Ahmed Shihab-Eldin: Not willing to play the 'angry Arab'

By Ben Cohen: Regardless of whose side you take in the Israeli Palestinian crisis, there is no denying that the Jewish state has been far better at the public relations game than the Palestinians have ever been. There are many well funded pro Israel groups in the US that have sophisticated media strategies and employ them brilliantly when faced with criticism of their behavior towards the Palestinians. As a consequence public opinion is solidly in favor of Israel in the US, making it an anomaly in comparison to the rest of the world. The Palestinians have done an awful job of bringing attention to their plight, and despite the shockingly one sided nature of the conflict between themselves and Israel, they continue to be portrayed as the aggressors.

While Jews have been incredibly well represented in the US mainstream media both in management and on air, Palestinians have never had anyone in a position of real influence, and this has clearly had a major impact on the way the crisis in the Middle East has been portrayed.

Up until now, that is. In a forward thinking and (at least by American media standards) brave move, the Huffington Post hired Ahmed Shihab-Eldin, a Palestinian American to host and produce segments for their recently launched ‘Huff Post Live’ video platform. A former producer and and co-host of Al Jazeera English’s Emmy-nominated social media show, “The Stream”, Ahmed is no rookie, but his position within a large mainstream media entity is a novelty in America’s media establishment.

Ahmed regularly draws attention to the plight of the Palestinians, bringing on guests rarely seen on other mainstream media outlets like Palestinians from the Gaza strip and critics of Israel who are usually confined to academia or obscure foreign policy websites that have little reach. Ahmed, an extremely likeable and articulate character, refuses to play into the ‘angry Arab’ role the media likes to pick up on, despite facing intense criticism from all sides of the political spectrum (just check some of the comments on youtube to get an idea). Ahmed represents a new breed of journalist in the digital age, where an ability to connect with an audience trumps ethnicity, age or social background.

The Daily Banter spoke to Ahmed about his thoughts on the latest outburst of violence in the region, the Palestinian’s inability to draw attention to their cause, Obama’s indifference to Israeli aggression, and why Arianna Huffington took such a big risk in hiring him.

(NB: The answers have been lightly edited for brevity)

TDB: What was your immediate reaction to the overwhelming support for Palestinian statehood in the United Nations?

ASE: My immediate reaction was that a lot of people are going to try to break down an deconstruct what this actually means and I think that the sad reality is that it means very little. And so the people who have been saying that are right. What I think is most significant about this, even the way it played out, the fact that Israel switched their tone as they often do 180 degrees by saying that this is you know, a threat against peace and then as soon as it looked like the Palestinians would probably win, switching and saying that this is insignificant and downplaying the significance of the vote.

Also, the US was really exposed as a weakened power, one that’s reputation in the Middle East, that is quickly changing, but also in terms of the international stage is becoming increasingly less significant, especially unilaterally, especially as a leader.

When I heard about the bid, my first logistical reaction was ‘great’, now eventually Israel will be pursued in the international criminal court because now they can. And I think that’s great because Palestinians for far too long have not had any cards in their pocket to play when it comes to the games Israel plays regarding the conflict. This both really undermines Americas power, both soft and hard. And I think most importantly Europe realizes that they have to go it alone…..so I think Europe is starting to realize that it no longer has to fall in step with the US. Which I think is great because the US, more so than Israel believes that there is no resolution to the conflict.

TDB: Why do you think the Palestinians have had such a hard time drawing attention to their plight, particularly in the US?

ASE: I think it’s a lot of reasons. Perhaps first and foremost I am actually going to place the blame on Palestinians, ironically. I think too often we blame the press, we blame the West, we blame America, and I think those are all valid concerns, but I think the Palestinians have allowed divisions about our own identity to get the better of us. I really think that if the Palestinians were more unified in terms of their leadership, but also in terms of their ideology and in terms of their demands, I think they have allowed Israel and others to divide us in that regard. Of course another thing is AIPAC and the Jewish lobby and the fact that the way that American politics works – the two party system – you have to pledge allegiance or blind support to Israel’s right to defend themselves. Israel has created this really great narrative that Israel deserves the right to defend itself against all reason or rational, disregarding international law, and America bows to this for many reasons.

TDB: Do you see anything to be positive about in terms of US attitudes towards the conflict?

ASE: I really do. And I wish people didn’t ask me that question, because admitting to that – because it has been such a slight change and if we all talk about this change and celebrate the change, people tend to forget. People tend to have short attention spans. But to answer your question, yes, there is a change. Partially because of the internet, because things go viral and people are connecting of social media, but also because of other platforms – Indie GoGo and Kick Starter, because people based in Gaza being able to document and live tweet events and it adds to the effect that Palestinians are actually, you know, humans. The whole notion that Palestinians have  been dehumanized by Israel’s aggressive policies, that’s one thing, but I think that the media have portrayed Palestinians very simplistically and I think that that has done a huge disservice to our plight. I think the shift is coming, in that there are people who are more influential, because as you know the Huffington Post is one of the most read news sites in the US, and for eight days, we covered it – and it wasn’t biased.

There is a compelling narrative coming out about people having the right to live in dignity for the right for their leaders to represent their interests. Now obviously these haven’t been covered seamlessly by any means, and we’re still at the beginning process – we’re seeing tens of thousands of protests happening in Tahir Square – it’s still in its infant stages, but in the context of that, that has forced the media, not just the Huffington Post and social media outlets but also the mainstream media to cover the conflict within that context. You can’t avoid that context. Even if the new Arab Spring is more complex, with terrorism and violence, that narrative still exists; of popular revolt and uprising, and you know that has been happening for decades in Palestine. Obviously they are not rising up against their own leaders – they are uprising against their oppressors, so I think you can extrapolate from that – and that’s why we’re partially beginning to see a shift.

TDB: Let’s talk about official US policy. Do you see any nuance in Obama’s position?

ASE: No. I have to tell you I’m very disappointed in Obama. I understand the criticism of him weren’t necessarily fair in the first term given the context of the claims against him – you don’t want to seem anti Netanyahu or anti Israel or whatever,  but this is his second term and he hasn’t offered anything during the Gaza conflict to really be a leader. And a leader is someone who leads because he has conviction and because he knows what’s right and because he knows what’s best in his estimation, and I didn’t see any leadership from Obama. Even in calling the settlements illegitimate and making that distinction rather than calling them just ‘settlements’, which of course we know now there’s 3000 more. You know the United Nations – they vote to recognize Palestine – they call the settlements illegal – if they call Gaza occupied even though Israel does not, why Obama feels the need to buy into this notion that we can pretend that the reality on the ground isn’t the reality. And this at a time when he’s seen first hand more than any other President the entire reality on the ground completely shift in the Arab world – like dramatically. And it’s continuing to shift. It’s really troubling to me and I think he thinks it’s not going to affect him or affect Americans, I’m trying to really grasp what it is – or what is informing his need to maintain that status quo.

So do I think Obama has been a leader? No. Do I think he has shown a shift from his predecessors? Not at all. When it comes to that leaked video of Romney saying the Palestinians don’t want peace, we’re just going to kick the ball down the road – implying that all Palestinians want to eliminate and kill all Israelis – I think that all those things that Romney said, largely Obama would not say, but in terms of how those things affect US policy I think it’s sad to say that Obama really isn’t different. I think that Arabs might even be more disillusioned by Obama, given the context in the region and how he has augmented the ‘let me just kill people randomly’ strategy.

TDB: There are many Jews seriously concerned about the crisis – they do not support Israel’s actions and want to see a viable Palestinian state. What do you think they can do to help change public opinion?

ASE: Generally, raise your voice. Try and mobilize and find like minded people that are Jewish or Muslim or Arab or have a stake in the game or are invested in the region or invested in Israel for a multitude of reasons and try and organize and try create a presence online. I really believe that for any change to happen there is going to have to be an overwhelming display or popular resistance, whether it’s online or whether it’s at the UN or whether its petitioning your elected leaders, whether it’s creating a group like ‘J Street’ or a more justice based group for resolving the conflict for exposing injustices. I think it’s going to have to be an amalgamation and accumulation of these types of movements and initiatives that are going to actually bring about some policy changes because Israel is increasingly isolated themselves and I think there’s a lot of Jews that recognize that and who are concerned by that. And if I was Jewish I would be. I think that’s extremely concerning.

TDB: You’re probably the first Palestinian American to be given such a prominent media platform. Do you think your hiring was a risky thing for the Huffington Post to do, or is it a sign of changing times?

ASE: I think both. I know that’s a cop out, but I think Arianna took a huge risk. Arianna probably didn’t even know that when she asked me to collaborate then eventually to leave Al Jazeera to join her, she didn’t know probably that I was Palestinian, I would argue that she probably thought I was Egyptian, because at the time when I was speaking about what was happening in the region without really mentioning Palestine. Arianna really believes at the end of the day – and that’s part of her own political views and the way in which the Huffington Post has evolved, she really believes in transparency.

I think as long as that person is transparent and is accountable to his or her words and their reporting and all that stuff, then that’s what it should be about and that’s what the Huffington Post is about……I’m not particularly ideological or dogmatic when it comes to my beliefs. A lot of my Palestinian friends yell at me and say I normalize things when I talk to Israelis and acknowledge their right to exist.

TDB: Do you feel a lot of pressure with your role?

ASE: Is it a lot of pressure? Yeah. I have so many friends in the Muslim world, primarily in Palestine, who think that I am their outlet for reaching the wider American world and that’s not the case. I can’t just be a megaphone for what everyone wants to say.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Israel is feeling the heat from the international community after declaring it would build 3000 new settlement homes on Palestinian territory, with the UN going as far as calling the move as ‘an almost fatal blow’ to to the peace process. From the  BBC:

Britain and France have both summoned Israeli ambassadors in protest at Israel’s decision to approve the construction of 3,000 new homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The UK said the move would cast doubt on Israel’s “stated commitment to achieving peace with the Palestinians”.

Israel authorised the 3,000 additional housing units a day after the UN voted to upgrade Palestinian status.

The UN warned the homes would be “an almost fatal blow” to peace hopes.

Sweden also summoned the Israeli ambassador, while Russia and Germany expressed their opposition to the settlement plans.

Israel also announced that it would withhold more than $100 million in taxes and customs duties that Israel collects on behalf of the Palestinians each month, saying it would use the money to pay off Palestinian debts to Israeli companies. Withholding the funds endangers the sustainability of the government in the West Bank as the money is vital in keeping it afloat.

In typical fashion, Netanyahu has pledged to ignore the international community and go ahead with the punitive measures designed to inflict maximum damage to the Palestinians for declaring statehood. Netanyahu told his cabinet:

“Accordingly, the government of Israel rejects the U.N General Assembly decision….Today we are building, and we will continue to build in Jerusalem and in all areas that appear on Israel’s map of strategic interests.”

Even the US has condemned the latest actions of the Israeli government with Hillary Clinton telling an audience at the Saban Center think tank in Washington:

“Let me reiterate that this administration, like previous administrations, has been very clear with Israel that these activities set back the cause of a negotiated peace.”

The petty and incredibly damaging measures taken by Israel are again, completely self defeating. As public opinion around the world turns against them, they isolate themselves further and endanger their own survival in a region that is inherently unstable and increasingly hostile. New Arab governments won’t placate Israel as they did before the Arab Spring, and European countries will be less willing to provide political support as their populations demand action in opposing Israeli aggression. It is only a matter of time until the US has to publicly distance itself from Israel given the implications its behavior has in the region – and then Israel really will be by itself.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

It wasn’t enough for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to push the peace process back by assaulting Gaza and inflicting massive a massive humanitarian disaster on the area – he is now authorizing the construction of 3,000 illegal settlement homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem – to the dismay even of the United States. From Reuters:

Hours after the United Nations voted overwhelmingly to grant de-facto statehood to Palestine, Israel responded on Friday by announcing it was authorizing 3,000 new settler homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.  An official, who declined to be named, said the government had also decided to expedite planning work for thousands more homes in a geographically sensitive area close to Jerusalem that critics say would kill off Palestinian hopes of a viable state.  The decision was made on Thursday when it became clear that the U.N. General Assembly was set to upgrade the Palestinians’ status in the world body, making them a “non-member state”, as opposed to an “entity”, boosting their diplomatic clout.

The majority of the international community has made it clear that it supports Palestinian statehood and opposes the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land – two facts the Israeli government is unwilling to swallow. As the Guardian notes:

The fact that Israel won the support of just nine countries, including the US, at the UN has caused a degree of alarm inside the Jewish state.

Israeli officials were shocked at the scale of European support for the Palestinian resolution, with France switching sides and Germany abandoning a pledge to vote against. Among EU nations, only the Czech Republic supported Israel.

Israel’s hardening stance is becoming so out of step with the international consensus that is putting itself at great risk going forward. The vicious response to the vote in the UN exemplifies the Israeli doctrine of disproportionate force and makes getting back to peace negotiations close to impossible – and that puts everyone else’s interests in the region at risk, particularly the United States.

Israel is engaging in the overt colonization of another country in full view of the world with no inkling of remorse. Its standing as a respected member of the international community is being irreparably damaged and it is only a matter of time before the status quo becomes untenable. Votes in favor of the Palestinians and condemnation of Israeli aggression and settlement activity in the international community are just the start. The measures against Israel are largely symbolic at the moment, but at some point they will become economic, and change will be imposed on them from the outside. Andrew Sullivan wrote this as Israel pummeled Gaza with hi-tech weaponry earlier in the month:

Without diplomacy toward a two-state solution, we are looking at a lifetime of constant Israeli warfare against all of its neighbors, deeper isolation in the region (with Turkey and Egypt already fast moving away) and growing international pariah status as Greater Israel becomes more fundamentalist and less democratic. And at some point, as America’s energy revolution leaves us less and less exposed to Middle East oil, and as the national interest becomes more attuned to events in Asia and the Pacific, and as the occupation turns Israel into the South Africa of the 21st Century, the Jewish state will become a self-evident burden for America, spawning terror and conflict and anti-Americanism as far as the eye can see. If all Israel can count on then are America’s Christianists and the current GOP, if they continue to spurn American attempts to unwind the conflict by undoing the settlements, then Israelis should be genuinely afraid for their future.

Sadly there are no signs they understand why they should be afraid. And that means there’s still no end in sight.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

The Huff Post’s Ahmed Shihab-Eldin decries the framing of the Israeli assault on Gaza that paints Palestinians as aggressors:

To ignore the role of Israel’s occupation of Gaza is to ignore the fundamental fact needed to frame the latest escalation in reality rather than rhetoric and propaganda.

To do otherwise flagrantly falsifies the reality of the ongoing humanitarian crisis on the ground in Gaza.

The reality is complicated; mired in corruption, haunted by division, but ultimately a product of obscene oppression. So obscene that many, namely Israel and the U.S., would rather pretend it simply was not true — not real — but it is.

It remains mystifying to me that anyone could expect Palestinians to live in cantonized ghettos, be subjected to racial profiling, have their land routinely stolen and invaded and expect them not to retaliate. Yet much of the media seems to tow the Israeli line that they are somehow the victims of Palestinian aggression.

Of course the targeting of civilians by Hamas is despicable – innocent Israelis are killed and this can never be justified. The Palestinians have also done much to undermine their own cause, resorting to violence and terror that has yielded nothing in return. But the history is clear – one side is occupying another and subjecting it to conditions it would never accept itself, and it is reaping acts of terror as a result of it. To ignore this is not only to ignore reality but morality.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Andrew Sullivan decries Israel’s self harming policies that he believes will eventually lead to its demise:

Without diplomacy toward a two-state solution, we are looking at a lifetime of constant Israeli warfare against all of its neighbors, deeper isolation in the region (with Turkey and Egypt already fast moving away) and growing international pariah status as Greater Israel becomes more fundamentalist and less democratic. And at some point, as America’s energy revolution leaves us less and less exposed to Middle East oil, and as the national interest becomes more attuned to events in Asia and the Pacific, and as the occupation turns Israel into the South Africa of the 21st Century, the Jewish state will become a self-evident burden for America, spawning terror and conflict and anti-Americanism as far as the eye can see. If all Israel can count on then are America’s Christianists and the current GOP, if they continue to spurn American attempts to unwind the conflict by undoing the settlements, then Israelis should be genuinely afraid for their future. I sure am.

They are slowly preparing for national suicide – both in how they operate within the land they control and beyond it. Obama has tried to save them. But you cannot save those who refuse to save themselves.

The South Africa comparison is hard for many people to swallow, but it is an accurate one. The behavior of the Jewish state is in some ways worse than the apartheid government was in South Africa. As Yitzhak Laor wrote in Haaretz:

The system preserving this apartheid is more ruthless than that seen in South Africa, where the black were a labor force and could therefore also make a living. It is equipped with the lie of being “temporary.” Occasionally, Israel’s indifference comes up with allegations against the Palestinians.

Abba Eban captured the allegation by coining a phrase repeated by the doves of all parties, who never really went to battle over Israel’s future and allowed the “settlement project” to spread. After all, occupation makes Israelis richer. Why oppose it?

The World Bank recently warned Israel that its continued occupation and control of the Palestinian economy is having a devastating effect, particularly given Israel is rapidly expanding into some of Palestine’s most fertile land.  As the Independent reports:

Palestinian investment is almost totally barred in Area C, even though Palestinians could reap substantial revenues if they were permitted to develop it, the bank said. Israeli industrial settlements in the West Bank are said to produce £185m worth of goods for export to Europe.

This of course, is outright theft. Israel has no right to this land, and to rob Palestinians of precious natural resources is to destroy what is left of their already bleak future. But as Sullivan points out, this overt colonization and continued violence unleashed upon dissent only isolates Israel further, and at some point their situation will become untenable. South Africa was forced to give up apartheid when a mixture of economic changes, international pressure and serious domestic upheaval conspired to make the racist government unsustainable. And so too will Israel’s when events out of its control culminate, and it finally realizes it can no longer behave with impunity.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Benjamin Netanyahu: War, war and more war

By Ben Cohen: The world watches as the deteriorating situation in Gaza unfolds, unable to prevent either side from pulling back from the brink of war. With Israel gearing up for a full out assault on the impoverished area it has been occupying for decades, the chances for a peaceful resolution to the conflict that dates back to 1948 becomes ever more a distant dream.

There is a lot of noise surrounding the latest chapter in the violent conflict, and it is drowning out fact and context.  The situation is fast turning into a cheering game with supporters of both sides hurling inaccuracies and racial epithets at each other. If you are friends with Jews and Muslims, just log onto your Facebook account and look at the photos and quotes distributed across their newsfeeds. I’ve already had to delete obnoxious arguments on my own wall that descended into slanging matches rather than civilized debate.

While people are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts. So here are some:

The latest outburst of violence began when Israeli tanks made an incursion into the Gaza strip and killed a 12 year old boy playing football. The two sides then engaged in back and forth attacks that was followed by a brief ceasefire.

Israel then broke the cease fire by assassinating Ahmed Jaabari, the commander of Ezedin al Qassam, the military wing of Hamas.

The Israeli government has gone to great lengths to explain why Jaabari was assassinated, with the IDF releasing the following ‘kill ad’ to be distributed across social networks:

What they did not explain is that Ahmed Jaabri was critical to ongoing long term cease fire talks between Hamas and Israel. Jaabri held enormous sway in negotiations because he had the power to keep militants in line at home, and make meaningful concessions to the Israelis. He was instrumental in the negotiated release of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, even personally escorting him to the Rafah crossing with Egypt. According to Gershon Baskin, the Co-Chairman of IPCRI, the Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information, Jaabri was key to a sustained ceasefire agreement with the Israelis. He writes in The Daily Beast:

Repeated rounds of rocket fire over the following year [after the release of Shalit] yielded the same results with both sides seeking a ladder to step down and avoid full escalation, which would not bring any political or military gains. Since that time, with the exception of the last round of violence two weeks ago, the rocket fire from Gaza was launched after a pre-emptive Israeli strike against terror cells. Based on Israeli intelligence information, pre-emptive strikes were conducted primarily against cells from the Islamic Jihad and the popular resistance committees. Hamas almost always sat on the sidelines and allowed the other factions in Gaza to shoot their rockets until the price in human life became too high. At that point, Hamas urged the Egyptians to intervene to secure a return to calm. In the last rounds, Hamas, under pressure from its public, joined in the shooting of rockets—but it almost always aimed its rockets at open spaces in Israel and their damage was minimal. It was clear to all involved that Hamas was not interested in escalating the situation and for its own reasons and agreed to impose the ceasefire on all of the other factions, and on itself.

The key actor on the Hamas side was Ahmed Jaabari, the commander of Ezedin al Qassam, the military wing of Hamas. When he was convinced that Israel was ready to stand down as well, Jaabari was always ready to take the orders to force the ceasefire on all of the other factions and on Hamas.

Baskin, who himself is deeply involved with back channel negotiations between the two sides, writes that a new proposal with his input was being drafted for a ceasefire, and Jaabri was tasked with checking reactions from Gaza.

Then, he was assassinated.

Why would Israel kill someone so crucial to what was left of the fragile ceasefire negotiations? The answer is simple, and you only have to go back to the last invasion of Gaza to see why it happened. ‘Operation Cast Lead’, the assault on Gaza in 2008 that left over 1,400 Palestinians dead occurred two months before Israeli elections. The latest assault on Gaza is again happening two months before the 2013 elections – enough time for Benjamin Netanyahu to get the public behind him in a time of war.

Politicians waging war to gain popularity is nothing new, and Netanyahu is reviving the age old tactic to entrench his leadership over Israel that is defined mostly by militaristic opposition to the Palestinians and Iran. Politicians like Netanyahu do not exist in peace time, so they need war to make them relevant. Sadly, innocent Israelis and Palestinians are paying the price of his vanity.

Regardless of who you believe is responsible for starting this particular round of violence, one thing is abundantly clear: That Israel has, and will kill many, many more Palestinians than Palestinians will kill Israelis. As Yousef Manayyer, Executive Director of The Jerusalem Fund writes:

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas: Hopes of improved status continually smashed by Israel and the US (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Ben Cohen: The pretense that the United States is an honest broker in the Israeli/Palestinian crisis must now be completely dismissed from serious circles. From the Guardian:

The United States has warned European governments against supporting a Palestinian bid for enhanced status at the United Nations, saying such a move “would be extremely counterproductive” and threatening “significant negative consequences” for the Palestinian Authority, including financial sanctions.

A US memorandum, seen by the Guardian, said Palestinian statehood “can only be achieved via direct negotiations with the Israelis” and urged European governments “to support [American] efforts” to block the bid. The message was communicated by officials to representatives of European governments at the UN general assembly (UNGA) in New York last week.

Israel is militantly opposed to Palestinians gaining enhanced legal status internationally due to its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories and the blockade of Gaza. A successful resolution could potentially lead to Palestinian participation in international bodies like the International Criminal Court, where Israel could potentially be held legally accountable (at least superficially) for its behavior.

Israel and the US maintain that the only path to peace is through direct negotiations with the Palestinians, but given the Israelis have consistently derailed efforts to negotiate in good faith and the US has refused to reprimand Israel with any meaningful consequences, it is impossible to take their argument in good faith.

The US threat to Europe is serious. They will pull aid support to the Palestinians if their UN aspirations are backed by Europe leaving a significant funding gap that would have severe humanitarian consequences to the already impoverished Palestinians.

There is a deadly game being played by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who is banging the drums for war with Iran while Israel is amping up its increasingly brutal occupation of Palestinian territories. As Juan Cole writes:

Israeli squatters, backed by Netanyahu, are attempting to make a Palestinian state impossible. Netanyahu’s plan is to keep the Palestinians (some 12 million strong, 4 million of them in the Occupied Territories) stateless and without citizenship rights forever. People without a state have no institutions that would enforce their claims on property or on basic human rights, and so they are open to being treated, in a way, like slaves and constantly stolen from, as the Palestinians are.

Cole argues that Netanyahu’s ‘Iranian bomb’ theater is mostly an attempt to divert attention away from Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories. Iran, contrary to US and Israeli scare tactics, is not close to attaining a nuclear weapon, or even in the process of building one. He writes:

Iran can’t construct a nuclear weapon at all as long as it is being actively inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which it is (and yes, including the Fordo facility). There is no facility with uranium or enrichment facilities that is off limits to the IAEA inspectors. No country under active inspection by the UN has ever developed a nuclear weapon. Israel, which always refused such inspections, has some 400 nuclear warheads.

So while the world watches Netanyahu forge a path for war with Iran, it ignores what is happening to the Palestinians as a side issue. The United State’s complicity in this is not only immoral but completely counterproductive. It is widely viewed as being a dishonest partner in the peace process in the Middle East, and when it is uncovered that they are actively blocking Palestinian attempts to gain legitimacy as a nation within recognized international institutions, their image is tarnished further.

The violence and anti American sentiment we saw in Benghazi recently was not just the result of an insulting video, but the product of US foreign policy towards the region in general. The US is blocking Palestinian statehood aspirations for political expediency. In the short term, support for Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories helps American politicians shore up Jewish support and gives them a powerful military satellite in a largely hostile region. In the long term, Israeli treatment of Palestinians with explicit US support makes long standing peace an impossible task.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Romney has as much interest in peace as Netanyahu doe. Which isn't much.

By Ben Cohen: Mitt Romney is not having a good week. After campaign ending footage was released of Romney describing half of the America population as blood sucking parasites, it then transpired that he had gone on to declare he wasn’t interested in a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Part two of the footage put out by Mother Jones saw Romney saying the following:

Some key quotes:

I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there’s just no way….

You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem. And we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it.

It’s worth watching Romney’s analysis of the crisis in full because he displays a nuanced understanding of both sides of the argument, and declares what everyone else actually thinks: The situation is incredibly complicated and there doesn’t look to be a way out. Romney describes the problems Israel has with Palestinians having sovereignty over their borders and airspace (they don’t want Iran or any other nations shipping weapons into Palestine) and outlines the Palestinians unwillingness to accept Israel interfering in their business.

The problem is that despite a nuanced understanding of the conflict, Romney regards the Palestinians as subhuman and therefore not worthy of being taken seriously. Romney has gone out of his way to insult the Palestinians, particularly during this election where he is trying hard to shore up the Jewish vote and please one of his wealthiest Jewish benefactors, Sheldon Adelson. Romney showed up in Israel while campaigning for President promising to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (the city Palestinians regard as their capital), then inferred that the Palestinians were a failure as a race in comparison to the culturally superior Israelis. It sounded like something out of a Nazi speech – and I’m choosing my words carefully here.

It’s worth mentioning a couple of things here. Firstly, the Palestinians are not committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel any more than Israel is committed to the destruction and elimination of Palestine. Sure, there are factions in both nations that want to destroy the other, but most Palestinians and most Israelis want a peaceful settlement rather than ethnic genocide. The Palestinian Liberation Organization representative Ambassador Maen Rashid Areikat condemned Romney’s assertions in withering terms and laid out the PLO’s stance on Israel:

Romney’s allegations that Palestinians are committed to the destruction of Israel are baseless given the fact that Palestinians have expressed support for the two-state solution, and repeatedly recognized Israel’s right to exist. The best way the Republican nominee can help in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is by adhering to long-standing U.S. policy regarding an acceptable solution that will lead to the end of military occupation of Palestine, peace, and security.

Romney of course understands this, but he simply doesn’t care. He is too worried about appeasing AIPAC and rich Jewish donors in America to speak politically correctly about the Palestinians. He’s towing the line for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in return for his interference in the elections where he holds considerable sway. The Obama administration hasn’t been much better on the Israel/Palestine conflict, but you at least get the feeling that they consider Palestinians to be actual human beings. Obama has repeatedly tried to get Netanyahu to stop building illegal settlements as a precondition for peace talks, and although he hasn’t pressed for it particularly hard, he has the right idea. Obama has also let Netanyahu know that the US will not support an Israeli attack on Iran, an issue Romney has sided with the Israeli Prime Minister on in spite of official US policy.

Secondly, the leaked video again shows Romney for what he is – a highly intelligent sociopath who is so committed to becoming President he will throw literally anyone under the bus to get there. Romney displays the typical bullying tactics of powerful elites by picking on literally the most defenseless demographics out there: Minorities, Palestinians and the poor. But that is the modus operandi of the Republican Party – an organization now made up of grotesquely rich white males with no understanding of poverty, no understanding of the wars they vote for, and no interaction with people who don’t look like them.

The Palestinians are there to be beaten up on and used as a way of shoring up the Jewish vote in American politics. But at least the Democrats attempt to facilitate peace talks when in power because privately they understand that the conflict is not one sided. Romney’s ideas about the conflict exist in a completely different paradigm though. Romney knows there is another side of the story, but he’s not interested in it in the slightest, betraying a deeply worrying personality defect that can lump entire brackets of people into categories of worthiness an unworthiness. There are the rich, who are useful, and the poor who are not. There are white voters who are useful, and non-whites who are not, and Jews who are useful to Romney’s Presidential ambitions, and Palestinians who are not. This seems like a harsh description of the man, and I’m usually reluctant to throw around terms like ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’, but it’s pretty hard not to when Romney is giving speeches writing off half of Americans as useless leeches and dismissing an entire race as culturally useless thugs.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

By Robert Parry: Some pundits are excusing Mitt Romney’s comment about why Palestinians are so much poorer than Israelis as a slip of the tongue caused by a shortage of staff on his overseas trip, but the Republican presidential candidate makes the same point in his book, No Apology, which he claims to have written himself.

While discussing his thoughts about world travel, he wrote, “I wondered how such vast differences could exist between countries that were literally next door to each other. How could Americans be so rich and Mexicans so poor? How could Israelis have created a highly developed, technology-based economy while their Palestinian neighbors had not yet even begun to move to an industrial economy?”

In his book, Romney praised the writings of Harvard professor David Landes, who in Wealth and Poverty of Nations said “culture makes all the difference.”

Romney added that “What people believe, value, strive for, and sacrifice for profoundly shape the nature of their society and affect its prosperity and security. So while America’s abundant natural resources certainly facilitated its ascent, it is America’s culture that enabled the nation to become and remain the most powerful and beneficent country in the history of humankind.”

Then, Romney cited some cultural aspects possessed by countries that prosper – contrasted with those that don’t – including a strong work ethic, creativity, entrepreneurial spirit, cooperation, commitment to education, faith in God, devotion to family, patriotism, honor, trust in the law, and respect for life.

“There are cultures where life is cheap, but thankfully, ours is not one of them,” Romney wrote.

Wealth from Culture

Overall, Romney makes clear that he views American culture – and those of U.S. allies like Israel – as superior to those of other nations. That superiority is then reflected in the greater wealth of the citizenry, Romney maintains.

While Romney touts this superiority to praise the United States and Israel – as he sought to do in his remarks on Monday to a group of Jewish-American backers in Jerusalem – the comments have a disparaging side when applied to those who are judged as being poorer due to a lack of these positive characteristics.

To say that one nation thrives because of its magnificent culture means that another one fails because of its deficient culture. For the Palestinians, that assessment is particularly hard to swallow since much of their poverty relates directly to the harsh conditions from decades of Israeli occupation, including barriers to outside trade.

Saeb Erekat, a top aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, told The Associated Press that Romney’s comment was “a racist statement” and ignorant of the facts.

“This man doesn’t realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation,” Erekat said. “It seems to me this man lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people.”

In his speech in Jerusalem, Romney also misstated how great a discrepancy there was between what the average Israeli makes versus the average Palestinian. He claimed the difference was about 2 to 1, when it is more like 20 to 1.

In citing Landes’s book, Romney asserted that “culture makes all the difference. And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things,” an apparent reference to divine intervention on Israel’s behalf.

“As you come here and you see the G.D.P. per capita, for instance, in Israel, which is about $21,000 and compare that with the G.D.P. per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality.”

According to the World Bank, Israel’s per capita G.D.P. actually is $31,282, compared to a Palestinian per capita G.D.P. of around $1,600.

Romney’s campaign denied that his remark was intended to slight the Palestinians. However, Palestinian leaders were so outraged that some analysts suggested that the comment could come back to haunt Romney if, as President, he seeks to act as a negotiator between the two sides.

But that seemed to be the least of Romney’s concerns as he has pandered incessantly to the Israelis in a presumed strategy to drive a wedge between Jewish-American voters and President Barack Obama, who has criticized the Israeli government’s policies of expanding Jewish settlements in the Occupied West Bank.

Moral Superiority

The idea of cultural and even moral superiority as explaining success is a dominant theme in Romney’s book, No Apology, for both countries and individuals. The book, which is subtitled “The Case for American Greatness,” returns again and again to the theme of U.S. cultural superiority.

For instance, Romney is disdainful of “progressives” who offer more culturally neutral judgments about differing nations and ethnic groups. He wrote:

“During the 1960s, the idea set associated with progressivism gained ascendancy in educational circles. Our classical education tradition had held for decades that we should imbue each generation with the wisdom of the ages and the discoveries of modernity.

“Progressives, on the other hand, rejected the notion of universal truths, objective judgments, and, ironically, progress itself, embracing neutrality among competing belief sets and rejecting the primacy of Western civilization, the great thinkers of the ages, and the principles espoused by the Founding Parents of the nation. In their view, all cultures are of equal value.”

Progressive scholars respond to such criticism by noting that their duty is to present history and cultures objectively, not to indoctrinate students with propaganda that ignores the wrongdoing and hypocrisies of any group, including the fact that some of America’s white Founders professed liberty for all while owning slaves.

There is also the inconvenient truth that the U.S. government engaged in genocide against Native Americans, stole large tracts of Western land from Mexico, and insisted on placing U.S. military bases all over the world.

A key point of No Apology is to disparage President Obama for supposedly “apologizing” for America, though Romney is short of specifics as to exactly what Obama has said that would constitute an apology, rather than just the occasional recognition that the U.S. government hasn’t always been perfect. Oddly, Romney makes the same point in the book, writing:

“That doesn’t mean, of course, that America is a perfect country. We have made mistakes and committed grave offenses over the centuries. Too often we have failed to live up to our ideals. But to say that is to say that we live in this fallen world rather than a perfect one, a world composed not of angels but of flawed and imperfect beings.

“And, crucially, our past faults and errors have long been acknowledged and do not deserve the repetition that suggests either that we have been reluctant to remedy them or that we are inclined to repeat them. What we should say and repeat is this: No nation has shed more blood for more noble causes than the United States. Its beneficence and benevolence are unmatched by any nation on earth, and by any nation in history.”

Romney insisted that he actually wrote his own book, although he acknowledged assistance and advice from many of America’s leading neoconservatives, including Robert and Frederick Kagan, and from a variety of right-wing think tanks.

This article was originally published on Banter Media partner site ConsortiumNews.com

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Mitt Romney: Worst GOP candidate ever?

By Chez Pazienza: Can we just finally admit that Mitt Romney is the worst candidate the GOP has offered up in, well, maybe ever? Is there anyone who still thinks Romney is anything more than one big walking punchline, an ongoing political disaster of Irwin Allen-esque proportions? Look, I get that if you’re a Republican there’s a pretty good chance that your ebullient hatred of Barack Obama runs so deep that you’d vote for a flaming paper bag full of dogshit if the party nominated it for president, but that doesn’t mean you wouldn’t have to hold your nose while you were doing it. You’re more than welcome to cast your ballot for Romney in November and to support his candidacy every second of every day until then, but there’s no way you can tell me you’re happy about it. Romney’s not simply the worst possible guy to trot out as your party’s figurehead and message-carrier at this particular point in our nation’s history — with the global economy having been gang-banged by untouchable aristocratic assholes just like him — he’s also thoroughly incapable of relating to anybody on anything approaching a human level without coming off like a creepy version of Jeff Bridges in Starman.

I get that all of this has been said before in one form or another; Romney’s aloofness and awkwardness are well-documented. I also get that I’m not breaking any new ground by pointing out that even the Republican establishment can’t muster up much enthusiasm for him; Cesca’s been chronicling for months what he jokingly calls “Romney Fever,” basically the instances when powerful Republicans have been asked about Romney and have come back with, shall we say, less-than-effusive endorsements. I also understand that despite Romney’s potential to be the next “FAIL” meme on the internet, he still has a chance of winning the presidency in a few months; counting on the intellect of the American electorate is generally a fool’s errand. Again, though, there’s just no way that Mitt Romney could be anyone’s first choice to take to the prom. Hell, the Republican Clown Car Primary all but proved it — and I seriously doubt that anyone’s really warmed to him now that he’s shown himself to at least be capable of being the last man standing among a crowd of idiots.

I bring this up because Romney’s coming off a particularly horrible week. It’s one that, as the usual suspects among the punditocracy are all lining up to intone, is not likely in and of itself to have any serious impact on his chances of becoming president. But everything that went wrong — and a lot went wrong — on Romney’s trip overseas didn’t happen in a vacuum; it’s part of an ongoing series of colossal fuck-ups that over the past several months have formed one giant Jenga tower of political liability.

Believe it or not, I laughed at but certainly wasn’t personally insulted by Romney’s idiotic, tone-deaf and entirely undiplomatic statement that London may not have been ready for the Olympics; the instant karma from that really dumb comment bit him on the ass in such a big way that I figured piling on would just be superfluous amid the sound and fury. I didn’t really stress too much, either, over the Romney Unit’s inability to address Ed Miliband by his actual name as opposed to the painfully artless “Mr. Leader” or his astonishingly ill-advised decision to violate strict protocol and even mention MI6. I also chuckled at his aide’s mildly profane and eminently entertaining temper tantrum aimed at reporters in Poland; if hearing a grown man representing a candidate for President of the United States angrily telling a bunch of people to kiss his ass doesn’t make you smile, you have no soul. I got through all of that and just kind of marveled along with everyone else how silly and bush-league — no pun intended — Romney was making himself look. Only the most delusional among the GOP faithful would really think he was ready for prime time.

No, in spite of all of the above proving that he can’t compete on the world stage, the real takeaway from Mitt Romney’s disastrous overseas adventure came during his time in Israel — when he basically slammed an entire nationality as being inferior by comparison to its neighbor due to the strength of that neighbor’s “culture.” Romney’s comment about the Palestinians quickly drew cries of racism — and those cries were pretty much on the money. His statement about Israel’s culture being the reason for its economic success and standard of civilization — the implication, no matter how you parse it, being that Palestinians are borderline savages — is reminiscent of what bigoted whites in this country used to say to justify the subjugation of blacks. To make matters worse, and this is the part that really twists the knife in the minds of those who understand that Mitt Romney is 100% full of shit, Romney quickly backtracked in an interview with Fox News’s Carl Cameron, saying that he “did not speak about the Palestinian culture or the decisions made in their economy.” In other words, he lied. Bald-faced. As he has over and over again since his campaign started.

But lest you think that Romney is merely a Pop Warner-level bullshit artist, he then — on the same day — published an op-ed in the National Review in which he doubled-down on the racist comment he had made in Israel then quickly denied. “During my recent trip to Israel, I had suggested that the choices a society makes about its culture play a role in creating prosperity, and that the significant disparity between Israeli and Palestinian living standards was powerfully influenced by it,” Romney says. “In some quarters, that comment became the subject of controversy. But what exactly accounts for prosperity if not culture?” To use the vernacular leveled so effectively at John Kerry eight years ago, that’s two flip-flops in a period of about 48-hours.

The thing is, this is old hat for Mitt Romney by now. Steve Benen has spent the past few months keeping track of Romney’s lies — at some point you have to knock off the faux-fairness and call it what it is: lying — and I think his record is something like 21 in one week. 21 lies. In one week. An epically privileged, almost disquietingly detached former college bully and established, unapologetic corporate raider who seems incapable of actual empathy and who can’t go more than a week without telling at least a half-dozen flat-out lies.

Considering what the party has morphed into these days, Mitt Romney may be the perfect Republican.

But he’s a lousy candidate no matter how you try to convince everyone otherwise.

Subscribe

Chez Pazienza's feed

Enter email below: