partitioning, Russia did not sign. The Russian Empire fell to the Bolsheviks and the Tsar’s family was executed on 17 July 1918. The last Tsar of Imperial Russia was Nicholas II.

Israel’s Settlements

Israel has occupied the Golan Heights since the Six-Day War (June 1967). After 50 years, it has yet to return it to its Arab owners (Syria, I believe). Israeli are still settling on territory located outside the borders of Israel which the United Nations Security Council condemned and the United States did not veto. Palestinians are being evicted to this day.

Descendants of Jews killed during the Nazi Holocaust still have a right of return to Germany, which, at first, was mostly ignored. Matters have changed. A substantial number of Israeli are exercising that right. So are British Jews. After denazification, the safest opion for several survivors of the Holocaust was to return to their homes. So are British Jews. After denazification, the safest option for several survivors of the Holocaust was to return to their homes.

Conclusion

Many lies are circulating at the moment as well as unacceptable and false accusations. Our common goal should be peace in the Middle East. Eleven million individuals have left Syria and Iraq and 300,000 have died. Most are Muslims, but Christians celebrated Christmas in Aleppo. The United Nations Security Council’s resolution condemning Israeli settlements outside Israel was a call for peace.

Israel must become an instrument of peace.

Jewish spiritual song – Jerusalem if I forget you (Hebrew Yiddish Israeli jewish beautiful songs)

truman-israel

Eliahu Elath presenting ark to President Truman
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel

The Five Presidents: Comments on the Final Debate

24 Wednesday Oct 2012

Posted by michelinewalker in United States

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

Barack Obama, diplomacy, Iran, Israel, Middle East, Mitt Romney, Obama, Romney, Ugly American, United States

President George W. Bush meets with former Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter and President-elect Barack Obama Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2009 in the Oval Office of the White House. (Photo Credit: Wikipedia)

The Final Debate

Mr Romney lost the final debate, held on October 22nd, 2012.

THE MIDDLE EAST: Mr Romney

Mr Romney made it perfectly clear that, under his presidency, the United States would stand behind Israel. One cannot object to his standing behind Israel, but can he play favorites, thereby alienating the Arab world? If Mr Romney plays favorites or takes sides, the United States will remain an enemy in the eyes of other countries in the Near and Middle East. As a result, he would not be protecting but endangering Israel.

Moreover, by taking sides, he would endanger the United States. The events of 9/11 and the disastrous wars fought in the wake of these attacks dictate prudence in the Middle East. There are countries in the Arab world that harbor considerable ill feelings against the United States.

Mr Romney also stated that “[w]e need to indict Ahmadinejad.” In what capacity could the President of the United States do this? Ahmadinejad is not an American citizen and Iran is a sovereign nation. Indicting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have to be done using the proper international channels. The President of the United States does not rule the world.

China: Mr Romney

Mr Romney’s comments on China were also alarming.

“That’s why on day one, I will label them a currency manipulator, which allows us to apply tariffs where they’re taking jobs. They’re stealing our intellectual property, our patents, our designs, our technology, hacking into our computers, counterfeiting our goods.” (Mitt Romney)

The United States borrowed a great deal of money from China and may need to borrow more. If Mr Romney and other very wealthy Americans will not pay their fair share of taxes, if they deposit their money in offshore accounts, if they continue to expect tax cuts, if they export too large a number of jobs to China and other countries, thereby taking jobs away from Americans and, by the same token, depriving the US of tax-payers, how will the debt be repaid? Mr Romney may have to learn Chinese.

In short, Mr Romney is fomenting dissent in the Middle East and inviting retaliatory action from China. His behaviour suggests that he would be a reckless President and that as President of the United States, he would not give sufficient attention to domestic issues. He would in fact bully the world: sanctions here, sanctions there.

The Middle East: President Obama

“[O]ur security is at stake.” (President Obama)

Contrary to Mr Romney, President Obama’s main concern is for the safety of his people. For instance, he stated that:

his administration is “going to continue to keep the pressure on to make sure that they [Iran] do not get a nuclear weapon. That’s in America’s national interest and that will be the case so long as I’m president.”

President Obama is right. It is in America’s national interest to make sure than Iran and other countries do not get nuclear weapons. This matter is, in fact, a global issue and should be addressed as such.

President Obama also stated that “[t]hey [Egypt] have to abide by their treaty with Israel. That is a red line for us, because not only is Israel’s security at stake, but our security is at stake if that unravels.”

Leadership

According to Mr Romney, the US “should be playing the leadership role there[Libya]” not on the ground with military[,]” a statement to which President Obama’s response was that they (the US) “are playing the leadership role.”

America remains the one indispensable nation. And the world needs a strong America, and it is stronger now than when I came into office.

English: President Obama had called on the two former Presidents to help. During their public remarks in the Rose Garden, President Clinton had said about President Bush, ‘I’ve already figured out how I can get him to do some things that he didn’t sign on for.’ Later, back in the Oval, President Bush is jokingly asking President Clinton what were those things he had in mind. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Yes the United States “remains the one indispensable nation,” but a nation where a social contract, albeit tacit, dictates that its president’s main concern be the “safety” of his nation. That notion has to inform a president’s actions and any candidate to the presidency of the United States who expresses views that stray from this tenet does not seem a suitable candidate.

So the United States now knows that if it elects Mr Romney, it may well elect a warmonger who is indeed prepared to barge into other countries thoughtlessly and will revive the image of the “ugly American:” a “pejorative term used to refer to perceptions of loud, arrogant, demeaning, thoughtless and ethnocentric behavior of American citizens mainly abroad, but also at home.Although the term is usually associated with or applied to travelers and tourists, it also applies to US corporate businesses in the international arena.” (Ugly American, Wikipedia)

After four years of careful negotiations with the Middle East and a rapprochement, America might again be sending soldiers into battle, young Americans who will lose their life or whose life may be ruined.

* * *

What comes to my mind is that picture of President elect Obama entering the White House surrounded by former presidents. The US suffered under the former president’s administration, but President Bush was President of the United States and he was President on 9/11, a calamity that can lead and led to injudicious decisions. But President Obama treated President Bush in a kind and courteous manner as he did all former presidents. The “five presidents” was a moment of mutual respect that brought me hope, and hope is the road that takes us into the future.

October 24th, 2012

WordPress

Bullying President Obama: Shame on Mr Romney! (michelinewalker.com)
The Presidential Election: Mr Romney and Mr Netanyahu (michelinewalker.com)

Bullying President Obama: Shame on Mr Romney!

22 Monday Oct 2012

Posted by michelinewalker in United States

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

Arab World, Barack Obama, Daniel Craig, Israel, Middle East, Mitt Romney, Obama, United State

Famous posthumous portrait of Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

War

As I reported in my last blog, Mitt Romney seems to have entered into some alliance with Israel, which is dangerous. For the Arab World, Israel is an American presence in the Near and Middle East. As a result, hatred for the US is immense. Therefore, the US cannot take sides. It has to work with the support of the world in order to eliminate nuclear threat everywhere. This would protect Israel.

The Second Debate

With respect to the second debate (16 October 2012), I have written that Mitt Romney acted in a Machiavellian fashion. This approach is a “do-anything-to-become-President-of-the-United States.” The end justifies the means.

Some people have not had the opportunity to read Machiavelli. I will therefore introduce a word everyone will understand: bullying. It appears Mitt Romney is a bully and bullies can break people. I have discovered that others consider Mr Romney a bully. I’m not alone.

President Obama’s ethnicity

I will have to do a little digging on this issue, but I recall a statement on the part of Mr Romney to the effect that his ethnicity would give him an edge over President Obama. It had to do with Mr Romney’s ability to understand people better, white people I believe. This is a statement he made in the UK.

Combined with voter suppression, this statement leads me to believe that Mr Romney hasn’t much use for persons of color. In fact, even if my memory does not serve me well regarding the UK remark, voter suppression alone would indicate that Mitt Romney does not respect persons of colour sufficiently to be elected into the office of President of the United States. At any rate, his poor opinion of persons of colour would make it easier for him to bully President Obama.

Interrupting the debate

If the next debate turns into a quarrel, as moderator of that debate, I would end it.

Conclusion

Daniel Craig [James Bond] declare[d] his support for President Obama: ‘I trust him.’ (see deGrio.com). I’m with Daniel Craig. I trust President Obama.

Micheline Walker©

October 22nd, 2012

WordPress

The Presidential Election: Mr Romney and Mr Netanyahu (michelinewalker.com)
Once A Bully…A Few Thoughts On The Ohio Presidential Debate (lezgetreal.com)
Mark Hamill on Romney repeatedly interrupting President Obama: ‘It’s bullying of the highest degree’ (current.com)

The Presidential Election: Mr Romney and Mr Netanyahu

22 Monday Oct 2012

Posted by michelinewalker in Sharing, United States

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Barack Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel, Middle East, Mitt Romney, Netanyahu, Obama, United States

On 17 October 2012, The Korea Herald reported that “Mr Netanyahu [was] foolish to take sides in U.S. election.”

If you wish to read the entire articles, please click on the following link:

http://nwww.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20121017000815

However, allow me to quote from the above-mentioned article:

Benjamin Netanyahu is so eager to see Mitt Romney elected president that he’s making a fool of himself.

For the last couple of weeks, the Israeli prime minister has been the featured player in a Republican-sponsored TV ad playing in Florida. It shows excerpts from Netanyahu’s United Nations speech last month in which he tacitly attacks President Obama for his failure to set a clear red line for Iran’s nuclear program.

“The world tells Israel: ‘Wait, there’s still time,’” he says. “And I say, wait for what? Wait until when?”

No, Netanyahu didn’t plan or buy the campaign ad. Secure America Now, a group run by longtime Republican strategists, put it up. But Florida is filled with Israeli emigres and American Jews. There’s no question that Netanyahu knows all about the ad and has made no effort to criticize or blunt it. An anonymous Israeli official did tell the news media that the prime minister’s office had nothing to do with the ad and did not approve of it. That’s all.

On Tuesday, Netanyahu called for early elections to take place early next year. How would he like it if an opponent began airing TV ads that showed Obama openly criticizing him? And then, when asked about it, an anonymous White House aide managed to say something banal, like: “Oh, we didn’t authorize that.”

If Netanyahu has no interest in taking sides in the American presidential election, then he should issue a strong statement or hold a press conference to declare that he does not support the use of his U.N. remarks in a partisan campaign ad.

But he didn’t say a word. Not one. And the reason is clear: He does not like Obama, and Obama doesn’t like him. Remember the Group of 20 summit in France late last year, when Obama was overheard chatting with Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president? Neither knew the mike was open.

“Netanyahu, I can’t stand him,” Sarkozy leaned over and told Obama. “He’s a liar.”

Obama responded, “You are sick of him, but I have to work with him every day.

In my last post, entitled The Second Debate & the News, 21 October 2012, I quoted a New York Times article, now dated 21 October 2012:

“Mr. Romney has repeatedly criticized the president as showing weakness on Iran and failing to stand firmly with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat.”

I suggested that the above statement be rephrased: “The world must stand firmly in opposing nuclear threat.” In fact, the original statement (NY Times) is not altogether accurate. The United States is opposing nuclear threat, but it cannot create the impression that Israel is an American presence in the midst of the Arab world. (See The Ottawa Citizen).

How does Mr Romney expect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will react? Moreover, in what capacity did Mr Romney talk with Mr Netanyahu. Mr Romney is not the President of the United States. This seems an “I’ll-stoop-to-anything-to-get-votes” scenario, the Machiavellian scenario.

The Diplomatic Way

It would be my opinion that the diplomatic way of dealing with factions in the Middle East is not to take sides. Under the Bush (R) administration, the US waged two disastrous wars in the Middle East. That was a mistake, but the 9/11 attacks were destabilizing. President Bush found himself in a real dilemma. However, the time has come for the United States to mend fences, which the US has done from the time Mr Obama was elected to the presidency of his country and Hillary Clinton accepted to be his Secretary of State.

Mr Romney adopted a Machiavellian approach during the last debate, the debate that took place on October 16th, acting rather dishonorably. But given that he may have entered into some alliance with Israel, I believe he may also be a threat to the United States.

composer: Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov (18 March 1844 – 21 June 1908)

piece: Scheherazade 3rd movement – The Young Prince & Princess

performers: Berliner Philharmoniker & Michel Schwalbé

conductor: Herbert von Karajan

Middle East musings

23 Friday Sep 2011

Posted by michelinewalker in Uncategorized

≈ 14 Comments

Tags

Camp David 2000, hatred, Israel, level playing field, Lex Talionis, live bombs, Palestine, role of the United Nations, WordPress

On Wednesday, September 21, 2011, I expressed a level of optimism with respect to peace in the Middle East. I had seen President Obama and President Hamid Karzai speak together with civility and the final handshake seemed genuine.

However, a conflict is looming in the traditional Middle East. On the one hand, Palestine is asking for nationhood and, on the other hand, Israel wants protection from Arab attacks.

In a recent address to the United Nations, Obama stated that Palestinians deserve “their own state,” which they do, but he added that this can “only be achieved through talks with Israel” (BBC, UK, September 21, 2011).

It may be worth reviewing the manner in which Israel came to be a nation. Six million Jews had been killed by the Nazis, which could have been a catalyst for the creation of Israel. Moreover, if they were to be a Jewish State, the Jews wanted to live in their “promised land” and, because of their circumstances at that time, this wish seemed legitimate. However, this “promised land” was Palestine in general and Jerusalem in particular.

The Jewish tribes had been dispersed about two thousand years before the creation of the State of Isreal, on May 14, 1948. Yet, in 1948, there were Jews already or still living in Palestine, then under British control. So Palestine made room for the remainder of Europe’s Jewish population. Arab Palestinians were therefore displaced for the arrival of European Jews who had survived the Holocaust.

But, let us return to more current events. Palestinian authorities are now before the United Nations asking for the same type of nationhood that was granted to Israel. Palestinians deserve nationhood. However, had Yasser Arafat accepted Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barack’s offer (Camp David Summit, 2000), Palestinian nationhood would have been achieved by now, and it would have been achieved “through talks with Israel.” Prime Minister Ehud Barack’s offer was generally perceived to be generous and just.

Given, however, the rejection of Ehud Barack’s offer, can Palestinians now expect Israel to withdraw from the territories it has occupied since the 1967 Seven Day War? In the mind of a large number of Israelis, this land is perceived to belong to Israel, which is not the case.

Given also, the murderous attacks perpetrated by some Arab Palestinian radicals against Israelis and the subsequent Israeli retaliation against Palestinians, confidence in a peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians has been eroded. Not that the creation of a Palestine is a pipe dream, but that Israel needs and deserves guarantees that it will not be attacked.

As for the Palestinians, in the current climate of distrust amongst the parties involved, they need a level playing field in order to deal with the legitimate security concerns of the Israelis.

Providing this level playing field could be the role of the United Nations. Israel cannot live in constant fear of attacks from Arab countries. Although both Israel and Palestine deserve nationhood, further bloodshed is unacceptable. So I wonder whether nationhood for Palestinians can “only be achieved through talks.”

Perhaps. But to the words of President Obama, I would add that considerable good faith on the part of both Israeli and Palestinian negotiators is imperative and that Palestinian authorities need to deal with its Iranian terrorist group, Hamas, which teaches hatred against Jews, the sort of hatred that can convince human beings to transform themselves into live bombs.

In other words, I would suggest that it would be in the best interest of Middle East countries, including Israel, to promote peace, which would mean rethinking the ancient wisdom of the lex talionis: “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.”

Rethinking such wisdom would be a concession to Christian teaching, except that Christ was himself a Jew and a Palestinian.

* * *

September 23, 2011