Obama: America’s ‘First Jewish President’?

by Dr. Ashraf Ezzat on September 24, 2011

Obama is the “the first Jewish President”. That’s the title of New York magazine’s lead article, written by John Heilemann and quoting a major Obama fundraiser.

Listening to Obama speak at the United Nations on Wednesday many would nod in agreement, not less in Palestine and the Arab world.

The US president has embraced the rejectionist Israeli position on the question of international recognition of an independent Palestinian state.

But that’s not a Jewish position. It’s a radical Zionist position. Many Jews, including US and Israeli Jews, do not embrace such extremist views.

But the fact that Obama surpassed his predecessor George W Bush, the most radical supporter of Israel among all US Presidents, has left everyone in Israel dumbstruck. The latest Zionist US president sounded like Israel’s own founding fathers.

Never have they heard a US president read straight from the papers of the Israeli government.

Propaganda passes for history

You would think after six decades of dispossession, four decades of occupation and two decades of peace processes that President Obama would recognise a political and moral discrepancy that needs fixing.

That he would underline, not undermine, his own words uttered in Cairo a year and a half ago about the need for Israel to stop its illegal settlements in Palestine.

That he would underline, not undermine his own projection – read promise – from the same podium last September of a Palestinian state within a year, meaning this week.

That he would underline, not undermine, his own rhetoric about freedom in the Arab region.
Or that he would underline, not undermine, his own opening emphasis about a peace based on withdrawal, not more of the same logic of war.

Alas, President Obama undermined his entire “change we can believe in” slogan.
His narrative is inspired by the worst of Israel’s official propaganda. Indeed, much of it is cut and pasted from their playbook.

He spoke of historical “facts” that have long been repudiated by Israeli historians, and of truths that are nothing more than one sided interpretations of a political situation.

Obama claimed that the Arabs launched wars against Israel. But, in actual fact, Israel is the aggressor, launching or instigating wars in: 1956, 1967, 1982, 2006 and 2008. Only the 1973 war was launched by Arabs, but only to recuperate occupied territories after the US and Israel rejected Anwar Sadat’s peace overtures.

He underlined the work of Israelis in forging a successful state in their “historic homeland”. But most of the world, and certainly the Arab world, saw Israel’s inception as a colonial project with theological pretexts.

Serbia also believes that Kosovo is the birth place of its nation; should they be allowed to forge a successful state of their own, an exclusively Serbian state in that territory?

Should each and every occupied people search from accommodation with their occupiers without interference from the international community? Is that how African and Middle Eastern nations gained their independence from European colonial powers?

Should a whole people go on living under occupation until their occupier is satisfied with the conditions for surrender?

It’s politics, stupid

Every other commentator in town would like to remind you not to expect much action from a US president on Israel during an election year.

As Heilemann illustrates in his article, Obama’s career was built on his relationships with generous Jewish contributors in Chicago.

Indeed, the guy who brought the most money to the Democratic party over the last several decades became Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel. Today, he’s the mayor of Chicago.

But it’s not only about money. It’s also about crucial support in Congress over urgent domestic issues that could make or break the Obama presidency. And the Israeli lobby, AIPAC, can make the president’s life miserable over the course of the next year.

Now, I understand all of that. But what I don’t understand is why it is accepted as a fait accompli! As the nature of politics! Take it or leave it!

If this is the case, then let’s at least call a spade a spade; and out the US administration(s) for being what so many seem to say it is: Not Jewish or Zionist, rather hypocritical.
It speaks of justice but pursues unfair policies; speaks of repression, but promotes its own interests at any cost. It preaches freedom but supports occupation; speaks of human rights but insists on entrusting the wolf, and only the wolf, with the hen house.

The joke is on everyone

Why should the Palestinians be held victims to US politics while being held hostage to Israeli politics for the last six decades. Why should most Israelis continue to live in a garrison state incapable of normalising relations with their neighbors?

Why should Americans watch as their politicians are held hostage to a foreign power and its influential supporters?

The pro-Israeli Jewish lobby, J Street, commented on the alarming pandering to Israel not only among Democrats but also Republicans, saying: “There’s no limit, it seems, to how far American politicians will go these days in pandering on Israel for political gain.”

While there has been strategic logic for the US support for Israel in the past, Washington’s current pandering makes little sense.

Washington has long used its influence with Israel as strategic leverage to reign in Arab leaders. Only Washington can restrain Israel in war and wring concessions in diplomacy, Arab leaders once reckoned.

But the dictators who either exploited Palestine to garner popular support at home, or bartered it in return for Western favours, belong to the past.

Today’s Arabs are bitter and angry at US-Israeli complicity in Palestine and they won’t be as easily bounded or bribed as their fallen dictatorships.

Marwan Bishara is Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst. He was previously a professor of International Relations at the American University of Paris. An author who writes extensively on global politics, he is widely regarded as a leading authority on the Middle East and international affairs.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Pyramidion’s editorial policy.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Statehood: Last Bid to Rescue Negotiations

Al-Akhbar

A volunteer pastes black-and-white portraits of Palestinian youths with flags of countries which support the Palestinian bid for statehood recognition at the U.N. painted on them. (Photo: REUTERS - Darren Whiteside)

By: Houssam Kanafani

Published Saturday, September 24, 2011

The current Palestinian UN bid for statehood was initially driven by American efforts to rescue failed negotiations last year. It has now given PA head Mahmoud Abbas much needed popularity. But a failed bid may be more than he can handle.

During beleaguered peace negotiations in September of last year, US President Barack Obama gave a speech at the UN General Assembly, in which he said he hoped that a new member to the UN, the State of Palestine, would be present at the Assembly’s next annual session. Obama’s words reflected his efforts at the time to restart peace process negotiations, which were deadlocked for months over disputed Israeli settlement construction in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. These efforts culminated in a second ‘landmark’ in the current push fore statehood, the Washington summit. The summit was meant to inaugurate a year-long negotiating process from which a new Palestinian state would emerge.

Abbas saw the quest for UN recognition as a tactical maneuver aimed at restarting the negotiations.

Palestinians pick on this promise in Obama’s speech and reformulated it after the Washington negotiations stalled within weeks, over the perennial issue of new settlements. Incidentally, the settlement freeze was also originally an American demand, which Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas adopted once the US president abandoned it. Accordingly, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to extend his declared nine-month moratorium on new settlements. The negotiations came to a fruitless halt.
With time, and as attempts to restart the talks turned hopeless, the notion of declaring statehood gained currency. Different Palestinian officials offered confused and conflicting accounts of the proposal. It was widely suggested that Palestinians would unilaterally declare statehood. But the PA later ruled out that option, instead pursuing legal channels for UN recognition of a Palestinian state. Abbas and his aides were aware of the obstacles impeding such a course, and they initially did not expect to appear before the UN podium to ask for recognition.

Sources say that Abbas saw the quest for UN recognition as a tactical maneuver aimed at restarting the negotiations. This remains his ultimate objective, a claim he repeated on several occasions, even when defending his decision to appeal to the UN. In his view, a return to negotiations would be inevitable, even if the Security Council or General Assembly accepts the statehood application. Abbas nearly achieved his aim. Numerous initiatives for relaunching negotiations were put forward by European and American envoys. But they invariably failed upon Israel’s adamant refusal to freeze settlements, “even for one day,” as Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman often says.

With public support for the bid strong, frustration over its breakdown may be intense and possibly lead to non-peaceful popular action.

This being the case, the PA head finds himself bound by his pledge to go to the UN. The move enjoys strong support among the Palestinian public, although some factions, most notably Hamas, oppose it. The move has done wonders for Abbas’s popularity, turning him – perhaps for the first time ever – into a symbol of hope for the majority of Palestinians. The Palestinian public was largely infuriated by his pursuit of futile negotiations and refreshed once Abbas finally pursued an alternative.
But Abbas is not quite as enlivened by the turn of events. UN recognition will not come easily, given Washington’s determination to block it at the Security Council, either by denying the nine votes it needs or by veto. Moreover, defying American and Western wishes over the issue may have unbearable long-term consequences for the PA. The US has threatened financial sanctions if the Palestinians press their bid, and other donors might follow suit.

Abbas must also contend with the domestic repercussions of failure. With public support for the bid strong, frustration over its breakdown may be intense and possibly lead to non-peaceful popular action. Public disaffection may be further fuelled by economic difficulties in Palestine. A financial crisis is already looming for the PA, which was unable to pay public sector salaries in full for August. There have also been recent worker protests in the West Bank.

Most alarming for the Palestinians are signs that Arab governments could also be tightening the financial screws. A number of Arab donors have recently stopped transfers of pledged funds to the PA. This prompted the PLO Executive Committee’s Yasser Abed-Rabbo to complain of an “Arab financial siege.” There have been reports that some Arab states at the UN have shifted position, now pressing the PA to back down from their quest for recognition. If these reports are true, the siege may soon worsen.

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Kudos Mr. Abbas‏, the "tragic hero": The “plucked chicken” is soaring into the sky. Give him a chance

"Will U.S., Israel give Abbas a chance? Thus asked Uri Avnery on Dec, 2004, "Abu Mazen represents the Fatah Old Guard, while his opponents represent the fighters of the first and second intifadas. But the real confrontation is between two world views and two grand strategies for the Palestinian national liberation struggle."

U.S., Israel gave Abbas the chance, supported him to smash opponents in his own Fatah party, but what was the outcome?

Hamas has won a surprise victory in January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections. "Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said after a three-hour emergency meeting on Thursday that Israel would not negotiate with a Palestinian government including Hamas."  and Bush "hoped Mr Abbas would stay in power."

"The election results stunned U.S. and Israeli officials, who have repeatedly stated that they would not work with a Palestinian Authority that included Hamas, which both countries and the European Union have designated as a terrorist organization. In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that a party could not "have one foot in politics and the other in terror. Our position on Hamas has therefore not changed."

"CAN ABBAS be saved?" asked Uri Avnery on June 25, 2007. "I don't know." he answered, "Some of my Palestinian friends are in despair.

They grew up in Fateh, and Fateh is their home. They are secularists. They are nationalists. They definitely do not want a fanatical Islamic regime in their homeland.

But in the present conflict, their heart is with Hamas. Their mind is split. And that is not surprising.", he added

Again the U.S. and Israel gave Abbas the chance, because Abbas is a necessity for both,

"Abbas cannot be “eliminated” the usual way, as were [Hamas leader] Sheikh Ahmad Yassin and many other Palestinian leaders. In the case of Abbas, it is not even allowed to use the word “elimination” – an official term of the Israeli army, taken straight from the Mafia lexicon."

In the final analysis, Abbas is under the control of Usrael, they always have the carrot and the stick. THEYsupported him to smash Hamas in WB, launced brutal war on Besiged Gaza,
starved Gazans for electing Hamas.

What was the outcome?

Hear it from Uri. On September 14, 2009, Uri wrote, Barack Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas – All three of them – "are fighting for their political life. The three battles are quite different from each other, yet interconnected." The three battles are still ongoing and still interconnected.

The Palestinian UN bid: Abbas and the Domestic Front

"Behind the scene, there is a domestic political imperative behind Abbas decision. Yes, he wants to seek a statehood, but he is also planning his own political survival.

For many years, Abbas watched his popularity plummet among the Palestinian public. Many viewed him as a collaborator who only maintain Israel security. Netanyahu made things even harder, his refusal to renew the moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank has led to the final breakdown of the direct negotiations.

By opting to go outside the framework of the Oslo accord, Abbas would probably be able to regain his popularity among the Palestinians, snooker the Israelis and US and most importantly score a few points against Hamas....

he also understands the Palestinian psyche who will probably appreciate the small gains from the UN more than any achievement from any negotiated settlement....By seeking the UN bid, Abbas would enhance the image of a leader who want to create a state for his own people and is willing to defy the USA”the world superpower”to achieve his goal....Abbas is banking on two factors; the Arab uprising and the risk of Hamas take over the West bank...The UN bid is ideal for Abbas domestic needs. The UN may not offer the Palestinians full statehood, but would give Abbas a reasonable chance for political survival in the possible next year election and that is what probably matters most to him. As for a permanent solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, there appears to be no strategy except prayers!"

The the zionist hasbara outlets denouced the "deadly serious implications of Abbas’ U.N. campaign,"

"it has elements of farce. Abbas can’t claim to represent all of Palestine. Hamas, not the Palestinian Authority, rules in the Gaza Strip, and it has no interest in any settlement that recognizes the Jewish state. What’s more, Abbas’ election mandate ran out two years ago, and no new elections have been possible because of the Gaza-West Bank schism."

Obama's speech confirmed Uri Avnery's worries:  Obama on the wrong side of history and Egypt will change his live, you
Uri, rejoice, but the wise speech of yoyr "tragic hero" shall not stop the water rising slowly and silently behind the dam, until it burst, sweeping the illustion of possible peace with Zionism. 


Mahmoud Abbas and Barack Obama: "tragic hero" vs political prostitute

---

By Uri Avnery

24 September 2011

Uri Avnery compares Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas’s gamble in making a bid for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations – and thereby putting Palestine at the centre of world attention – with Barack Obama’s sheer unprincipled prostitution in the service of Israel – all for the sake of a second term as president.

”The Arab Spring may have been a last chance for the US to recover its standing in the Middle East. After some hesitation, Obama realized that...

“Now he has blown it, perhaps forever. No self-respecting Arab will forgive him for plunging his knife into the back of the helpless Palestinians. All the credit the US has tried to gain in the last months in the Arab and the wider Muslim world has been blown away with one puff.” (Uri Avnery)

A wonderful speech. A beautiful speech.

The language expressive and elegant. The arguments clear and convincing. The delivery flawless.

A work of art. The art of hypocrisy. Almost every statement in the passage concerning the Israeli-Palestinian issue was a lie. A blatant lie: the speaker knew it was a lie, and so did the audience.

It was Obama at his best, Obama at his worst.

Being a moral person, he must have felt the urge to vomit. Being a pragmatic person, he knew that he had to do it, if he wanted to be re-elected.

 Obama – selling America’s national interests for a second term

In essence, he sold the fundamental national interests of the United States of America for the chance of a second term.

Not very nice, but that’s politics, OK?

It may be superfluous – almost insulting to the reader – to point out the mendacious details of this rhetorical edifice.

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.

Obama spewed out a “straight right-wing Israeli propaganda line, pure and simple – the terminology, the historical narrative, the argumentation. The music.”

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. The music.

The Palestinians, of course, should have a state of their own. Sure, sure. But they must not be pushy. They must not embarrass the US. They must not come to the UN. They must sit with the Israelis, like reasonable people, and work it out with them. The reasonable sheep must sit down with the reasonable wolf and decide what to have for dinner. Foreigners should not interfere.

Obama gave full service. A lady who provides this kind of service generally gets paid in advance. Obama got paid immediately afterwards, within the hour. Netanyahu sat down with him in front of the cameras and gave him enough quotable professions of love and gratitude to last for several election campaigns.

Mahmoud Abbas – “a tragic hero”

The “plucked chicken” is soaring into the sky.
Not bad for a chicken, even for one with a full set of feathers

The tragic hero of this affair is Mahmoud Abbas. A tragic hero, but a hero nonetheless.

Many people may be surprised by this sudden emergence of Abbas as a daring player for high stakes, ready to confront the mighty US.

If Ariel Sharon were to wake up for a moment from his years-long coma, he would faint with amazement. It was he who called Mahmoud Abbas “a plucked chicken”.

Yet for the last few days, Abbas was the centre of global attention. World leaders conferred about how to handle him, senior diplomats were eager to convince him of this or that course of action, commentators were guessing what he would do next. His speech before the UN General Assembly was treated as an event of consequence.

Not bad for a chicken, even for one with a full set of feathers.
His emergence as a leader on the world stage is somewhat reminiscent of Anwar Sadat.

When Gamal Abd-al-Nasser unexpectedly died at the age of 52 in 1970 and his official deputy, Sadat, assumed his mantle, all political experts shrugged.

Sadat? Who the hell is that? He was considered a no-nentity, an eternal No. 2, one of the least important members of the group of “free officers” that was ruling Egypt.

“Sit, Anwar!”  

In Egypt, a land of jokes and jokers, witticisms about him abounded. One concerned the prominent brown mark on his forehead. The official version was that it was the result of much praying, hitting the ground with his forehead. But the real reason, it was told, was that at meetings, after everyone else had spoken, Sadat would get up and try to say something. Nasser would good-naturedly put his finger to his forehead, push him gently down and say: “Sit, Anwar!”  

Sit, Pharaoah

To the utter amazement of the experts – and especially the Israeli ones – this “non-entity” took a huge gamble by starting the 1973 October War, and proceeded to do something unprecedented in history: going to the capital of an enemy country still officially in a state of war and making peace.

Abbas’ status under Yasser Arafat was not unlike Sadat’s under Nasser. However, Arafat never appointed a deputy. Abbas was one of a group of four or five likely successors. The heir would surely have been Abu Jihad, had he not been killed by Israeli commandoes in front of his wife and children. Another likely candidate, Abu Iyad, was killed by Palestinian terrorists. Abu Mazen (Abbas) was in a way the choice by default.

Such politicians, emerging suddenly from under the shadow of a great leader, generally fall into one of two categories: the eternal frustrated No. 2 or the surprising new leader.

The Bible gives us examples of both kinds. The first was Rehoboam, the son and heir of the great King Solomon, who told his people: “my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions”. The other kind was represented by Joshua, the heir of Moses. He was no second Moses, but according to the story a great conqueror in his own right.

Modern history tells the sad story of Anthony Eden, the long-suffering No. 2 of Winston Churchill, who commanded little respect. (Mussolini called him, after their first meeting, “a well-tailored idiot”.). Upon assuming power, he tried desperately to equal Churchill and soon embroiled Britain in the 1956 Suez disaster. To the second category belonged Harry Truman, the nobody who succeeded the great Franklin Delano Roosevelt and surprised everybody as a resolute leader.

Putting Palestine at the centre of world attention

“Abbas has placed the quest for Palestinian freedom squarely on the international table. For more than a week, Palestine has been the centre of international attention.”

Abbas looked like belonging to the first kind. Now, suddenly, he is revealed as belonging to the second. The world is treating him with newfound respect. Nearing the end of his career, he made the big gamble.

But was it wise? Courageous, yes. Daring, yes. But wise?

My answer is: yes, it was.

Abbas has placed the quest for Palestinian freedom squarely on the international table. For more than a week, Palestine has been the centre of international attention. Scores of international statesmen – and women – including the leader of the world’s only superpower, have been busy with Palestine.
For a national movement, that is of the utmost importance. Cynics may ask: “So what did they gain from it?” But cynics are fools. A liberation movement gains from the very fact that the world pays attention, that the media grapple with the problem, that people of conscience all over the world are aroused. It strengthens morale at home and brings the struggle a step nearer its goal. [All to save his political career -UP]

Oppression shuns the limelight. Occupation, settlements, ethnic cleansing thrive in the shadows. It is the oppressed who need the light of day. Abbas’s move provided it, at least for the time being.

“Oppression shuns the limelight. Occupation, settlements, ethnic cleansing thrive in the shadows. It is the oppressed who need the light of day.”

Barack Obama’s miserable performance was a nail in the coffin of America’s status as a superpower. In a way, it was a crime against the United States.

The Arab Spring may have been a last chance for the US to recover its standing in the Middle East. After some hesitation, Obama realized that. He called on Mubarak to go, helped the Libya-ns against their tyrant, made some noises about Bashar al-Assad. He knows that he has to regain the respect of the Arab masses if he wants to recover some stature in the region, and by extension throughout the world. [SO, Its all about democracy!!! Its the bloody oil and "Shalom" for Israel, stupid]

Now he has blown it, perhaps forever. No self-respecting Arab will forgive him for plunging his knife into the back of the helpless Palestinians. All the credit the US has tried to gain in the last months in the Arab and the wider Muslim world has been blown away with one puff.

All for re-election.

It was also a crime against Israel.

[Why Uri??  here is the answer: A letter from a 1948 settler to 1967 settlers in Gaza ]

Israel needs peace. Israel needs to live side by side with the Palestinian people, within the Arab world. Israel cannot rely forever on the unconditional support of the declining United States.

Obama knows this full well. He knows what is good for Israel, even if Netanyahu doesn’t. Yet he has handed the keys of the car to the drunken driver.

The state of Palestine will come into being. This week it was already clear that this is unavoidable. Obama will be forgotten, as will Netanyahu, Lieberman and the whole bunch.

Mahmoud Abbas – Abu Mazen, as the Palestinians call him – will be remembered. The “plucked chicken” is soaring into the sky.

Kudos Mr. Abbas‏,

Thus commented Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh

Dr. Mazin is vey exited with the "brilliant speech at the United Nations, getting rounds of applause from most of the representatives" 

I think it demonstrated clearly and unambiguously that the Palestinian leadership has been "unreasonably reasonable" and has instead seen the hopes of peace and of millions of Palestinians suffering for 63 years dashed on the rock of Israeli expansionist, colonial, and apartheid policies. He explained that Israel has been taking one unilateral action after another each resulting in more pain and suffering for our people. Going to the UN, he explained is putting things back where the problems started (he did not use the last two words but I do). He said a word that I think he should defend strongly that no person or country with an iota of logic or conscience should reject the Palestinian state membership in the UN or its formation in the 22% of historic Palestine that is the West Bank and Gaza. I think he took a courageous step and gave a good performance." 

Mazin is optimistic, Abbas would "now implement quickly the reconciliation agreement...would act quickly and decisively to really promote popular unarmed resistance throughout Palestine."  In other words, Hamas and resistance factions should willingly lay arms or othetwise.

"A new strategy to encourage real nonviolent resistance must be adopted"....Mazin is "waiting to see clear evidence of change; a new Palestinian Spring as Mr. Abbas called it." 

I am adraid, Mazin's "new strategy would end with a "new book": Sharing the "Land of Samira"

• 18 Years after Failed Peace Talks, Netanyahu to Abbas: Let’s Meet Today
• Abbas’s Friday address at the UN effectively portrayed the Palestinians’ plight but failed to identify the solution.
• Bardaweel: PA’s September statehood bid a trap to liquidate Palestinian cause
• Hamas: Abbas speech to UN bore ‘serious contradictions'
• Hamdan: UN bid a political move aimed at saving negotiations
• Haneyya: We want a fully sovereign state not sacrifice national constants and rights
• The Statehood, the Carrot and the Stick: "The stick is a carrot, and the carrot is a stick"
• A free Palestine: Free from the River to the Sea

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

London JC launched an attack on Prof' John Mearsheimer

Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 11:14PM Gilad Atzmon

 

Gilad Atzmon: I occasionally read the London JC: it provides a glimpse into Zionist paranoia, and it also depicts a true image of the ‘Nuevo Ghetto’ mentality.

Today, a week ahead of the publication of my new book The Wandering Who, the JC seems to be desperate to mount pressure on Professor John Mearsheimer, the highly respected academic who warmly endorsed my book.

It is apparent that the JC is yet to realise the length of the list of prominent scholars, writers and activists who support and endorse my new book.

In the article below, the JC prints a collection of quotes from the book that are supposed to be both embarrassing and contentious (I made them bold). Needless to mention, I am standing firmly behind all of my quotes, and each of my words

However, being the amateurish outlet that it is, the JC has made at least two mistakes:
1. I am not an ‘anti-Semite’. I am actually a firm opponent of any form of racism whatsoever -- and this includes questioning and challenging every possible appearance of Jewish political and ideological exclusivity and collectivism in the same manner that I would criticise any other manifestation or form of ethnic prejudice.
2. The book is not published by “The Susjin Agency” as the JC suggests but by Zero Books.
The JC article:

Mearsheimer backs book by antisemite By Jessica Elgothttp://www.thejc.com/

A US academic who co-wrote a controversial book about the Israel lobby has praised a new work by the Jewish antisemitic writer Gilad Atzmon.

Mr Atzmon, a jazz musician and vociferous critic of Israel and Judaism, has written a book called The Wandering Who? published by The Susjin Agency.

The book was recommended on the publisher's website by University of Chicago professor, John Mearsheimer, an international relations expert and co-author, with Stephen Walt, of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.

In his book, Mr Atzmon writes: "The Holocaust religion is probably as old as the Jews themselves. I believe the Holocaust is engraved in Jewish culture, discourse and spirit."

Elsewhere, he writes: "I think 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start asking questions."

He writes fulsome praise for Otto Weininger, a Jewish antisemite admired by Hitler, who supposedly said: "There was one decent Jew, and he killed himself."

Mr Atzmon writes that Weininger was "an antisemite as well as a radical misogynist". But he goes on to call him an "astonishing thinker" who "helped me grasp who I am".

David Hirsh*, a sociologist at Goldsmiths, University of London, and former Yale research fellow, said: "In their work on the 'Israel Lobby', I thought Mearsheimer and Walt slipped into antisemitic ways of thinking but I understood the view that perhaps this was an over-reaction.(1)

"Now, however, Mearsheimer is legitimising an unambiguously antisemitic book. He started by stumbling into antisemitism but is now openly embracing it. Mearsheimer, and even Atzmon, will be accepted amongst some sections of academia in a way that bigots against black people, Muslims or women would never be.

"Many scholars are nowadays incapable of recognising antisemitism; some others simply don't care about it; lots of people who do get it will remain silent."
SOAS Professor Colin Shindler** said: "Gilad Atzmon is entitled to express his views but, judging by his previous writings, few academics regard him as a serious writer. Such endorsements situate Atzmon as an exponent of the megaphone war between Israelis and Palestinians rather than as an independent thinker with an opinion. The cause of peace in the Middle East deserves better."***
Professor Mearsheimer could not be reached for comment.

You can now order Gilad Atzmon's New Book on Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk 

* (GA) David Hirsh is the ultra Zionist who stands behind Engage On Line, a Hasbara outlet operating as the UK ADL branch.
** (GA) Professor Colin Shindler, is a supporter of Israel and Professor of Israeli Studies at the SOAS University. It is amusing to find out that hard core Zionist Shindler is convinced that it is down to him to decide who should be leading the Palestinian solidarity discourse.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Abbas Officially Asks UN to Admit State of Palestine

"I will not remain silent while you negotiate in the open and in secret...sell Jerusalem....divide Palestine...sell our rights...swap our lands for bank accounts and permits to Tel Aviv...you fight over imaginary posts and chairs....act helpless when the occupier oppresses us.... oppress us, train forces to suppress us...act helpless when the settlers attack us...steal our land...build ‘cities’ for the elite...act helpless when the occupiers destroy our homes,

I will not be silent while you sell 80% of Palestine in the name of a ‘state’ and ‘red carpet’ and ‘government’." reham alhelsi

There is only one Palestine: and it was, is and will forever be one from the river to the sea, and Palestine will not be free until it is free from the river to the sea.

Abbas Officially Asks UN to Admit State of Palestine

In a historic move, Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas formally asked the United Nations on Friday to admit Palestine as a full member state, a step which is expected to face an American announced veto, as the Israeli enemy ‘regretting’ out of its belief that the only road to the so-called peace is through negotiations.
Abbas handed the application letter to UN chief Ban Ki-moon buoyed by more than 120 nations which have already recognized a Palestinian state. He made the request in a letter, handed to Ban in a white folder adorned with a Palestinian eagle logo. The UN secretary general opened the folder briefly to study it.
In his speech before the UN General Assembly after submitting the request, Abbas warned that Israel's policy of settlements will "destroy chances" of a two-state solution to the conflict. "This policy will destroy the chances of achieving a two-state solution upon which there is an international consensus," Abbas said. "This settlement policy threatens to also undermine the structure of the Palestinian National Authority and even end its existence," he added.
The PA President said Israel has "smashed against the rocks" all efforts to reach a peace deal explaining why he had pressed his bid for UN membership of his state. "All of these sincere efforts and endeavors undertaken by international parties were repeatedly smashed against the rocks of the positions of the Israeli government, which quickly dashed the hopes raised by the launch of negotiations last September," he told the UN General Assembly.
The Palestinian leader won huge applause and a standing ovation Friday from some of the assembly as he entered the hall shortly after asking the UN to admit the state of Palestine.
UN spokesman Martin Nesirky said that the Palestinian bid for UN membership will be "quickly" handled and sent to the UN Security Council. Speaking after Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas met UN leader Ban Ki-moon, the spokesman said: "The appropriate procedural reviews will be quickly undertaken in the secretariat and afterwards will be transmitted to the president of the Security Council and the president of the General Assembly."
Reaction from the Israeli enemy was swift, saying the Zionist entity regrets the move. "We regret the step," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's spokesman Gidi Shmerling told AFP. "We believe that the only path to true peace is through negotiations and not unilateral steps."
Meanwhile, huge crowds packed into the main towns and cities of the West Bank on Friday as people turned out to support the Palestinian bid to seek UN membership. The crowds began gathering as Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas handed over the request.
In Lebanon, thousands of Palestinian refugees gathered in support for the UN bid. "We are here to back the Palestinian leadership," said Menhem Awad, a local Palestinian official, as the crowd waved Palestinian and Lebanese flags and chanted traditional songs. "The refugees are those most aware of the right of return to their land," Awad added.
Awad said although Abbas's bid at the UN may be unsuccessful given fierce opposition from Israel and the United States, it did not mean an end to the struggle for statehood. "If we don't win this round, we will the next one," he said. "A veto will be a burden the United States will have to bear because it will be standing in the way of a people's right to a state. And that will constitute a weakness for them."
The Beirut gathering was being held at a stadium near one of the refugee camps. A large banner above the stadium read: "The state is coming, like it or not."

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Obama's UN speech is unjust, immoral and unprincipled

Obama's UN speech is unjust, immoral and unprincipled
[ 23/09/2011 - 09:39 PM ]

By Khalid Amayreh in occupied Jerusalem

President Obama's speech at the United Nation's General Assembly was probably appropriate for an opportunistic politician who sacrifices honesty, morality, and basic ethics for the sake of making some momentary profit here or there. But it was by all means inappropriate, to say the least, for a statesman, let alone the President of the strongest nation on earth.

Obama's excessive praise of Israel caricatured an insecure president that fears telling the truth, a leader that shakes at the very thought of uttering the "wrong words" even when these wrong words happen to represent the heart, soul and essence of the truth.

In his speech, Obama never uttered a single word about the ever expanding Jewish settlements in occupied Palestine, the main reason for what has become the near impossibility of reaching any reasonable settlement of the enduring conflict.

He readily reiterated Israeli propaganda lies about Arabs and Muslims seeking Israel's destructions but carefully avoided Israel's consistent policy of aggression, occupation and lebensraum.
He utterly failed to mention that peace, real peace, has never been on Israel's agenda because a peace-loving country doesn't build hundreds of hateful colonies on occupied land, nor does transfer hundreds of thousands of its citizens to live on land that belongs to another people.

Likewise, he ignored the imposing fact of venomous racism in Israel where the bulk of the Israeli Jewish society has come to view non-Jews in general as virtual subhuman beings or virtual animals for no other reason than the fact that these people happen to be non-members of the Chosen People or the Master Race.

I'm quite convinced that Obama's failure to tell the truth is not imputed in any way to ignorance, misinformation or lack of information. Obama knows the truth about Israel quite well. However, he seems to utterly lack the moral fabric and strong character to call the spade a spade due to the Zionist Jewish stranglehold paralyzing his administration, Congress and U.S. foreign policy as, indeed, testified by a number of American intellectuals, including at least one former President.

I hesitate to use the term "political whore" in reference to Obama's moral downfall. However, If I were to testify before the "court of history" where every iota of truth counts and spin doesn't exist, I most probably would find it unconscionable to resort to euphemisms.

The main reason for this moral turpitude, that is to put it quite mildly, has every thing to do with Jewish money and Jewish power in the U.S, and has absolutely nothing to do with any truth on Israel's side.

Israel after all can be so honestly and so justifiably considered a crime against humanity. Israel, by sheer brutality and mendacity, stole the country of another people, killed untold numbers of these people, destroyed their homes and towns, bulldozed their fields and orchards and then expelled them to the four winds. How can such a country possibly have a shred of morality or legitimacy, probably with the exception of the morality of the fait accompli?

Like his predecessors, President Obama is not capable of making any worthy contribution to true peace making in the Middle East. True peace-making requires honesty, first and foremost, an ingredient Obama lacks rather conspicuously.

Hence, it is futile for the international community, especially for the Arabs and Muslims of the world, to rely on the American administration for achieving a just and durable peace in occupied Palestine.

In addition to honesty, Obama also lacks the courage to say or do anything that would fail to satisfy the fascist leaders of the Zionist regime, who shamelessly claim to seek peace with their Palestinian victims while continuing to destroy the latter's homes, steal their land and burn their mosques.

The conspicuous absence in Obama's speech of any mention or even allusion to the Zionist Jewish lebensraum policy in the West Bank, especially in occupied Arab East Jerusalem, portrays a president that is dithering, fretting and ranting about virtually nothing. His attempt to play the role of moral teacher and world leader whose words carry true moral weight is nothing less than a futile exercise in futility and cheap political hucksterism.

With all honesty and bitterness, such a leader won't be able to make peace in the Middle East even if he remains at the White House fifty more years. What is the point of being a president when one betrays his conscience in order to please and appease the forces of evil and pressure groups around him?

As to the Palestinians, they must realize that they have committed an act of self-deception if not self-destruction when they accepted the United States as a sole honest broker of the so-called peace process.

Consecutive U.S. administrations played so brazenly, so brashly and so shamelessly, the role of Israel's protector, defender, and lawyer regardless of whatever Israel did or didn't, a policy that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

On many occasions, American peace envoys, many of whom fanatical Zionists, displayed stands and attitudes that were far more extremists than those displayed even by Israeli negotiators. So for heaven's sake, how could a shamelessly Zionist America, biased to the core in Israel's favor, be any thing like an honest broker? This is nothing less than fornication with language.

In light, the Palestinian people should resign to the fact that the Arab-Israeli conflict has become really unsolvable due to the present political and demographic facts.

But history, especially in this part of the world, doesn’t reach its end with the appearance or disappearance of Barack Obama nor, indeed, with his masters in occupied Palestine.

I am not going to indulge in prognostication or wishful thinking about the future. However, it must be understood by all that Israel bears full responsibility for the disappearance of all peace chances in this region.

This means that Israel alone bears responsibility for whatever comes next.
In case you missed it:

• The Statehood, the Carrot and the Stick: "The stick is a carrot, and the carrot is a stick"
• A free Palestine: Free from the River to the Sea
• Abu Zuhri:Obama’s speech reflect total bias to Israeli occupation
• Abbas Officially Asks UN to Admit State of Palestine

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Recognition of Israel Necessitates Recognizing Palestine First

by Dr. Ashraf Ezzat on September 23, 2011

<![CDATA[//><!]]>

-->

Mahmoud Abbas submitting the application of the state of Palestine for admission to membership in the United Nations

Author’s note: Recognizing Israel has been an Israeli precondition for sitting around one table with the Palestinians to start the so-called peace talks.

In almost all the screwed up bilateral negotiations over the past two decades, the Israeli side would always issue statements that justify and stick the failure of negotiations on the other side’s unwillingness to recognize the state of Israel.

While most people were duped by this oversimplification, there are few who saw the catch in that statement.

Recognizing a state requires the existence of an equal state, politically and legally on the same level, to make the recognition. In other words, if Israelis insist that Palestinians recognize the state of Israel, then Palestine should be acknowledged first as a fully fledged state.

You simply can’t ask an entity, which what Palestine is regarded now at the United Nations, to recognize the state of Israel. This is legally and logically unacceptable.

This Israeli request for recognition by the Palestinians, which is one of Israel’s favorite excuses for not proceeding with the peace process, is but a phony argument that nevertheless gives the current Palestinian bid for UN statehood more authenticity and urgency for the sake of carrying on once again with the bilateral negotiations that both Israel and its American ally are raving about these days as the only way to reach an agreement or rather the only way out of this UN vote crisis.

The following article is one of the classic and most profound pieces on the Israeli alleged and misconceived right of existence. 

What ‘Israel’s Right to Exist’ Means to Palestinians

“Recognition would imply acceptance that they deserve to be treated as subhumans.”

John V. Whitbeck

Since the Palestinian elections in 2006, Israel and much of the West have asserted that the principal obstacle to any progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace is the refusal of Hamas to “recognize Israel,” or to “recognize Israel’s existence,” or to “recognize Israel’s right to exist.”

These three verbal formulations have been used by Israel, the United States, and the European Union as a rationale for collective punishment of the Palestinian people. The phrases are also used by the media, politicians, and even diplomats interchangeably, as though they mean the same thing. They do not.

“Recognizing Israel” or any other state is a formal legal and diplomatic act by one state with respect to another state. It is inappropriate – indeed, nonsensical – to talk about a political party or movement extending diplomatic recognition to a state. To talk of Hamas “recognizing Israel” is simply to use sloppy, confusing, and deceptive shorthand for the real demand being made of the Palestinians.
“Recognizing Israel’s existence” appears on first impression to involve a relatively straightforward acknowledgment of a fact of life. Yet there are serious practical problems with this language. What Israel, within what borders, is involved? Is it the 55 percent of historical Palestine recommended for a Jewish state by the UN General Assembly in 1947? The 78 percent of historical Palestine occupied by the Zionist movement in 1948 and now viewed by most of the world as “Israel” or “Israel proper”? The 100 percent of historical Palestine occupied by Israel since June 1967 and shown as “Israel” (without any “Green Line”) on maps in Israeli schoolbooks?

Israel has never defined its own borders, since doing so would necessarily place limits on them. Still, if this were all that was being demanded of Hamas, it might be possible for the ruling political party to acknowledge, as a fact of life, that a state of Israel exists today within some specified borders. Indeed, Hamas leadership has effectively done so in recent weeks.

“Recognizing Israel’s right to exist,” the actual demand being made of Hamas and Palestinians, is in an entirely different league. This formulation does not address diplomatic formalities or a simple acceptance of present realities. It calls for a moral judgment.

There is an enormous difference between “recognizing Israel’s existence” and “recognizing Israel’s right to exist.” From a Palestinian perspective, the difference is in the same league as the difference between asking a Jew to acknowledge that the Holocaust happened and asking him to concede that the Holocaust was morally justified.

For Palestinians to acknowledge the occurrence of the Nakba – the expulsion of the great majority of Palestinians from their homeland between 1947 and 1949 – is one thing. For them to publicly concede that it was “right” for the Nakba to have happened would be something else entirely. For the Jewish and Palestinian peoples, the Holocaust and the Nakba, respectively, represent catastrophes and injustices on an unimaginable scale that can neither be forgotten nor forgiven.

Palestinian labourers line up, for hours with no shelter, to cross an Israeli checkpoint as they return to their homes after a day's work in the Jewish state on January 3, 2010 near the village of Ni'ilin in the West Bank

To demand that Palestinians recognize “Israel’s right to exist” is to demand that a people who have been treated as subhumans unworthy of basic human rights publicly proclaim that they are subhumans. It would imply Palestinians’ acceptance that they deserve what has been done and continues to be done to them. Even 19th-century US governments did not require the surviving native Americans to publicly proclaim the “rightness” of their ethnic cleansing by European colonists as a condition precedent to even discussing what sort of land reservation they might receive. Nor did native Americans have to live under economic blockade and threat of starvation until they shed whatever pride they had left and conceded the point.

Some believe that Yasser Arafat did concede the point in order to buy his ticket out of the wilderness of demonization and earn the right to be lectured directly by the Americans. But in fact, in his famous 1988 statement in Stockholm, he accepted “Israel’s right to exist in peace and security.” This language, significantly, addresses the conditions of existence of a state which, as a matter of fact, exists. It does not address the existential question of the “rightness” of the dispossession and dispersal of the Palestinian people from their homeland to make way for another people coming from abroad.

The original conception of the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” and of its use as an excuse for not talking with any Palestinian leaders who still stood up for the rights of their people are attributed to former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. It is highly likely that those countries that still employ this phrase do so in full awareness of what it entails, morally and psychologically, for the Palestinian people.

However, many people of goodwill and decent values may well be taken in by the surface simplicity of the words, “Israel’s right to exist,” and believe that they constitute a reasonable demand. And if the “right to exist” is reasonable, then refusing to accept it must represent perversity, rather than Palestinians’ deeply felt need to cling to their self-respect and dignity as full-fledged human beings. That this need is deeply felt is evidenced by polls showing that the percentage of the Palestinian population that approves of Hamas’s refusal to bow to this demand substantially exceeds the percentage that voted for Hamas in January 2006.

Those who recognize the critical importance of Israeli-Palestinian peace and truly seek a decent future for both peoples must recognize that the demand that Hamas recognize “Israel’s right to exist” is unreasonable, immoral, and impossible to meet. Then, they must insist that this roadblock to peace be removed, the economic siege of the Palestinian territories be lifted, and the pursuit of peace with some measure of justice be resumed with the urgency it deserves.

John V. Whitbeck, an international lawyer, is the author of, “The World According to Whitbeck.” He has advised Palestinian officials in negotiations with Israel.River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Gilad Atzmon: PSC has made it

Gilad Atzmon: PSC has made it

Friday, September 23, 2011 at 11:51AM Gilad Atzmon

UK PSC is now approved by the notorious UK hard core Zionist Jewish Chronicle (JC).

The JC reported today that the UK Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) has “amended its statement of purpose expressly to include a denunciation of Holocaust denial.”

The JC was very happy to report that the statement on the PSC's website now reads: "Any expression of racism or intolerance, or attempts to deny or minimise the Holocaust have no place in our movement."

I must admit that I am puzzled by the PSC’s new statement. I still do not know what holocaust denial entails. Can anyone deny a historical chapter? Can any one deny Napoleonic Wars? Are there WWI deniers around, or Ancient Greece Deniers? I don’t think so. The word ‘denial’ doesn’t belong to the historical discourse. It actually fits into religious and dogmatic narratives.

However, this is certainly the first time I have come across the notion of ‘Holocaust minimizing’. I really can’t imagine what it is. I can think of people who minimize the ‘impact’ or ‘significance’ of an event in the past, but to my knowledge, holocaust minimizing’ doesn’t make any sense in English.
It seems as if the PSC was reacting in panic to an orchestrated Zionist attack.

And indeed, the JC brings up the details. The “PSC has come under increasing pressure over views held by some members of its branches. Some have been accused of Holocaust denial and promoting Jewish conspiracy narratives.” In other words, the JC basically informs us that the PSC surrendered to Zionist pressure. This shouldn’t take us by a complete surprise. Zionist pressure can be very effective. This week, for instance, we saw President Obama advocating the Likud mantra to the UN general assembly.

As one would anticipate, the JC was kind enough to report that “the move has been welcomed by Jewish anti-Zionists such as Tony Greenstein.”

Along the years I have heard Palestinians, Muslims and Arabs complaining that British Solidarity organizations hardly reflects their voice. At least now they know why.

I am not a member of the PSC, yet, I would like the PSC to be strong and effective. I hope that the PSC find within itself the necessary wisdom to recover from this fiasco. I am sure it will.

You can now order Gilad Atzmon's New Book on Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Al-Manar Website: Russian Solution Bid with Syrian Opposition Yields 4 PM Names

Batoul Wehbe

A Russian solution for the Syrian crisis is under discussion among Russian officials and active members of the Syrian opposition, well-informed sources told Al-Manar Website. According to the information, the two sides have discussed four names for the post of Syrian Prime Minister in case a Russian sponsored deal was reached between Damascus and the Syrian opposition. The Russian parliamentary delegation to Damascus had sought to meet with a number of opposition figures, at a time intensive talks with the Russian government and its foreign ministry were in the making to clarify the positions and perspectives of the Syrian opposition. Burhan Ghalyoun’s name was among four names brought up for the PM post but he was eventually rejected by Russia as he was known for being more inclined towards France’s policies. However, the prominent Syrian opposition member and Human Rights activist Haytham Manna was initially accepted for this post for being “prudent vis-à-vis Syria’s international relations”. Among the four names, in addition to Ghalyoun and Manna - whose real name is Haytham Al-Awdat - was a lawyer by the name of Abdul Majid Manjounah and a professor at the University of Aleppo whose name is still unknown. The Russian officials’ justification for their choice of Haytham Al-Awdat was that “the man is from the Syrian city of Dara’a, which is the cradle of the social movement, and because he enjoys great respect among the national and religious minorities and was one of those who still insist on rejecting any form of foreign interference in Syria.”

Source: Website Team

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Another 'Symbolic Victory': Abbas' New Political Gambit

By Ramzy Baroud, source
When Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas decided to go to the United Nations to request the admission of Palestine as a full member, he appeared to have had an epiphany. Had he finally realized that for the past two decades he and his party, Fatah, have gone down a road to nowhere?

That Israel was only interested in him as a conduit to achieve its colonial endeavor in the remaining 22 percent of historical Palestine? That his national project — predicated on the ever elusive “peace process” — achieved neither peace nor justice?

Palestinians are fed up with symbolic victories. (UN Photo/file)

Abbas claims to be serious this time. Despite all US attempts at intimidation (for example, by threatening to withhold funds), and despite the intensifying of Israeli tactics (including the further arming of illegal Jewish settlers to combat possible Palestinian mobilization in the West Bank), Abbas simply could not be persuaded against seeking a UN membership this September.

“We are going to the Security Council. We need to have full membership in the United Nations... we need a state, and we need a seat at the UN,” Abbas told Palestinians in a televised speech on Sept. 16.

For months, Palestinian intellectuals, historians, legal experts and academicians have warned against Abbas’s haphazard, understudied move. Some have argued that if Abbas’ UN adventure is a tactical maneuver, its legal repercussions are too grave a price to pay for little or no returns. If “Palestine” replaces the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) — currently recognized by the UN as the sole representative of the Palestinian people — then Palestinians risk losing the only unifying body they all have in common (its replacement representing only two million Palestinians in the occupied West Bank).

“Most damaging is that this initiative changes our ability as a people to represent the totality of our inalienable rights,” said Abdel Razzaq Takriti, activist and political historian at Oxford University (according to Ma’an news agency, Sept. 3). “The simple act of replacing the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people with a state removes the claims of the PLO to sovereign status as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”

The PLO, which for decades served as a bulwark of the Palestinian national struggle, continues to exist today, but only in theory. The PA, which was founded in 1994 as a temporary authority to oversee a Palestinian transition to statehood has slowly but decidedly hijacked and undercut PLO institutions.

More, the PA itself has neither legitimacy nor credibility. Whatever remained of the latter was lost during the Israeli war on Gaza and the publishing of the Palestine Papers by Al Jazeera and the Guardian. The papers showed that the very individuals now championing a Palestinian statehood bid at the UN once regularly collaborated with Israel to crack down on Palestinian resistance. They helped Israel undermine Palestinian democracy, isolate democratically-elected Hamas, give away the refugees’ right of return, and worse, deprive Palestinians from any meaningful sovereignty in occupied East Jerusalem.  

As for its lack of legitimacy, the matter requires no leaked documents. In fact, Fatah’s refusal to concede to 2006 election results led to the circumstances that exasperated a civil war in Gaza. Gaza’s besiegement (a direct consequence of the elections and the civil war) continues to serve both Israel and the PA equally. The latter is functioning in the West Bank with no popular mandate, surviving on international handouts and “security coordination” with the Israeli Army. Even Abbas’s term as a president of the PA has expired.

All of this summons an urgent question: How can an authority that lacks the legal legitimacy as a representative of the Palestinian people take on a role that could change the course of the entire Palestinian national project?
A leaked legal opinion by Oxford University law professor Guy Goodwin-Gill warned of the legal consequences of Abbas’ bid, including the sidelining of the PLO. Goodwin-Gill intended to “flag the matters requiring attention, if a substantial proportion of the people are not to be accidentally disenfranchised.” An equally worrisome issue is the PA’s history of acting in ways that contradict the interests of the Palestinian people. Years of such experience left most Palestinians with significantly less land and greatly reduced rights. On the other hand, a small segment of the Palestinian population prospered. Evidently, the “new rich” of Palestine were all affiliated with the PA, Fatah and the very few on top.
This iniquitous situation would have easily continued were it not for the so-called Arab Spring, which began demolishing the status quo governing Arab countries. Abbas’ corrupt regime was also a member of the ailing Arab political apparatus. Its existence, like others, was propped by American or other Western support. In order to avoid brewing anger in Palestine and the region, the Palestinian leadership was forced to present itself as breaking away from the old paradigm
More, the “the PA feels abandoned by the US which assigned it the role of collaborator with the Israeli occupation, and feels frozen in a “peace process” that does not seek an end goal,” according to Joseph Massad in Al Jazeera. “PA politicians opted for the UN vote to force the hand of the Americans and the Israelis, in the hope that a positive vote will grant the PA more political power and leverage to maximize its domination of the West Bank.”
The reasons behind the PA bid for statehood range between tactical politics (involving Israel and the US) and diverting attention from the PA’s own failures. The elitist politics almost complete discount the Palestinian people. If Palestinians truly mattered to Abbas, he would have started by unifying Palestinian factions, reenergizing (as opposed to stifling) civil society, and setting in motion the process needed to reform the PLO (as opposed to destroying its hard-earned international legitimacy).
“It is evident that Palestine needs newly elected leadership through an inclusive democratic process encompassing all Palestinians, not just those in the West Bank and Gaza Strip,” wrote leading Palestinian historian Salman Abu Sitta in the Middle East Monitor (July 10, 2011). This, in fact, should be the task at hand, not wasting time and energy pursing political gambits, which, at best will only yield symbolic victories.
Indeed, the Palestinian people are fed up with symbolic victories. They may have guaranteed Abbas and his men all the trappings of power, but they have failed to reclaim even one inch of occupied Palestine.
- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.

PA gives UN ‘some time’ to mull over appeal

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian