Why Democratic Party Foreign Policy Fails and Will Continue to Fail

5 Mar

 

[Prefatory Note: An earlier version of this essay appeared on March 2, 2016 in The Progressive Magazine. It tries to explain the entrapment of liberal Democrats in an iron cage of militarism when it comes to international security policy. The explanation points in two directions: the militarized bureaucracy at home and the three pillars of credibility constraining elected political leaders—unquestioning support for high Pentagon budgets, opposition to stiff regulation of Wall Street abuses, and any expression of doubts about unconditional support of Israel.]

 

Why Democratic Party Foreign Policy Fails and Will Continue to Fail

For six years (2008-2014) I acted as UN Special Rapporteur for Occupied Palestine, and found myself routinely and personally attacked by the top UN diplomats representing the U.S. Government. Of course, I knew that America was in Israel’s corner no matter what the issue happened to be, whether complying with a near unanimous set findings by the World Court in the Hague or a report detailing Israeli crimes committed in the course of its periodic unlawful attacks on Gaza. Actually, the vitriol was greater from such prominent Democratic liberals as Susan Rice or Samantha Power than from the Republican neocon stalwart John Bolton who was the lamentable U.S. ambassador at the UN when I was appointed. I mention this personal background only because it seems so disappointingly emblematic of the failure of the Democratic Party to walk the walk of its rule of law and human rights talk.

 

From the moment Barack Obama stepped into the Oval Office he never tired of telling the country, indeed the world that we as a nation were different because we adhered to the rule of law and acted in accord with our values in foreign policy. But when it came down to concrete cases, ranging from drone warfare to the increasingly damaging special relationships with Israel and Saudi Arabia, the policies pursued seemed almost as congenial to a Kissinger realist as to an Obama visionary liberal. Of course, recently the Republicans from the comfort zone of oppositional irresponsibility chide the government led by a Democrat for its wimpy approach whether in response to Russia’s involvement in the Ukraine, China’s moves in the Pacific, and especially the emergence of ISIS. The Republicans out of office want more bombs and more wars in more places, and seem content to risk a slide into a Second Cold War however menacing such a reality would undoubtedly turn out to be.

 

How are we to explain this inability of Democrats to follow through on a foreign policy that is linked to law and ethics, as well as to show respect for the authority of the UN, World Court, Human Rights Council, and above all, the UN Charter? Such a question can be partly answered by noticing the gap between Obama the national campaigner and Obama the elected president expected to govern in the face of a hostile and reaction Congress and a corporatized media. In effect, it is the government bureaucracy and the special interest groups especially those linked to Wall Street, the Pentagon, guns, and Israel that call the shots in Washington, and it is expected that a politician once elected will forget the wellbeing of the American people as a whole on most issues, and especially with respect to controversial foreign policy positions, if he or she hopes to remain a credible public figure. The boundaries of credibility are monitored and disciplined by the mainstream media, as interpreted to reflect the interests of the militarized and intelligence sectors of the government and the economy.

 

Obama’s disappointing record is instructive because he initially made some gestures toward an innovative and independent approach. In early 2009 he went to Prague to announce a commitment to work toward a world without nuclear weapons, but there was no tangible steps taken toward implementation, and he kept quiet to the extent that his hopes were shattered. He will finish his presidency no nearer that goal than when he was elected, and in a backward move he has even committed the country to modernizing the existing arsenal of nuclear weapons at the hefty cost of $30 billion. The only reasonable conclusion is that the nuclear weapons establishment won out, and security policy of not only this country, but the world and future generations, remains subject to nuclearism, and what this implies about our unnecessarily precarious fate as a species.

 

Obama gave a second visionary speech in Cairo a few months later in which he promised a new openness to the Islamic world, and seemed to acknowledge that the Palestinians had suffered long enough and deserved an independent state and further, that it was reasonable to expect Israel to suspend unlawful settlement expansion to generate a positive negotiating atmosphere. When the Israel lobby responded by flexing its muscles and the Netanyahu leadership in Israel made it clear that they were in charge of the American approach to ‘the peace process,’ Obama sheepishly backed off, and what followed is a dismal story of collapsed diplomacy, accelerated Israeli settlement expansion, and renewed Palestinian despair and violent resistance. The result is to leave the prospect of a sustainable peace more distant than ever. It was clear that Zionist forces are able to mount such strong pressure in Congress, the media, and Beltway think tanks that no elected official can follow a balanced approach on core issues. Perhaps, the Democrats are even more vulnerable to such pressures as their funding and political base is more dependent on support of the Jewish communities in the big cities of America.

 

Occasionally, an issue comes along that is so clearly in the national interest that Israel’s opposition can be circumvented, at least temporarily and partially. This seems to have been the case with regard to the Iran Nuclear Agreement of a year ago that enjoyed the rare support of all five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. Yet even such a positive and sensible step toward restoring peace and stability in the tormented Middle East met with intense resistance at home, even being opposed by several prominent Democratic senators who acted as if they knew on which side their toast was buttered.

 

It seems pathetic that the White House in the aftermath of going against Israel’s rigid views on Iran found it necessary to patch things up by dispatching high level emissaries to reassure Israel that the U.S. remains as committed as ever to ‘the special relationship.’ To prove this point the Obama administration is even ready to increase military assistance to Israel from an already excessive $3 billion annual amount to a scandalous $5 billion, which is properly seen as compensation for going ahead with the Iran deal in the face of Israel opposition. Even the habitual $3 billion subsidy is in many ways outrageous given Israel’s regional military dominance, economic wellbeing, without even mentioning their refusal to take reasonable steps toward achieving a sustainable peace, which would greatly facilitate wider the pursuit of wider American goals in the Middle East. It is past time for American taxpayers to protest such misuses of government revenues, especially given the austerity budget at home, the decaying domestic infrastructure, and the anti-Americanism among the peoples of the Middle East that is partly a consequence of our long one-sided support for Israel and related insensitivity to the Palestinian ordeal.

 

True, the Democrats do push slightly harder to find diplomatic alternatives to war than Republicans, although Obama appointed hard liners to the key foreign policy positions. Hilary Clinton was made Secretary of State despite her pro-intervention views, or maybe because of them. Democrats seem to feel a habitual need to firm up their militarist credentials, and reassure the powerful ‘deep state’ in Washington of their readiness to use force in pursuit of American interests around the world. In contrast, Republicans are sitting pretty, being certified hawks on foreign policy without any need to prove repeatedly their toughness. Until George W. Bush came along it did seem that Democrats started the most serious war since 1945, and it took a Republican warmonger to end it, and even more daringly, finally to normalize relations with Communist China, a self-interested move long overdue and delayed for decades by anti-Communist ideological fervor and the once powerful ‘China Lobby.’

 

Looking ahead there is little reason to expect much departure if a Democrat is elected the next American president in 2016. Clinton has already tipped her hand in a recent speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, the self-anointed voice of the East Coast American establishment. She promised more air strikes and a no fly zone in Syria and a more aggressive approach toward ISIS. Such slippery slopes usually morph into major warfare, with devastating results for the country where the violence is situated and no greater likelihood of a positive political outcome as understood in Washington. If we consider the main theaters of American interventionary engagement in the 21st century, including Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya we find the perplexing combination of battlefield dominance and political defeat. It is dismaying that neither Clinton nor lead foreign policy advisors are willing to examine critically this past record of frustration and defeat, and seem ready for more of the same, or as it now expressed, ‘doubling down.’ We should not forget that Clinton was the most ardent advocate of the disastrous intervention in Libya, and mainly unrepentant about her support of the Iraq War, which should shock even her most committed backers, considering that it was the most costly mistake and international crime since Vietnam.

 

Ever since the Vietnam War political leaders and military commanders have tried to overcome this record of failed interventionism, forever seeking new doctrines and weapons that will deliver victory to the United States when it fights wars against peoples living in distant lands of the Global South. Democrats along with Republicans have tried to overcome the dismal experience of intervention by opting for a professional army and total reliance on air tactics and special forces operations so as to reduce conditions giving rise to the sort of robust anti-war movement that dogged the diehard advocates of the Vietnam War in its latter stages. The government has also taken a number of steps to achieve a more supportive media through ‘embedding’ journalists with American forces in the fields of battle. These kinds of adjustment were supposed to address the extreme militarist complaint that the Vietnam War was not lost on the battlefields of combat, but on the TV screens in American living rooms who watched the coffins being unloaded when returned home.

 

Despite these adjustments it has not helped the U.S. reached its goals overseas. America still ends up frustrated and thwarted. This inability to learn from past mistakes really disguises an unwillingness that expresses a reluctance or inability to challenge the powers that be, especially in the area of war and peace. As a result not only is foreign policy stuck adhering to deficient policies with a near certainty of future failure, but democracy takes a big hit because the critical debate so essential in a truly free society is suppressed or so muted as to politically irrelevant. Since 9/11 this suppression has been reinforced by enhanced intrusions on the rights of the citizenry, a process supported as uncritically by Democrats as by the other party. Again it is evident that the unaccountable deep state wields a big stick!

 

This is the Rubicon that no Democrat, including even Bernie Sanders, has dared yet to cross: The acknowledgement that military intervention no longer works and should not be the first line of response to challenges emerging overseas, especially in the Middle East. The forces of national resistance in country after country in the South outlast their Northern interveners despite being militarily inferior. This is the major unlearned lesson of the wars waged against European colonialism, and then against the United States in Vietnam, and still later in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. The balance of forces in the Global South has decisively shifted against a military reading of history that prior to the middle of the last century was the persuasive basis of defending the country against foreign enemies, as well as providing imperial ambitions with a cost efficient means to gain access to resources and market in underdeveloped parts of the world. National resistance movements have learned since 1945 that they are able to prevail, although sometimes at a great cost, because they have more patience and more at stake. As the Afghan saying goes, “You have the watches, we have the time.”

 

The intervening side shapes its foreign policy by a crude cost/benefit calculus, and at some point, the effort does not seem worth the cost in lives and resources, and is brought to an end. For the national resistance side the difference between winning and losing for a mobilized population is nearly absolute, and so the costs however high seem never too high. The most coherent intervention initiated by the Obama presidency in 2011 did succeed in driving a hostile dictatorship from power, but what resulted was the opposite of what was intended and expected by Washington: chaos and a country run by warring and murderous tribal militias. In other words, military intervention has become more destructive than ever, and yet its political goals of stability and a friendly atmosphere remain even more elusive than previously.

 

For Democrats to have an approach that learns from this experience in the period since the end of World War II would require leveling with American people on two main points: (1) military intervention generally does not reach its proclaimed goals unless mandated by the UN Security Council and carried out in a manner consistent with international law; and (2) the human concerns and national interests of the country are better protected in this century by deferring to the dynamics of self-determination even if the result are not always in keeping with American strategic goals and national values. Such a foreign policy reset would not always yield results that the leaders and public like, but it is preferable to the tried and tested alternatives that have failed so often with resulting heavy burdens. Adopting such a self-determination approach is likely to diminish violence, enhance the role of diplomacy, and reduce the massive displacement of persons that is responsible for the wrenching current humanitarian crises of migration and the ugly extremist violence that hits back at the Middle East interveners in a merciless and horrifying manner as was the case in the November 13th attacks in Paris.

 

Despite these assessments when, hopefully, a Democrat is elected in 2016, which on balance remains the preferable lesser of evils outcome, she has already announced her readiness to continue with the same failed policy, but even worse, to increase its intensity. Despite such a militarist resolve there is every reason to expect the same dismal results, both strategically and humanly. The unfortunate political reality is that even Democratic politicians find it easier to go along with such a discredited approach than risk the backlash that world occur if less military policies were advocated and embraced. We must not avoid an awareness that our governmental security dynamics is confined to an iron cage of militarism that is utterly incapable of adjusting to failure and its own wrongdoing.

 

We must ask ourselves why do liberal minded Democratic politicians, especially once in office follow blindly militarist policies that have failed in the past and give every indication of doing even worse in the future because the international resistance side is more extremist and becoming better organized. Dwight Eisenhower, incidentally a Republican, gave the most direct answer more than 50 years ago—what he called ‘the military-industrial complex,’ that lethal synergy between government and capital. Such a reality has become a toxic parasite that preys upon our democratic polity, and has been augmented over the years by intelligence services, the corporatization of the media and universities, public policy institutes, and lobbies that have turned Congress into a complicit issuer of rubber stamps as requested.

Under these conditions we have to ask ourselves ‘What would have to happen to enable a presidential candidate of the Democratic Party to depart from the foreign policy failures of the past? That is, to escape from the cage within which foreign policy is now imprisoned: Nothing less than a transforming of the governing process from below that would sweep away this parasitical burden that is ever

more deforming the republic and spreading suffering and resentment to all corners of the planet. American foreign policy is having these harmful effects at a time when decent people of all parties should be exerting their political imagination to the utmost to meet the unprecedented challenges mounted by the accumulating dangers of climate change and the moral disgrace of mounting extreme economic inequalities despite as many as 3 billion people living on less than $2.50 per day.

 

Not only is the Democratic Party failing the nation by its refusal to meet the modest first principle of Florence Nightingale—‘do no harm’—but it is not rising to the deeper and more dangerous threats to future wellbeing and sustainability directed at the nation and the ecological health of the planet, and also of menace to peoples everywhere. What the United States does and does not do reverberates across the globe. Political responsibility in the 21st century does not stop at the border, and certainly is not fulfilled by walls and drones. If political parties cannot protect us, then it is up to the people to mount the barricades, but this too looks farfetched when the most vital form of populism now seems to be of a proto-fascist variety activated so viciously by the candidacy of Donald Trump, and reinforced more politely by his main Republican rivals.

 

 

60 Responses to “Why Democratic Party Foreign Policy Fails and Will Continue to Fail”

  1. ray032 March 5, 2016 at 5:06 pm #

    The US has invaded only poor, backward, 3rd world Nations since WWII and lost them all. In my view, this is Divine Justice at work.

    It is a joke when the US claims to stand for the Rule of Law when the whole world knows the UN Security Council, the only body of International Law, denied the US permission to invade Iraq, but abandoning the notion of International Law when it does not suit American interests, invaded Iraq anyway, ushering in the Law of the Jungle in the Middle East, spawning ISIS, the child from Hell by that illegal action.

    I agree Hillary is as much a War Hawk as the most extreme Republican Presidential Candidate.

    I felt somewhat exonerated when Geir Lundestad, Director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, said on retiring last year it was a mistake to give Obama the Nobel Peace Prize.

    I wrote the Nobel Committee in October 2011, and didn’t get a reply at that time.

    From: ray032@******
    To: postmaster@nobel.no; library@nobel.no
    Subject: Peace Prize/War Prize
    Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 22:35:33 +0000

    Honourable Members of the Nobel Committee,

    Considering the speeches candidate Obama gave before the Global Financial Meltdown-Economic Pearl Harbour-Tsunami of September 2008 under the watch of his predecessor, I was happy when your august Committee awarded the new President the Nobel Peace Prize.

    I supposed at that Time, you awarded it to him knowing the mess he inherited would leave him holding the bag, and at a great disadvantage with the American people to start with, and you hoped awarding him such a prestigious award at the outset of his Presidency might ameliorate the disadvantage of inheriting a failed economy and in those circumstances, help keep him focused on the Prize of Peace.

    I am positive I am not the only resident of earth to see the difference between the words of Candidate Obama and the inexperienced new President Obama you awarded the Peace Prize to, and his actions since then. Since being given the Prize, his actions on the world stage show he resorts to military action 1st and not as a last resort. He is showing by his actions to be undeserving of The Nobel Peace Prize.

    I may not be the 1st person to write to you about this, but I see justifiable reasons to recall the Peace Prize awarded to President Obama prematurely in wishful thinking. He is showing himself by his policies to be unworthy of it. If you can’t take it back, at least make a Public Statement saying in retrospect, The Committee made a hasty decision.

    What moved me Today to write to you was reading the latest article in the Blog of Professor Richard Falk, International Law Scholar titled ‘
    Missing the Point Twice: International Law as Empire’s Sunday Suit
    https://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/missing-the-point-twice-international-law-as-empire%e2%80%99s-sunday-suit/#comment-4783

    Peace
    Ray Joseph Cormier

    GENERAL/PRESIDENT DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER – The Last Real Commander-In-Chief
    http://ray032.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/generalpresident-dwight-d-eisenhower-the-last-real-commander-in-chief/

  2. Schlüter March 6, 2016 at 5:00 am #

    In deed US politics makes one look full of sorrow (especially for our children and granchildren) into the future. The entanglement on the side of the war mongering government of Israel is the result of two spectacular operations done by the Neocons (the first by those days so called „Warriors“ inside the US Power Elite), giving Israel´s government enormous black mail power over the US Power Elite (by successful spying): Kennedy´s assassination and Nine Eleven (http://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/usa-and-israel-the-helpless-giant-and-his-mad-dog-are-there-more-dirty-secrets/).
    The world, especially the Southern Hemisphere should be alarmed! Trump is concerning certain aspects almost an open Fascist (by all means a white Suprematist), but „Killary“ is in deed the Neocons spearhead in the Democratic Party and will most probably get the full Neocon support (she “earned” it by the destruction of Libya – among other things). It appears now a days that the Neocons control even the Democratic government to a high extend. If one wants to know what is in the Neocon „pipe“, one should read their think tank papers. In September 2000 the US Think Tank “Project for the New American Century” issued the paper “Rebuilding America´s Defenses”. On page 60 you find the announcement of Fascist atrocities! It reads:
    „And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.“
    https://de.scribd.com/doc/9651/Rebuilding-Americas-Defenses-PNAC
    Surely it should not target white Anglo Saxon Protestants (WASPs)! About the possible consequences: “Zika Virus and a Strange Case”: https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/zika-virus-and-a-strange-case/ & „Ebola: Pandora´s Box Opened Since Long?“ http://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/ebola-pandoras-box-opened-since-long/
    It seems the word “never again” after Fascism´s breakdown is blown in the wind!
    Sincerely
    Andreas Schlüter
    Sociologist
    Berlin, Germany

  3. Gene Schulman March 6, 2016 at 8:02 am #

    Richard,

    This is an excellent analysis of the situation the US finds itself in. However, the title of your essay is misleading. It is not “Why the Democratic Party Foreign Policy Fails and Will Continue to Fail”. From my perspective, it is not failing. Current foreign policy is bipartisan, and is entirely coherent from the point of view of the ruling class in America to whom both parties are captive. Perpetual war is the name of the game among this class, which includes also the ruling classes in the Western world, most notably France and Britain, which dominate NATO, which now has replaced the UN as the arbiter of how the world is run, and who should run it. I would also include Israel as one of the main perpetrators. Perpetual war is profitable for this class, and they have no intention of ending these wars. As for the people who suffer because of them, and that includes their own citizenry, “Let them eat cake”! This ruling class has zero empathy, let alone sympathy, for those whose lives and civilizations are being destroyed.

    When one watches the circus of the current elections in the US, one sees only clowns, unable to express a coherent thought about any of the problems that confront us. Just what the ruling class wants us to see in order to distract our attention from their intentions.

    I could go on and on trying to explain how all this has come about. Others, including yourself, usually do a better job of it.

    I wash my hands of the USA. It is beyond redemption.

    As for “do no harm”. I always thought that was from the Hippocratic oath.

    Best wishes,

    Gene

    • ray032 March 6, 2016 at 8:41 am #

      Gene, I ran as an Independent Candidate for the Parliament of CanaDa twice knowing I didn’t have a chance. I had no money and no volunteers, having to do everything myself.

      The 1st Time, in 1984, was chosen to highlight George Orwell’s ‘1984.’ The last time was in 1997, and this was in my campaign literature:

      Thirteen years ago, I ran as an Independent candidate for the seat of Ottawa Centre. The people chose Brian Mulroney. You must decide for 1997 and the hereafter. I want to represent you in the next Parliament of Canada. It is my opinion this election is the most important in our Nation’s history. The issue for me in this election is whether the people will find their job creating a True Democracy, or continue in a theory of democracy that is in reality, a Plutocracy.

      Webster’s dictionary defines that as A class in a community that controls the government by it’s wealth. With your help and support, I would like to participate in reclaiming The House of Commons for the common people and the common good, first in Ottawa Centre, and later, The Commonwealth of Canada. No political party in this race will offer you that alternative.

      It’s taken a long Time, but people are only now beginning to see those things that moved me to run then.

      Jimmy Carter: U.S. Is An ‘Oligarchy With Unlimited Political Bribery’

  4. Beau Oolayforos March 6, 2016 at 10:51 am #

    Dear Professor Falk,

    What you say about “the most coherent intervention of the Obama presidency”, are these things not also true of Afghanistan, Iraq…Somalia?

    I do hope that if Clinton is elected, she will remember her husband’s support, late in his second term, for the $7.5 billion expansion of Plan Colombia. As Santayana is credited with saying….

  5. Carlos March 6, 2016 at 5:11 pm #

    Dear Professor Falk: your previous worries about civility in discourse pale to insignificant in the light of this latest post.
    What a world to bequeath to our grandchildren.
    Your analysis is perceptive and accurate. This planet is on the path to destruction and no
    appeals to a figure in the sky will help.
    We need a worldwide awakening. A revolution
    of caring. We only have this one planet.

  6. rehmat1 March 6, 2016 at 6:21 pm #

    When it comes to US foreign policy – there is no difference between the Democratic or Republican Part. In fact the later had proven worse than the first one. Both parties are driven not by national interests but by the military and Jewish lobby groups. That’s why, America is called a “Dollarocracy”.

    The American voters are offered a chance every four years to choose the lesser evil among the two parties. American oligarchs, mainstream press and some times the Supreme Court decide who to occupy the White House for the next four years.

    Look at the current front-runners – Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Both are morally corrupt, racist, connected to convicted pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, and beholden to a foreign regime.

    On January 29, 2016, Ken Silverstein claimed at Jewish Vice News that both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will never bring in public their close relations with Jeffrey Epstein.

    The NWO expert Alex Jones called Donald Trump, Judas Goat.

    Hillary Clinton is a known war criminal.

    On March 6, 2016, Canadian Jew academic, Henry Makow, PhD, claimed on his website that Illuminati are using Donald Trump to expose the Jewish hands behind 9/11 in order to “usher an era of antiemitism designed to transfer American Jews to Eretz Yisrael (Greater Israel).”

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/03/07/donald-trump-a-judas-goat/

  7. ray032 March 6, 2016 at 6:38 pm #

    Who would have known this is in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary?

    trum·pery \

    Definition of trumpery

    1 – a : worthless nonsense
    b : trivial or useless articles : junk <a wagon loaded with household trumpery —

    2 – archaic : tawdry finery

  8. Rabbi Ira Youdovin March 9, 2016 at 6:05 am #

    Placing total blame on Israel for the failure of Obama’s Cairo speech initiative perpetuates a highly flawed perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To be sure, the Israelis reacted badly, driven largely by fears that the American president would over-compensate for the one-sidedness of his immediate predecessor. But the Palestinians did no better, and they had much more to lose by failing to seize an opportunity for progress.

    Obama’s remarks, together with his choice of time and place to deliver them, was a call for both sides to make adjustments that are requisite for negotiating a just and sustainable peace. Israel was to cease settlement expansion, prepare to make substantial territorial concessions, and establish a firm consensus for accepting Palestinian statehood and addressing other issues such as refugees and the status of East Jerusalem. The Palestinians, for their part, were to renounce violence and abandon hopes of destroying Israel, acknowledge Israel’s legitimacy and accept the prospect of normalized relations, and overcome internecine rivalries that had precluded national unity and blocked the creation of a unified apparatus prepared to assume the responsibility of effective self-government. None of this happened, on either side of the conflict.

    That a just and sustainable peace requires that the Palestinians make substantial adjustments is rarely if ever mentioned on this blog, where the total emphasis is on what Israel must do. This approach yields a partisan score sheet, but does little to move the Palestinians toward their goal of independence. In fact, it is counter-productive. The quest for peace is not a zero sum blame game in which the side that scores the most points wins. Peace is achieved when each side determines that what can be achieved through cooperation is more beneficial to it than clinging to the old and obsolete engines of conflict.

    The burden of turning this corner lies no less on the Palestinians than on the Israelis.

    Rabbi Ira Youdovin

    • american200 March 9, 2016 at 8:32 am #

      The burden of turning this corner lies no less on the Palestinians than on the Israelis.

      Rabbi Ira Youdovin
      >>>>>>

      I don’t agree.
      There is never any long lasting peace without justice. Israel, as the invader and confiscator of Palestine land and who has used 1000xs more violence than the Palestines has the largest responsibility in this. That’s the way the cookie crumbles on the facts.

      Give up the settlements.
      Pay reparations.

      A Jewish writer whose name escapes me at the moment once wrote—” we have never been able to look into the others eyes and know when they have had enough of us”.

      Israel is approaching the point where the world has had enough.

    • Gene Schulman March 9, 2016 at 8:48 am #

      I’m afraid you’re whistling Dixie, Ira. Read the following review of Caroline Glick’s book.

      http://carolineglick.com/glick-wrote-the-alternative-jewish-presss-review-of-the-israeli-solution/

      Glick is a key adviser to Netanyahu. I think you will see that there is no intention of making a peaceful settlement, and it’s not the Palestinian’s fault. (I spent the afternoon reading this Zionist tripe in my local bookstore. Your comment is perfectly timed.)

      • Richard Falk March 9, 2016 at 11:43 am #

        I agree with your use of Caroline Glick as indicative of Netanyahu’s thinking
        and approach. Whether or not she is formally an advisor at present is irrelevant.
        She is a highly visible media presence that is known to exert a powerful influence
        on government thinking, as well as offering a sympathetic mouthpiece for whatever
        reflects dominant Likud thinking at the moment.

        Richard

      • Fred Skolnik March 9, 2016 at 1:32 pm #

        You are misinformed, Prof. Falk. Caroline Glick does not exercise a powerful influence on government thinking. It doesn’t work that way.

    • Fred Skolnik March 9, 2016 at 10:07 am #

      Since you are a stickler for facts and “used to spend a lot of time correcting many of their [the Zionists] false claims and historical inaccuracies” and I also see from your previous comments that you believe defenders of Israel accuse the Israel haters of antisemitism in order to avoid dealing with the facts, allow me to correct your own false claims and historical inaccuracies. Israel did not “invade” anyone. Israel occupied the West Bank because it was attacked by Jordan. Israel instituted security measures in the West Bank because its civilian population was attacked by barbaric terrorists after the Arab nations announced: no peace, no recognition, no negotiations. There is no factual uncertainty with regard to the specific sequence of events that led to the war between Jordan and Israel. Hussein himself has acknowledged that Jordan attacked Israel (in his book on the war and on other occasions), explaining himself in various ways, viz. that Nasser deceived him by claiming that Egypt had destroyed 75% of Israel’s air force and inviting him to join in, that his radar picked up planes on the way to Israel from Egypt, seeming to confirm the Egyptian attack whereas they were in fact Israeli planes returning to their bases, that Israel’s guarantees (via Gen. Odd Bull and the U.S State Dept.) that it would not act against Jordan reached him too late to call off his attack on Israel, and even something about “Arab manhood” that kept him from remaining on the sidelines.

      As for this antisemitisim business, you are being disingenuous. Israel’s defenders always address the allegations of the Israel haters factually and substantively, just as I have above. The antisemitism is a separate issue. Obviously the fact that the haters apply standards to Israel that they wouldn’t think of applying to the real criminal nations of the world arouses suspicion, and when words like Nazi begin to be thrown around, a word that no one has thought to use when talking about Sudan, Rwanda, Somalia, Serbia and others, and when discussions degenerate into snide and disparaging remarks about Jewish origins, history, religion, money, greed, power, morality, character and even genetic makeup, well then, suspicions naturally get even stronger.

      • american200 March 9, 2016 at 3:29 pm #

        Fred:
        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

        Well not quite factually , I do have to if not correct you, then point out you have morphed from Israel’s responsibility to return the ‘illegal ‘ Israeli settlement land to Palestine -or to Jordon, take your pick—to a discussion of who started the war —and then not followed thru by addressing the whole and continuing story.
        I dont want to go into a long essay on this:..I am certain Richard has covered this time and again.

        * “The International Court of Justice,the UN General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council regards Israel as the “Occupying Power”. The Israeli High Court of Justice has ruled that Israel holds the West Bank under “belligerent occupation”.
        * ‘According to Talia Sasson, the High Court of Justice in Israel, with a variety of different justices sitting, has repeatedly stated for more than four decades that Israel’s presence in the West Bank (and all other settlements) is in violation of international law.””
        * ‘The Court ruled that the territories had been occupied by the Israeli armed forces in 1967, during the conflict between Israel and Jordan, and that subsequent events in those territories, had done nothing to alter the situation.

        * The head of the International Red Cross delegation stated that the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions that constitute war crime.

        The crux —- Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49(6) —- “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
        .
        Please go read the Geneva Convention articles. You dont get to ‘keep’ land you seized during a war…much less move your own population onto it.

      • Fred Skolnik March 9, 2016 at 9:16 pm #

        Dear american200

        You represented Israel as an “invader” and I corrected you. You also made some remarks about accusations of antisemitism as a Zionist ploy and I corrected you there too.

        No one denies that Israel is an occupying power. If the settlements trouble you, you can advise Abu Mazen to return to the negotiating table. Israel’s opening position will be an exchange of land involving around 5% of West Bank territory – barren hilltops exchanged for barren hilltops – which will leave around 75% of the settlements inside Israel. If the Arab residents of Wadi Ara consent to live under Palestinian sovereignty, then the Palestinians will be getting a real bonus, but of course Israeli Arabs will never consent to live under Arab sovereignty and you might ask yourself why.

        If you have a problem with the Israeli occupation, which is formally no different from the Allied occupation of Germany after World War II, you may also ask yourself how the Allies would have responded if the Germans had proclaimed “no peace, no negotiations, no recognition,” had engaged from the outset in acts of terror against Allied civilians inside and outside Germany, and had refused to disavow their Nazi leaders.

        Since you do not seem to mind Israel’s returning the West Bank to Jordan, which itself annexed it illegally in 1951, you may in fact have hit on precisely what is going to happen if the Palestinians don’t wake up. Jordan and Israel will negotiate a border between themselves and the idea of the Palestinian state will vanish from history. If this troubles you and you are sincerely concerned about the welfare of the Palestinians as victims instead of looking to vilify Israel (and America) as culprits, you should be paying a little more attention to the practicalities of resolving the conflict than ranting about Zionists.

    • Fred Skolnik March 9, 2016 at 10:15 am #

      Dear Gene

      Caroline Glick is not “a key advisor to Netanyahu.” She was an assistant foreign policy advisor 20 years ago, and the views she expresses in her book are her own, not Netanyahu’s and not Israel’s. I think I have outlined what Netanyahu’s views and misgivings are so I will not repeat them. I would very much like to disengage from these discussions but the manner in which people like yourself distort even the most elementary facts makes it a little difficult.

      • american200 March 9, 2016 at 3:49 pm #

        Interestingly, I happen to have some communication with Ms Click years ago in regards to a speech she gave. I told her very kindly that Israel was losing the sympathy of the world with its policies toward Palestine.

        She told me Israel didn’t give a rats ass about the opinion of the world and I could shove my concern up my—er— you know where.

      • Fred Skolnik March 9, 2016 at 9:21 pm #

        What is “interesting” about what Caroline Glick says? She doesn’t speak for Israel.

    • Richard Falk March 9, 2016 at 11:35 am #

      Ira:

      It is not a matter of ‘placing total blame’ on Israel for the failure of Obama’s peace diplomacy, but
      the dominant realities justify placing ‘most of the blame on Israel & the US: on the US by not even attempting
      a level playing field for negotiation, even signaling partisanship by appointing Special Envoys with AIPAC connections
      (Indyk, Ross); on Israel, by expanding settlement population, and at best sending mixed signals about whether a
      Palestinian state that enjoys full sovereign rights with green line borders is a real goal, or just a way of
      deflecting international pressures; also, by disrupting every effort to form a unified Palestinian front and
      by its excessive use of force, and by its non-response to peace proposals from the Palestinian Arab side that
      go back to its unilateral proposed two-state arrangement back in 1988 to which Israel never even bothered responding,
      dismissing as well the 2002 Arab Initiative. The Palestinians deserve blame as well for not sustaining unity initiatives, Hamas
      for not revising its Covenant, the PA for corrupt and oppressive governance in the West Bank. Apportioning blame is not
      as helpful as explaining why the framework is defective and the parties as now constituted are unable to reach agreement.

  9. Gene Schulman March 9, 2016 at 12:33 pm #

    I thought this post was about the Democratic party’s failures. It has now turned into the same old, same old arguments about the Israel/Palestine conflict. I admit I am partly to blame by falling into Ira’s trap, when he changed the subject. I’ll be more careful next time.

    • Rabbi Ira Youdovin March 9, 2016 at 1:47 pm #

      Gene,

      Did you read Richard’s post? Almost a third of it entails one-sided criticism of Israel. I didn’t “set a trap”. I responded to what was written in the post. The argument may be old and tired, but I didn’t start it.

      Ira

  10. Kata Fisher March 9, 2016 at 2:05 pm #

    A Note:

    I have to tell you something.

    Perhaps start a new thread on these productive areas of the problem?

    Can you re-summarise on few / limiting topics: Settlements, Jerusalem City, and maybe the Wall? – just for right now.

    This is why: it is possibly necessary for some brainstorming that is time reasonable for specific areas of problem.

    I have felt that all this is fine – but is diverting from critical thought processes needed (soon).

    So if you can narrow it down to the productive areas of the problem – I feel, it will better about:

    a) Settlements
    b) Jerusalem City
    c) and maybe the Wall

    • Fred Skolnik March 9, 2016 at 9:47 pm #

      Good for you, Kata. You almost hit the nail on the head – but you left out the refugees. I talked about the settlements above. Jerusalem is problematic and will require an imaginative solution. I believe in the end the issue will be the Old City and it will be possible for the Arabs to call the outlying neighborhoods of East Jerusalem al-Quds and even make it their capital. As for the refugees, Israel would take in 30-40,000, which was already offered to them by Olmert and coincidentally or not represents the number of original refugees still alive. If Israel felt that the Palestinians were sincerely prepared to live in peace, the number might even be as high as 100,000 in my view.

  11. pabmarq March 9, 2016 at 2:41 pm #

    Stop Puerto Rican Genocide by the United States of AmericaI am a Senior, Veteran, Father, Degreed, Married and Christian.  I would like to have the United States placed on notice for the unforgiving treatment of Puerto Ricans in the United States and on the island of Puerto Rico.  GENOCIDE – the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation (Puerto Rican, Puerto Rico Nationals, Puertorriquens, Boricuas)Puerto Ricans are US citizens and have many benefits for serving in the US military since 1925, many are College graduates and is an economy assimilated to the American way of life.  But millions of Puerto Ricans do not enjoy their US Constitutional Rights because they are Rights ignored or intentionally refused by ALL 50 States, when Puerto Ricans are purposely overlooked, ignored, given duress and coercion as standard behavior by Whites and now recently by the staffs by recent arrivals -many that are illegals or on temporary assignment placed intentionally by unscrupulous business and governmental agencies.  Puerto Ricans in turn are US citizens but only on paper but refused any benefits as; social security, Legal assistance, career advancement, hospitalizations, food coupons, police assistance and many, many benefits deserving by the US Constitution. This extends into refusal of Veterans benefits and Rights.The abusive administrations under the Presidency of George Bush, George Bush Jr., Clinton and Obama. Jeb Bush as Florida Governor in the State of Florida has also contributed to this treatment in Florida copied by Governor Crist and Scott. Their oppressive management are carried out by their co-horts claiming, “it’s for the countries good” or are rouge employees with racist, discriminatory, hateful tendencies.On the Island over twenty years of oppression policies has cut so many monetary funds, work grants that the Puerto Rican nation has had to make their own policies forced within a quick timeframe due to the ill minded administrators within the US Government purposely causing intentional chaos, impoverishment and havoc. The monetary funding and hard cuts have been primarily forced onto widows, families and children’s that are already low income.  Many Engineering Graduates from Puerto Rico come to the US and have to work in sub-standard jobs supervised by illegals, temporary residents with no education, having a superior education, being Bilingual and having American character.  Many of these supervisors oppress these young educated students and knowingly have ruined their lives by these oppressive tactics and no-one in Government, States government nor Police force will assist them.We are seeing that we are in turn being oppressed in the United States of America and in the Island Nation of Puerto Rico by a plan devised by the above mentioned Presidents.  While Puerto Rico, Puerto Rican state-side residents contributes over $555billion to the US economy, the US government send only $3Billion to the island and does not contribute to the islands welfare nor its working class. Just enough to pay bills and “tough luck”.  While this same Government sends money to many, many Latin-American countries without any citizenship nor guarantee of payback.  The joke is that all the money deserving Puerto Rico is sent automatically to any other country except Puerto Rico.  The heavy handed collections on Puerto Ricans is well documented, in private business and/or IRS or State Revenue collections these groups use the worst behavior possible to steal ALL property, savings, retirements while giving amnesty to any other Latin-American Country resident. The heavy handed mal practice on Puerto Ricans extends to placing negative data on the file, ruining their Credit worthiness, disallowing legal representation and adding extortion upon excessive fees void of all provisions that are provided for.We see this as an attempt to undo ALL the privilege’s Puerto Ricans have earned in the past and a Genocide type application of oppression and disruption to ALL International Rights. SHAMEFUL people need to be exposed and the GENOCIDE of Puerto Ricans has to STOP! JOIN US WITH THE; IRS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT, We found another IRS Agent snooping around our home, last week the State of Missouri sent us another bill for 2012taxes when we no longer live there, these people are racist, haters, all needing to go to jail for corruption! We know this is adding more and more duress, stress, emotional distress and financial impoverishment…when the wicked rule; the people mourn…Prov 37,[usurpian government -John Adams]… https://sites.google.com/site/sellswaplease2buyproperty/home    …a government that seizes property without any right. We have fled Missouri seeking legal help so they took our home, retirements and continue their extortion. There are no US Constitutional Rights, Civil Rights, Taxpayers Rights? http://www.petitiononline.com/tax/petition.html American abuse approved by the United States of America! https://sites.google.com/site/intercontinentalco

    On Saturday, March 5, 2016 8:10 PM, Global Justice in the 21st Century wrote:

    #yiv2751856206 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv2751856206 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv2751856206 a.yiv2751856206primaryactionlink:link, #yiv2751856206 a.yiv2751856206primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv2751856206 a.yiv2751856206primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv2751856206 a.yiv2751856206primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv2751856206 WordPress.com | Richard Falk posted: ” [Prefatory Note: An earlier version of this essay appeared on March 2, 2016 in The Progressive Magazine. It tries to explain the entrapment of liberal Democrats in an iron cage of militarism when it comes to international security policy. The ex” | |

  12. american200 March 9, 2016 at 3:58 pm #

    RE: ..the actual topic

    The US political system is not reformable. Sorry, its just not.
    The corruption is too entrenched through out the whole system.

    I think barring a miracle that the best we can hope for is when we finally collapse under the weight of our own corruption the ‘we the people’ will have a awakening and finally step forward to rebuild it.

  13. american200 March 10, 2016 at 8:29 am #

    Dear Fred:
    * “accusations of antisemitism as a Zionist ploy”
    Is well recognized by everyone. The list of people, public figures, who have been accused of anti semitism is endless–its the go to smear when the I-Zionist run out of even irrational arguments in defending Israel’s actions.

    *” If you have a problem with the Israeli occupation, which is formally no different from the Allied occupation of Germany after World War II”

    My gawd man!…the allies did not move their populations into Germany and set up American and British settlements and colonies as part of the US and UK.

    *” you may also ask yourself how the Allies would have responded if the Germans had proclaimed “no peace, no negotiations, no recognition,”

    Germany in effect did proclaim no peace, no negotiations—-Until after we crushed the Nazis and they had no choice but to surrender. You might consider if Israel is on that same path.
    *” you should be paying a little more attention to the practicalities of resolving the conflict than ranting about Zionists.

    Well I dont rant I refute their claims and arguments–there is a difference. And the ‘practicalities’ –along with ‘the facts on the ground’ are another argument used by Israel defenders. As in —‘it cant be undone’ , all the settlers cant be moved out of the settlements and so forth. Akin to a thief telling the judge that now that he has ‘possession’ of the stolen money/goods it belongs to him.

    Seriously, this is what I meant about ‘ inaccurate’ history….most of the Israel defenders have a serious defect—as in literally ‘making up’ claims that are so ridiculous and easily disproven. I dont understand if they do it out of ignorance, brainwashing or if they themselves are just so dismissive of others intelligence they think other people have no knowledge of actual history.

    Anyway Fred, you are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you of which party is most in the wrong in I/P–so our conversation is pointless. We will both have to wait for the world majority and the changing cycles of power to have the final say.

    • Kata Fisher March 10, 2016 at 9:02 am #

      Note:

      “changing cycles of power to have the final say”

      “changing cycles of … [reality] to have the final say”

      • Kata Fisher March 10, 2016 at 9:10 am #

        Additional Note:

        “dismissive of others intelligence they think other people have no knowledge of actual history”

        “knowledge of actual history”:

        (See http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/israeli-left-comes-up-with-plan-to-segregate-and-disenfranchise-200000-enemy-palestinians/)

        As written (with / without (QR / Quantum Reality) gaps ?) About City Jerusalem:

        JLewisDickerson March 8, 2016, 2:00 pm
        RE: “The contentious plan, promoted by a group of liberal Israeli Jews and adopted in principle by the center-left Labor Party, would unilaterally fence off most of East Jerusalem’s Palestinian neighborhoods and transfer responsibility for their 200,000 residents from City Hall to the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli military in the occupied West Bank.” ~ Isabel Kershner

        MY COMMENT: That’s why I support making Jerusalem an ‘international city’ pursuant to General Assembly resolution 181 (II) November 29, 1947, which provides for the full territorial internationalisation of Jerusalem: “The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations.”
        Netanyahu recently made it clear that as far as he is concerned there will never be a sovereign nation-state of Palestine in the West Bank (with, or without, E. Jerusalem as its capital). Consequently, unless Jerusalem is protected by virtue of its being made an ‘international city’ administered by the UN, it is just a matter of time before the Dome of the Rock, the Al-Aqsa mosque and numerous other historic sites come under existential threat as Israel’s radical, extremist nationalists (like Yehuda Glick and Moshe Feiglin of the Temple Institute) become more and more determined to completely “Judaize” the city.

        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/israeli-left-comes-up-with-plan-to-segregate-and-disenfranchise-200000-enemy-palestinians/#sthash.w3wW7yWU.dpuf

    • Fred Skolnik March 10, 2016 at 9:03 am #

      You are not refuting anyone or anything and I don’t see you “disprovving” any claims, made up, ridiculous or otherwise. You are only saying that they are ridiculous, made up, easily disproven, etc. The accustations of antisemitism do not preclude the substantive refutation of the assertions made by the Israel haters. Make your assertion and I will address it, as I did above. No, Germany did not proclaim no peace, etc. It surrendered and set out to rehabilitate itself under the Allied occupation, It did not issue a Khartoum Declaration after the war ended. As for settlements, I have explained what Israel’s opening position would be in real negotiations regarding the settlements and there is nothing unreasonable about it.

  14. Kata Fisher March 10, 2016 at 9:29 am #

    Important Note:

    Fred:

    “You are not refuting anyone or anything and I don’t see you “disprovving” any claims, made up, ridiculous or otherwise”

    American200:

    “people have no knowledge of actual history”

    What exactly is the history? (QR / Quantum Reality)

    About City Jerusalem (with / without gaps: QR/historical facts?)

    JLewis:

    RE: “The contentious plan, promoted by a group of liberal Israeli Jews and adopted in principle by the center-left Labor Party, would unilaterally fence off most of East Jerusalem’s Palestinian neighborhoods and transfer responsibility for their 200,000 residents from City Hall to the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli military in the occupied West Bank.” ~ Isabel Kershner

    MY COMMENT: That’s why I support making Jerusalem an ‘international city’ pursuant to General Assembly resolution 181 (II) November 29, 1947, which provides for the full territorial internationalisation of Jerusalem: “The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations.”
    Netanyahu recently made it clear that as far as he is concerned there will never be a sovereign nation-state of Palestine in the West Bank (with, or without, E. Jerusalem as its capital). Consequently, unless Jerusalem is protected by virtue of its being made an ‘international city’ administered by the UN, it is just a matter of time before the Dome of the Rock, the Al-Aqsa mosque and numerous other historic sites come under existential threat as Israel’s radical, extremist nationalists (like Yehuda Glick and Moshe Feiglin of the Temple Institute) become more and more determined to completely “Judaize” the city.

    – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/israeli-left-comes-up-with-plan-to-segregate-and-disenfranchise-200000-enemy-palestinians/#sthash.mRqMpyWt.dpuf

    • Fred Skolnik March 10, 2016 at 9:54 am #

      If this is your comment it is very coherently argued, but Netanyahu didn’t make anything clear. He made a single statement during the election campaign that there won’t be a Palestinian state under his watch, which is probably true, because the establishment of a Palestimian state will be a protracted affair, and he made 20 subsequent statements that he is willing to negotiate a two-state solution, so why pick the first statement and ignore the others. Seconly there is no existential threat to the Dome of the Rock, al-Aqsa, etc. The Palestinians are just saying there is. Neither the Israelis nor the Arabs want Jerusalem to be an international city. Both want it to be their capital and it is possible to approach the subject as I and others have suggested.

      • Kata Fisher March 10, 2016 at 10:25 am #

        Fred:

        That is not what I said.

        John said this:

        JLewisDickerson March 8, 2016, 2:00 pm
        RE: “The contentious plan, promoted by a group of liberal Israeli Jews and adopted in principle by the center-left Labor Party, would unilaterally fence off most of East Jerusalem’s Palestinian neighborhoods and transfer responsibility for their 200,000 residents from City Hall to the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli military in the occupied West Bank.” ~ Isabel Kershner

        MY COMMENT: That’s why I support making Jerusalem an ‘international city’ pursuant to General Assembly resolution 181 (II) November 29, 1947, which provides for the full territorial internationalisation of Jerusalem: “The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations.”
        Netanyahu recently made it clear that as far as he is concerned there will never be a sovereign nation-state of Palestine in the West Bank (with, or without, E. Jerusalem as its capital). Consequently, unless Jerusalem is protected by virtue of its being made an ‘international city’ administered by the UN, it is just a matter of time before the Dome of the Rock, the Al-Aqsa mosque and numerous other historic sites come under existential threat as Israel’s radical, extremist nationalists (like Yehuda Glick and Moshe Feiglin of the Temple Institute) become more and more determined to completely “Judaize” the city.

        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/israeli-left-comes-up-with-plan-to-segregate-and-disenfranchise-200000-enemy-palestinians/#sthash.mRqMpyWt.jCMeqt7i.dpuf

    • american200 March 10, 2016 at 3:55 pm #

      The below is a ‘fact’ in history—(this is for Fred’s benefit)

      ”That’s why I support making Jerusalem an ‘international city’ pursuant to General Assembly resolution 181 (II) November 29, 1947, which provides for the full territorial internationalisation of Jerusalem: “The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations.”

      Repeat—….’ The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international…”

      If Fred doesn’t know the difference between ‘shall’ and ‘may’ in legal documents he can look it up.

      If someone wants to argue against the UN’s right or authority to declare Jerusalem a international city —they could then also get their panties caught in the question of did the UN even have the authority to create Israel.

      The antiquated colonizer days law of uti possidetis juris would have given Britain as the mandate holder over Palestine the power to set territories and boundaries for ‘new states’ in lands they were decolonizing.

      But Britain ‘never gave’ Palestine to the Jews–Britain gave up its mandate over Palestine and passed the authority and decisions to the UN.

      The UN then had any uti possidetis juris that could be applied. The UN did apply their authority in Res 181–which did set the boundaries of Israel and Palestine.

      This is ‘history’.

      • Kata Fisher March 10, 2016 at 5:10 pm #

        American200:

        A very Important Note:

        Competent authority?

        From Canon Law:

        “Competent authority” = “juridic person”

        http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

        About competent authority in Canon Law: JURIDIC PERSONS

        Can. 120 §1. A juridic person is perpetual by its nature; nevertheless, it is extinguished if it is legitimately suppressed by competent authority or has ceased to act for a hundred years. A private juridic person, furthermore, is extinguished if the association is dissolved according to the norm of its statutes or if, in the judgment of competent authority, the foundation has ceased to exist according to the norm of its statutes.

        Can. 123 Upon the extinction of a public juridic person, the allocation of its goods, patrimonial rights, and obligations is governed by law and its statutes; if these give no indication, they go to the juridic person immediately superior, always without prejudice to the intention of the founders and donors and acquired rights. Upon the extinction of a private juridic person, the allocation of its goods and obligations is governed by its own statutes.

        This is so because “juridic person” is not a physical person. (Nothing physical and /or demonic).

        LOSS OF ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICE

        (But JURIDIC PERSONS can’t be “in loss of the ecclesiastical office”

        When not “legitimately suppressed by competent authority” or ” has [NOT] ceased to act for a hundred years”)

        There are “public” and “private” “juridic person”

        http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PD.HTM

        This is so because “juridic person” is not a physical person. (Nothing physical and /or demonic).

        http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTMhttp://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PM.HTM

      • Kata Fisher March 10, 2016 at 5:17 pm #

        A Note:

        I just posted a comment – but is stuck due to serval link citations of Canon Law – does not want to take another coment (when I did try) because it is noting that there is already the same comment in the memory.

      • Fred Skolnik March 10, 2016 at 8:55 pm #

        I can’t say that I understand what you are getting at. UN Resolution 181 recommended the partition of Mandatory Palestine and the inernationalization of Jerusalem, among other things. The Jews accepted the plan, the Arabs rejected it in toto and invaded the State of Israel, just as they said they would. The subsequent armistice lines, drawn up and maintained under UN supervision, divided Jerusalem under the respective rule of Israel and Jordan. This was the new reality. After the 1967 war Israel annexed the entire city. The Palestinians claim sovereignty at least over East Jerusalem. Neither side wants internationalization and the UN is certainly not going to go back to its 1947 resolution and seek to impose it, It expects the two sides to negotiate a settlement. I suggested that in such negotiations the bone of contention would probably reduce itself to the Old City and require an imaginative solution. You are again trying to establish Israel’s guilt instead of addressing the practicalities of such a negotiated peace settlement, which is not going to do the Palestinians any good. That is why some people doubt the sincerity of people like yourself.

  15. rehmat1 March 10, 2016 at 8:36 pm #

    A Note:

    Israelis are not only invaders, they’re declared “terrorists” and “illegal settlers” by British mandate authorities and Native Palestinians.

    In the good-old Christian Europe, hatred towards Jews were called ‘antisemitism’. Since western creation of the Zionist entity, the people Organized Jewry dislike, are labeled ‘antisemites’. Late Israel’s cabinet minister Shulamit Aloni confirmed this.

    “Well, it’s a trick, we always use it. When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel then we bring up the holocaust. When in this country US) people are criticizing Israel then they are antisemitic. And the organization (Israel Lobby) is very strong and has lot of money. And the ties between Israel and American-Jewish establishment are very strong – and they are strong in this country as you know. And they have power which is ok.” – Former Israeli cabinet minister, Shulamit Aloni (born 1928), during her August 14, 2002 interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!

    https://rehmat1.com/2010/01/01/israel%E2%80%99s-deadliest-weapon/

  16. ray032 March 11, 2016 at 4:38 am #

    Witness and Testimony of a Palestinian grandfather (Harvey, take note) explaining to his granddaughter as they revisited the ruins, what happened when the Zionist Colonial forces destroyed his Palestinian village in 1948 when he was 12, to make room for incoming Jews.

  17. Fred Skolnik March 11, 2016 at 5:11 am #

    It works both ways:

    Ethnic Cleansing of Jews in Arab Countries – YouTube

    Video for jewish refugees from arab countries youtube▶ 10:11

    Jewish Refugees: Persecuted Jews from Arab Countries …

    Video for jewish refugees from arab countries youtube▶ 3:20

    Forgotten Jewish Refugees from the Arab World … – YouTube

    Video for jewish refugees from arab countries youtube▶ 4:37

    The Forgotten Refugees – Full Documentary Movie – YouTube

    Video for jewish refugees from arab countries youtube▶ 49:02

    • ray032 March 11, 2016 at 7:48 am #

      After the 1967 Six Day War, Israel’s Foreign Minister Abba Eban said, “Wars are not always begun by shots. They are often begun by action and the action which really created the state of war in an acute sense was the imposition of the blockade.

      To try to murder somebody by strangulation is just as much attempted murder as if you tried to murder him by a shot, and therefore the act of strangulation was the first violent, physical act which had its part in the sequence.”

      This was talking about the Egyptian partial economic blockade of Israeli shipping through the Straights of Tiran after Israel went through the test run of the planned 6 Day war by provoking Syria April 7, 1967 and shooting down 7 Syrian jet fighters. This “exercise” gave the Israeli General Staff the confidence in their assessment the combined Arab armies were no match for Israeli military supremacy. Israel started the military hostilities beyond words June 5, 1967 by destroying the Egyptian Air Force in a stand down position on the ground, not on a war footing.

      Israelis see Palestinians as being sub-human like the Nazis saw the Jews in another place and time. Israelis cannot comprehend the Palestinians in Gaza would have the same human reactions to the punishing 7 year total economic blockade of Gaza, as the Israelis had to the porous, partial Egyptian blockade of 1967.

    • rehmat1 March 11, 2016 at 2:03 pm #

      @Fred Skolnik

      You can fool non-Zionists once but not all the times …..Naomi Wolf described it best when she claimed that ISIS beheading videos were fake – mostly produced by Iraqi traitor’s Katz.

      On March 3, 2016, the JTA reported that Republican and Democrat lawmakers have introduced a bill that would require linking the claims of Jews from Iran and other Arab countries.

      If one read Jewish history from some objective source he will find out that Jewish communities were expelled from almost every European nation in the past. There is no historic record of Jews being expelled from any Muslim-majority nation where they took refuge to escape antisemitism from Christians.

      The so-called ‘Exodus’ of Jews from Arab lands, an Israeli propaganda lie was rejected by Jewish historian Philip Mendes (Monash University) in 2002 study.

      Jews left Iraq, Syria, Tunisia, Iran, Uzbekistan, and Morocco as result of terrorist activities by the European Zionist terrorist groups and their local members. The Jews left Algeria after the country got its independence from France as result of a bloody resistance.

      Naeim Giladi, an Iraqi Jew, who as a youth worked for the Zionist mafia, and later lived in Israel and United States, tells how Zionist thugs terrorized Iraqi Jews to leave their ancestral land in order to populate the Zionist entity.

      In 2013, Israeli historian professor Yigal Bin-Nun (Bar-Ilan University), in a study exposed Zionist lies about Jewish exodus from Morocco. Based on his study of Moroccan Jewish community, Bin-Nun claimed that Mossad, the national intelligence agency of Israel, was behind the whole operation wherein about 160,000 Moroccan Jews left Morocco for the Zionist occupied Palestine

      https://rehmat1.com/2016/03/03/lobby-iran-should-pay-jewish-refugees-from-me/

      • rehmat1 March 11, 2016 at 8:17 pm #

        @Fred Skolnik

        The book you wanted me to read, are based on Israeli Hasbara BS. I bet you, likewise, wouldn’t dare to read Israel shahak’s ‘Jewish History, Jewish Religion’ – because he was declared ‘Self-Hating, Israel-Threatening’ S.H.I.T Jew – Right!

  18. Gene March 11, 2016 at 10:49 am #

    This is the latest. I submitted one or two comments. But Kata and Freddy turned me off as usual.

    G

  19. Chomsky is a zionist neocon and fraud March 11, 2016 at 12:19 pm #

    William Blum writes:

    {If the American presidential election winds up with Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump, and my passport is confiscated, and I’m somehow FORCED to choose one or the other, or I’m PAID to do so, paid well … I would vote for Trump.

    My main concern is foreign policy. American foreign policy is the greatest threat to world peace, prosperity, and the environment. And when it comes to foreign policy, Hillary Clinton is an unholy disaster. From Iraq and Syria to Libya and Honduras the world is a much worse place because of her; so much so that I’d call her a war criminal who should be prosecuted.}

    On the other hand, Noam Chomsky an impostor and a Zionist neocon will vote for a criminal Zionist servant, Hillary rotten Clinton, to make sure of serving the interest of the criminal jewish tribe. He is a liar and no one should trust her. The Zionist media deliberately have labeled him an “opposition” to deceive the public. NOam Chomaky is fraud and must be exposed all over the world as such.

  20. ray032 March 11, 2016 at 7:05 pm #

    Getting back on topic of the US Election, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Fifth Estate did an excellent Documentary on Donald Trump titled, ‘The Fire Breather : The Rise and Rage of Donald Trump’ Scary stuff!

    http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2685100496/

  21. Fred Skolnik March 12, 2016 at 11:21 pm #

    Prof. Falk

    Is this the kind of remark that meets your standards of polite and constructive dialogue:

    “On the other hand, Noam Chomsky an impostor and a Zionist neocon will vote for a criminal Zionist servant, Hillary rotten Clinton, to make sure of serving the interest of the criminal jewish tribe.”

    I understand that you are deleting my remarks because you don’t like to be challenged too pointedly and reminded of the wild and irresponsible language you are prone to use, and rationalize all this by taking the high ground of civilized discourse, of which there is little evidence in the vicious remarks made by your admirers. When ray brings up the Nazi business, he deserves to be called ignorant and also to be asked if he even knows what the Nazis actually did. When rehmet starts referring to everyone as “the Jew this” and “the Jew that” he deserves to be exposed for what he is. In fact, you’re the one who should be doing it.

    • Richard Falk March 13, 2016 at 5:08 am #

      I do not like such comments, but neither do I like many of yours that are NOT deleted, but invariably
      justify policies cruel and insensitive to the ongoing ordeal of the Palestinian people.

      • Fred Skolnik March 13, 2016 at 5:42 am #

        But you, Prof. Falk, are justifying what is far worse: brutal terrorist attacks against innocent civilians, including women and children, and massive bombardments of Israel’s population centers. And I of course do not justify cruelty. I explain, over and over again, what is simply true: All Israeli security measures are intended to prevent terrorist attacks against its civilian population. Occupations naturally cause hardship, but if you are contending that Israel is cruel for the sake of being cruel, as a matter of policy, then you have no understanding of the Israeli character or Israeli society.

      • ray032 March 13, 2016 at 5:58 am #

        Fred, there you go projecting again!!!

        You have read my view expresses many times what Israel did with the Orwellian Operation Protective Edge in Gaza in 2014, and before that, in Operation Cast Lead, were, “brutal Israeli terrorist attacks against innocent civilians, including women and children, and massive bombardments of Gaza. I use the term “murderous” bombardments. “I explain, over and over again, what is simply true” including the Nazi like sentiments expressed my many Israelis.

      • Fred Skolnik March 13, 2016 at 6:19 am #

        ray, you are playing with words and may think you are clever but you can also substitute “United States, Britain, France and the Soviet Union” for Israel and make out the Germans to be innocent victims. As I’ve said before, you can be a hero with your own children and scratch your behind or smoke a cigarette while someone is taking potshots at them, but don’t dare tell me how to protect mine.

  22. mustafahoward April 1, 2016 at 2:59 pm #

    Reblogged this on The Bonds of Brotherhood (Ribaat ul-Ukhuwa).

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. What motivates US policy toward I$raHell? |  SHOAH - March 30, 2016

    […] Richard Falk, former United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, wrote an essay explaining that American foreign policy generated by Democratic Party presidents has been much to […]

  2. What motivates US policy toward Israel?  An Analysis  by Lawrence Davidson - Intifada Palestine - March 30, 2016

    […] Richard Falk, former United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, wrote an essay explaining that American foreign policy generated by Democratic Party presidents has been much to […]

  3. Selling Out Palestinian Rights | Yerepouni Daily News - March 31, 2016

    […] Richard Falk, former United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, wrote an essay explaining that American foreign policy generated by Democratic Party presidents has been much to […]

  4. The $64,000 Question: Why the Hell Israel? | Conspiracy-o-Rama - March 31, 2016

    […] Richard Falk, former United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, wrote an essay explaining that American foreign policy generated by Democratic Party presidents has been much to […]

  5. “What Drives US Policy Toward Israel?” – An Outsider's Sojourn II - April 3, 2016

    […] Richard Falk, former United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, wrote an essay explaining that American foreign policy generated by Democratic Party presidents has been much to […]

  6. Was treibt die US-Politik in Richtung Israel? | Linke Zeitung - April 3, 2016

    […] Falk, der ehemalige UN-Sonderberichterstatter für die besetzten palästinensischen Gebiete einen Aufsatz, in dem er erklärte, dass die US-Außenpolitik der Präsidenten aus der Demokratischen Partei […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: