Palestinian Statehood, The International Criminal Court, and The Rome Statute

Introduction:

Due to the heavy Israeli influence (through powerful Zionist lobbyist organizations) on the United States Congress, which impacts domestic law and foreign policy, to include billions on billions in annual foreign aid packages issued by the United States government to the nation-state of Israel, Palestine has been a continuous field of study for me.  I do not think it does the Palestine-Israel issue “justice” to analyze Palestine’s status of statehood according to so-called international law in the age of capital globalization without first understanding the historical usage of international capital, Zionist and Christian Zionist, in establishing the modern nation-state of Israel as a military hegemon in the Near-Middle East region and ensured an international political coalition to hinder the official international recognition of Palestinian statehood.  In order to offer that background of historical development which I consider imperative to understanding the limited Palestinian position on the international stage, especially concerning statehood and international law, I provide links to previous papers that I have written on the subject in order to establish a historical timeframe on Palestine:

Liberal Policies of the Ottoman Empire Concerning Immigration and Foreign Land Purchasing

http://internationalpoliticsnuclearenergy.blogspot.com/2013/05/liberal-policies-of-ottoman-empire.html

The British in Palestine: The Exploitation of the British Empire

http://internationalpoliticsnuclearenergy.blogspot.com/2013/03/britain-in-palestine-exploitation-of.html

Zionist Historical Documents - Herzl "What is a State", Balfour Declaration, Faysal-Weizmann Agreement

http://internationalpoliticsnuclearenergy.blogspot.com/2013/06/zionist-historical-documents-herzl-what.html

Historical British Documents on Palestine: Churchill White Letter, Peel Commission Report, British Policy Letter 1939

http://internationalpoliticsnuclearenergy.blogspot.com/2013/06/historical-british-documents-on.html

Palestine: The Usurped Non-State

http://internationalpoliticsnuclearenergy.blogspot.com/2013/06/palestine-usurped-non-state.html

Current Legal Status of Palestine under so-called International Law:

On November 29, 2012 the United Nations General Assembly voted to grant Palestine the status of Non-Member State observer status.  The decision to seek Non-Member State observer status through a General Assembly vote which neutralized U.S. veto power came after “a failed bid to achieve full UN membership in 2011” due greatly in part to the threat of a United States United Nations Security Council Veto [1].  The 2012 General Assembly vote on Non-Member Observer State status for Palestine “passed 138 to 9 with 41 abstentions”, with the United States and Israel, of course, voting against the proposal [2].  The vote “upgraded Palestine’s status without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people” from the previous recognition “as an observer entity in 1974” prior to the UN recognition of the Palestinian declaration of independence in 1988 [3].  

On the day following the historical UN Vote in November of 2012 “Israel declared plans to expand settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem” [4].  These settlements are largely viewed as a violation of international law by many members of the United Nations General Assembly.  Why does Israel (and thus, the United States) attempt to block and impede Palestinian efforts for Palestinians to achieve non-member state status or actual UN Member State status?  One of the main reasons is “concern in Israel that non-member state status would empower Palestinian officials to seek recourse at the International Criminal Court” and that “Palestinians could use the forum in order to bring action against Israel for what they view as violations of international law regarding their treatment in the West Bank and Gaza, including war crimes and the construction of Jewish settlements” [5].

The Question on Whether Palestine is a State:

I tend to agree that, as far as can be established under naval blockade and “restrictions on the movement of Palestinians within the West Bank”, that Palestine is a state [6].  I agree with Professor Quigley’s points that Palestine declared statehood in 1988 and the United Nations responded to that declaration, that many United Nations General Assembly member states recognize and support Palestinian statehood, that there are no other claimants to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and that “sovereignty devolved upon the Palestinian people when the British Mandate ended, thereby establishing a “continual statehood” for the Palestinians” [7].  Considering the historical developments of the Arab population of Palestine before and after the establishment of the internationally recognized state of Israel, and the international prevention of a recognized Palestinian statehood member status in the United Nations, I question the justice of the inactivity of the International Criminal Court based on a flimsy rejection using article 12 (3) of the Rome Statute:  “If the acceptance of a State which is not a Party to this Statute is required under paragraph 2, that State may, by declaration lodged with the Registrar, accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to the crime in question” [8]. 

Article 5 of the Rome Statute declares that the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crimes of aggression [9].  Anyone who takes the time, without political, ethnic, or religious bias, to review Israeli actions toward the Palestinian territories and population over the past 15 years, to include the creation of illegal settlements, can clearly see that the Palestinians have reason for requesting international jurisdiction under the International Criminal Court.  The problem for the Palestinians remains to be the lack of protection and constant vulnerability to Israeli military aggression due to the legal terminology of article 12(3) of the Rome Statute which insists on statehood for consideration, while Palestine is denied both recognized statehood and International Criminal Court Jurisdiction due to greater political and economic powers preventing it.

We have already discussed the (always) looming threat of the U.S. United Nations Security Council veto (on behalf of Israel) preventing official recognition of Palestinian statehood, and this is not the only political ‘blockade’ in recent history that has been implement by the United States and Israel.  In 1989, the Palestinian Liberation Organization “applied for membership in the World Health Organization (W.H.O.)” only to be rejected after “the United States informed the W.H.O. that if Palestine were admitted as a member state, the United States would withhold funding.  At the time, the United States contributed one fourth of the W.H.O. budget.” [10].

As for the response by Robert Weston Ash to Professor Quigley’s argument that Palestine should indeed by recognized as a state by the International Criminal Court, I can only say that Ash is obviously pro-Israeli in ideology and used the most trivial ‘he said/she said’ points, along with weak terminology twisting, against Quigley’s strong historical references [11].

Conclusion:

Being prevented from internationally recognized statehood by the United States and Israel, and second-hand state actors and NGOs with economic ties to both, what rights or duties do the Palestinian people actually have?  They are internationally isolated and basically ignored by the international community while forced to incur the most economically damaging, humiliating, and oppressive policies instituted by the state of Israel, who is heavily funded by the by the United States.  If there is any chance of true international justice for Palestine, perhaps it is time to reassess the concept that “much of international law can be applied and enforced only by states” that are recognized by full membership in the United Nations [12]. 

International law, whether in the United Nations or the International Criminal Court, has an owner, and that owner is capital.  It clearly states as much on the International Criminal Court website in the admission that while “the Court’s expenses are funded primarily by States Parties, it also receives voluntary contributions from governments, international organisations, individuals, corporations and other entities” [13].  Wouldn’t it be very interesting to see a breakdown of that funding amounts and funding entities?  International organizations?  Corporations?  Individuals?  And other entities?

Notes:

[1]  Robert McMahon,  “Palestinian Statehood at the UN, Council of Foreign Relations,” Council on Foreign Relations, November 30, 2012, http://www.cfr.org/palestine/palestinian-statehood-un/p25954

[2]  Robert McMahon,  “Palestinian Statehood at the UN, Council of Foreign Relations,” Council on Foreign Relations, November 30, 2012, http://www.cfr.org/palestine/palestinian-statehood-un/p25954

[3]  United Nation General Assembly, “General Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly to Accord Palestine ’Non-Member Observer State’ Status in United Nations,  http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga11317.doc.htm

[4]  NPR staff, “Now What? The State of Palestinian Statehood,” NPR, December 1, 2012, http://www.npr.org/2012/12/01/166313016/the-state-of-palestinian-statehood

[5]  Robert McMahon,  “Palestinian Statehood at the UN, Council of Foreign Relations,” Council on Foreign Relations, November 30, 2012, http://www.cfr.org/palestine/palestinian-statehood-un/p25954

[6]  Robert McMahon,  “Palestinian Statehood at the UN, Council of Foreign Relations,” Council on Foreign Relations, November 30, 2012, http://www.cfr.org/palestine/palestinian-statehood-un/p25954

[7]  John Quigley, The Palestinian Declaration to the International Criminal Court: The Statehood Issue, http://lawrecord.com/files/35_Rutgers_L_Rec_1.pdf

[8] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 12(3), http://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/add16852-aee9-4757-abe7-9cdc7cf02886/283503/romestatuteng1.pdf

[9] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 12(3), http://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/add16852-aee9-4757-abe7-9cdc7cf02886/283503/romestatuteng1.pdf

[10]  John Quigley, The Palestinian Declaration to the International Criminal Court: The Statehood Issue, p. 3, http://lawrecord.com/files/35_Rutgers_L_Rec_1.pdf

[11]  Robert Weston Ash, Is Palestine a “State”?  A Response to Professor John Quigley’s Article, “The Palestine Declaration to the International Criminal Court: The Statehood Issue, http://lawrecord.com/files/36_Rutgers_L_Rec_186.pdf

[12] Gerhard von Glahn and James Larry Taublee, Law Among Nations: an Introduction to Public International Law 9 (2010), p. 104.

[13] International Criminal Court Website, About the Court, http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/about%20the%20court/Pages/about%20the%20court.aspx

Was the Zimmermann Telegram a Fraud? Fourteen Points, Treaty of Versailles, and German Reparations

Was the Zimmerman Telegram a Fraud?

The posed question of the Zimmermann Telegram being a fraud is one that I had not previously considered, but is actually a plausible conclusion. We have seen false accusations and false flags multiple times in recent history that have generated war support from the American people and have justified, in many cases unilaterally by the United States, military actions (along with economic sanctions that can lead to military actions). The verification that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction is probably one of the most popular cases. [1]. What makes the possibility of the Zimmermann Telegram being a false flag even stronger is that President Wilson had already secured a second presidential term based on keeping the United States out of the European War.

According to history, the Zimmermann Telegram, supposedly intercepted and decoded in 1917 by the British, was a coded message issued by German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann to the German Minister in Mexico offering U.S. territory in return for Mexican support to the German cause. Looking at the text of the telegram, it seems to blatantly instigate two areas of American interests that would stimulate Congressional justification for American entry into the conflict, and more importantly stir up pro-war domestic support among the American people. The telegram opens by declaring that Germans “intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine warfare” which would have blatantly violated the commitment of the Sussex Pledge that Germany had made to the United States in 1916 [2]. According to the telegram, Germany also offered Mexico “generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona”, territories that Mexico had lost to the U.S. during the Mexican War between 1844 and 1854[3].

It would seem that American (private sector) economic interests were already deeply intertwined with the British, and thus the French. As long as the triple entente states were in good shape during the conflict, the U.S. was able to silently support (and private sector profit) from the sidelines of the European war. The Russian Revolution of 1917 changed the balance of the war in favor of Germany and the Wilson administration required domestic public support to justify the war and in order to enter the war, especially after Wilson’s reelection campaign to stay out of the conflict. The American media was utilized and the “American press published news of the telegram on March 1. On April 6, 1917, the United States Congress formally declared war on Germany and its allies” [4].

I do not believe it is a far reach to consider the possibility that the Zimmermann Telegram was a fraud in order to generate pro-war support among the American people in order to obtain Congressional approval.

Notes:

[1] Diamond, J., J. Keen, & Associated Press Staff, “CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq,” USA Today, October 7, 2004, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-06-wmd_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

[2] Zimmermann, Arthur, Zimmermann Telegram, 1917, Public Domain, http://www.archives.gov/global-pages/larger-image.html?i=/education/lessons/zimmermann/images/decoded-message-l.jpg&c=/education/lessons/zimmermann/images/decoded-message.caption.html

[3] Zimmermann, Arthur, Zimmermann Telegram, 1917, Public Domain, http://www.archives.gov/global-pages/larger-image.html?i=/education/lessons/zimmermann/images/decoded-message-l.jpg&c=/education/lessons/zimmermann/images/decoded-message.caption.html

[4] National Archives, “Teaching With Documents: The Zimmermann Telegram,” http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/zimmermann/

Additional Resources:

U.S.-Mexican War, PBS History Series, Interactive Media Timeline Map, http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/timeline_flash.html

Fourteen Points, Treaty of Versailles, German Reparations

Studying the armistice at the end of World War I, one major element that has come to my attention is the sharp contrast between how Germany, as the alleged aggressor of this war, has been portrayed in U.S. schools and history books compared to the economic reality of the situation. It is generally understood by international relations students that the balance of European power, and the rise of Germany as an industrial power, leading into World War I, including the formation of the triple entente between Britain, France and Russia with the blockade on Germany, was the cause of conflict. The U.S. joined the side of the triple entente towards the end of the conflict based on accusations of German submarine warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram, but imperialism really needs no excuse when it comes down to action.

President Wilson’s Fourteen Points Speech towards the conclusion of the conflict on January 8, 1918 was mere verbal rhetoric that candy coated imperial designs in my opinion, especially considering the fact that Wilson had won a presidential re-election based on keeping the U.S. neutral and out of the European war and the U.S. was never able to muster enough domestic popular or Congressional support to join the League of Nations.

I have almost completed a book entitled ‘The Economic Consequences of the Peace’ by John Maynard Keynes that clarifies the massive punishment that was inflicted on Germany after the war. Besides outrageous economic reparations monitored by a Reparations Committee made up of Allied state member representatives, reparations which Germany would not be able to uphold under a devaluated currency and considering that she was stripped of the bulk of her mercantile marine vessels, stripped of her foreign colonies, and most damaging, lost control of the coalfields and iron ore of the Ruhr, Upper Silesia, and the Saar which made Germany the first industrial power and an economic threat to the surrounding imperial European states. On top of the economic damage caused to Germany by accepting the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was required to demilitarize and acknowledge the War Guilt clause. The stage after the first conflict was set for a nationalistic movement.
Keynes, John Maynard. 1920. The Economic Consequences of the Peace. Public Domain. Accessed on July 8, 2013 from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15776/15776-h/15776-h.htm

Wilson, Woodrow. 1918. Fourteen Points Address. Public Domain. Accessed on July 8, 2013 from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/wilson14.asp

What is International Law? Is International Law Real? Is it Just?

It is difficult for me to view international law without also identifying the consolidation of imperial power, which shifted into economic globalization through centuries of colonial imperialism, two so-called World Wars, and the final victory for private sector capitalism after the Cold War.

The basis for so-called international law can be found in “treaties and conventions” among large groups of states, especially in cases when a majority of global states agree on the issue at hand [1]. I purposely utilized the phrase large groups to distinguish between larger treaties, such as the one that created the United Nations, and bilateral treaties, usually solidified for economic trade motives, which only bind the two states signing the agreement. When it is a small number of states signing a treaty or convention between multiple states, the agreement can “only apply to those states that have signed and ratified” the treaty or convention, it not does not automatically “create a new rule of general international law” [2]. Unfortunately for supporters of law and equality, if the signatories of these treaties and conventions are economic or military giants of the private sector global market, or the consolidated alliance formed from the ashes of both World Wars, with the World Trade Organization and the Bretton Woods financial creations backing them, smaller states usually have no choice except to adhere to so-called international law or be economically isolated. In the same manner, “states that specifically refuse to acquiesce in the new rule”, or submit on bended knee, “by refusing to ratify the treaty or adhere to it are” often sanctioned, economically isolated on the global stage, or is often stricken by a sudden regime change courtesy of a foreign military intervention and occupation (such as Iraq).

History clearly shows us that capital runs the globe, and that the United States does not have to adhere or comply with these rules established as so-called international law. The United States pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty in 2001 and never ratified the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, which was signed into international acceptance in September of 1996 [4]. There are a handful of these examples concerning the United States with no international challenge or consequences. Other examples include: 1) The Mine Ban Treaty of 1997, which places the U.S. as the only unsigned NATO member to that treaty. 2) The Convention on the Rights of the Child, unsigned only by the U.S. and Somalia. 3) The Convention on discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), an unsigned convention leaving the U.S. alongside other unsigned states such as Iran (who the U.S. has the nerve to push sanctions against on the international stage) and Sudan [5]. It is obvious that the U.S., nor its allies, have to obey international treaties or conventions when it boils down to it.

While economic and military powers such as the United States and the members of the UN Security Council (with their international vetoes) are not required to follow international treaties and conventions, smaller states also receive favoritism. How many times has the United States issued a veto to block international condemnation in the United Nations criticizing Israeli aggression? While the U.S. refused the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty and withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, as a military and capital power on the global stage, they are unchallenged in pushing harsher sanctions on Iran (the same sanctions which led to an unchallenged unilateral military regime removal on Iraq by the U.S. and a 10 year occupation) based on unfounded accusations (not proof) of nuclear weapons development. At the same time, Israel, who has been heavily funded and protected by the U.S. since the 1960s, is internationally known to have nuclear weapons, but has never signed the international non-proliferation treaty and refuted calls in 2010 to sign the treaty [6].

In closing, international law is identical to domestic law in the United States as both are controlled by capital. The system looks to work because it is a wide structure of many different international issues that the most powerful states adhere to because most of the issues are not threatening to international capital accumulation or the current military balance of power (or should I use the word hegemon) on the international stage.

[1] Gerhard von Glahn and James Larry Taublee, Law Among Nations: an Introduction to Public International Law 9 (2010), p. 45.

[2] Gerhard von Glahn and James Larry Taublee, Law Among Nations: an Introduction to Public International Law 9 (2010), p. 46.

[3] Gerhard von Glahn and James Larry Taublee, Law Among Nations: an Introduction to Public International Law 9 (2010), p. 46.

[4] Paul Kurtz and Matt Cravatta, America’s Shame: Neglected Treaties, Council for Secular Humanism (Accessed July 11, 2013 at 16:25), http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=kurtz_28_3

[5] Paul Kurtz and Matt Cravatta, America’s Shame: Neglected Treaties, Council for Secular Humanism (Accessed July 11, 2013 at 16:25), http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=kurtz_28_3

[6] Joseph Nasr, Israel rejects Call to join anti-nuclear treaty, Reuters, May 29, 2010 (Accessed on July 11, 2013 at 17:20), http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/29/us-israel-nuclear-treaty-idUSTRE64S1ZN20100529

Hypocritical U.S. Political-Economic Bias Towards Israel, How That Bias is Domestically Generated, and How it Tarnishes the U.S. Globally

For decades, since the creation of the modern nation-state of Israel, the United States government has displayed international favoritism and bias towards the state of Israel, despite Israeli violations of international and human rights violations against the Palestinian people, which has greatly tainted the political reputation, and has assisted in economically draining, the United States.  Condemnation of this political and economic bias is often argued by two views: 1) Israel is a democracy in the Middle East and shares the same values of the United States.  I am not certain if that is a good thing or not, because either the United States is as free and just as Israel or both entities are imperialist and international corrupt.  At any rate, Israel is a modern state based on the Jewish ethnicity while the U.S. is a nation of immigrants and variety.  Israel is often accused of apartheid-style treatment of the Palestinians and Arab-Israeli citizens, while the United States rose to power through natural resources produced from slave collars, whips and lynching.  The historical similarities between the big brother and the little run deep.  2) Israel is a strategic ally in the region.  This argument may have held political weight during the Cold War era and capitalism strived to break the balance of power and fully expand imperial globalization, but that ship sailed over two decades ago and Israeli reckless aggression behind U.S. military and economic muscle has become a liability to the United States in the global theatre.   

The argument bringing awareness concerning the irrational American bias towards Israel has always been domestically downplayed by skillfully slanted, or completely avoided, media coverage and double-sided lip service from Republican and Democratic administrations alike, especially concerning peace processes in support of solving the Israeli-Palestinian land conflict and establishing overall equality in the Middle East.  In 1971, President Nixon stated in a radio address that “In the Middle East, the United States took the initiative to stop the fighting and start the process of peace”[1].  In 1980, on the way out of office, President Carter stated that “America must always stand for these basic human rights at home and abroad” and that the United States was a “beacon for human rights” that “must continue to perfect here at home the rights and the values which we espouse around the world”[2]  In 1999, President Clinton stated during his State of the Union Address that “all Americans can be proud that our leadership renewed hope for lasting peace in the Middle East” after the so-called accomplishments of the Wye agreement[3].  During the 2005 State of the Union Address, President Bush pledged to “ask Congress for $350 million to support Palestinian political, economic, and security reforms. The goal of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace is within reach—and America will help them achieve that goal”[4].  The international rhetoric of previous U.S. administrations of both parties has sounded hopeful through recent decades, but concurrent to these public proclamations have been extremely strong and unleveled economic and political support towards the nation-state of Israel in the region, almost to the point of hypocrisy, by the United States.  That support has been continuously levied regardless of how that economic and military support has impacted the Palestinian position, the surrounding Arab states, or further isolated the United States from the global village as the great evil.

How is Political Bias Generated?

The irrational U.S. bias towards the nation-state of Israel is established and solidified by Zionist capital, both Jewish and gentile, through powerful lobbyist organizations, such as the leading American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, and is supported from several different points of view within the domestic United States population.  The first point of view which generates domestic support, both economic and political, is created by the religious indoctrination of the Christian religion which teaches adherents from youth that the Jewish people are God’s children and that, as contained in the ancient scripture writings of unknown authorship, Israel is a land that God promised to the Jews.  This point of view is strongest, or most zealous, within the Christian Evangelical community where Christian Zionist leaders such as John Hagee teach that “the end of days, the Rapture and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ are imminent” and that “the rebirth of Israel and the restoration of Jerusalem are a prelude to the return of the Lord”[5].  This irrational religious ideology, indoctrinated through many avenues from youth to the downtrodden and lonely, leads to domestic political power when converted towards domestic pro-Israeli support, which materialized politically in 2006 when “In February of that year, John Hagee, pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, unveiled Christians United for Israel (CUFI), an organization intended to be a Christian counterpart to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which describes itself as "America's pro-Israel lobby"[6].   At this point, let the rational and irrational reader alike remember that Israel is a foreign government, ally or not, and separate government.  Even the most loosely affiliated Christians in the United States subconsciously hold a high opinion of Israel, even if they are unable to explain the difference between the ancient tribes of Israel and the modern nation-state government of Israel founded in 1948.

The second point of view which domestically generates political support and favor toward Israel, heavily mass produced through inorganic popular culture and news reports with political motives, is formed by the indoctrination of uneducated working masses by American media outlets, often Jewish owned and pro-Israel, that produce a subconsciously effective political support process that Dr. Norman Finkelstein, the famed Jewish political scientist, termed the “Holocaust Industry”.  Finkelstein’s thesis concerning the creation of blind support for Israel is based off the atrocities of the pre-World War II Jewish Holocaust “evoking historic persecution” to deflect “present-day criticism” of Israeli aggression, and that by “invoking the Holocaust” through mass media is a political “ploy to delegitimize  all criticism of Jews” and the modern nation-state of Israel concerning incessant amounts of U.S. military aid to Israel, the apartheid-like treatment of the Palestinian people by the Israeli military, airstrikes on Palestinian civilian sectors which have killed women and children, the confiscation of Palestinian land and the construction of illegal Israeli settlements, and the fact that Israel has long possessed nuclear weapons without ever being required by the United States or the international community to sign the international non-proliferation treaty[7].  Was the Holocaust worse than other atrocities in history?  The transatlantic slave trade was much worse than the holocaust and happened on American soil, and it receives little media coverage in the U.S. compared to coverage and subconscious references to evoke empathy for the German Holocaust. 

While the first two point of views were based on indoctrination, which can only be successful when applied to ignorance or implied on a young mind to initiate a vicious cycle, the third category view for supporting Israel in the United States is based strictly on people of ignorance and apathy toward governmental decision making, international current events, history, or any other element of domestic and international importance for the United States and her children.  This third perspective group is more absorbed with the trivial and shallow dramas of what is inorganically considered a social life, or what gross jokes were on the television show Family Guy, or what video game is being played, and if ever cornered and pressured to attempt a political response, usually performs like a parrot or sheep and shows the questioner why they shouldn’t have taken the time to ask their opinion in the first place.

Buying Representative Democracy

On the other side of the spectrum, the position that the majority of students of domestic and international current events and history realize, along with those Americans that possess a conscious concern for the current and future conditions of the United States and the future for American children, is a position of serious concern over this American government bias towards Israel and how it is generated domestically through capital purchasing power.

With the majority of the American population, which for the most part work hard and long hours to provide for their families, either falling under the categories of viewing Israel from some level of Christian holiness, in some cases placing the Jewish nation-state of Israel in higher esteem than their own birth nation of the United States, or the category of being indoctrinated through mass media to view Israel as a poor victim state, or those who simply saturate themselves in apathy and do not pay attention, it is virtually easy, especially for the Zionist pro-Israeli lobbyist network along with the Christian Zionist lobbyist network, to manipulate the representative democracy of the United States in a bipartisan manner in order to get pro-Israeli resolutions, such as the annual 3 billion dollars in foreign aid to Israel despite American debt and deep domestic cuts occurring in the United States, passed through the House of Representative and the Senate.  After all, in a parliament or representative democracy, a proposed Congressional resolution, once approved by the sub-committee, only needs a majority of individual votes in each chamber to pass and become government reality.  The pro-Israeli lobbyist organizations know which Congressional representatives to donate campaign funds to, usually starting with the Christian right and the many congressional representatives with dual U.S.-Israeli citizenships, and which Congressional representatives to slander or invest capital against during the next Congressional race.  The pro-Israeli Jewish-Christian lobby in America is not a weak disenfranchised political entity.  It is one of the most powerful lobbyist organizations in Washington, and every presidential debate on foreign policy since 1960 has witnessed presidents compete fiercely to promise Israel more than their opponent because of the power of the pro-Israeli lobby, which, most importantly for concerned Americans, takes marching orders from a foreign government.

The Israeli lobby has succeeded year after year since the Cold War era to secure over 3 billion dollars in U.S. foreign and military aid to the nation-state of Israel, and this continuous and excessive funding has not only been economic spending that could be utilized domestically for lower economic Americans, it is hypocritical to the international promises spoken by almost every presidential administration since the 1970s concerning American values and American efforts towards peace in the Middle East and a Palestinian state.  The United States may provide the Palestinian territories with a few million dollars to assist poverty for international public relations, conditioned with political demands by the Israeli government, but the lobby influenced economic bias to Israel will continue to paint the U.S., and the American people, as international hypocrites, possibly even evil, as long as the U.S. Congress continues to appease the pro-Israeli lobby and approve annual economic aid to Israel in the billions each year along with the most technologically advanced weapons available, technological gifts of weaponry are utilized by the Israeli military to physically oppress, imprison, and murder Palestinians. 

It is the pro-Israeli lobby generated U.S. funding to Israel, and how that funding is utilized by Israel, that complicates political relationships between the United States and Arab states in the Middle East region and tarnishes the United States on the International stage.  The same American hypocrisy can be witnessed in the use of the United Nations Security Council veto by the United States to defend any United Nations resolution condemning Israel, which has occurred over 40 times since 1972, on issues like excessive military force against Palestinians or the unilateral bombarding of Lebanon [8].  In the majority of the U.S. vetoes protecting Israel, the United States stood against the rest of the global village.

Notes

[1] Nixon, Richard M.  1971.  “Radio Address About second Annual Foreign Policy Report to the Congress (February 25, 1971),” University of Virginia, http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/3875

[2] Carter, Jimmy.  1981.  “Farewell speech,” University of Virgina, http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/5536

[3] Clinton, William J. 2003. “State of the Union Addresses by United States Presidents: State of the Union speeches by William J. Clinton,” Penn State University, http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/poldocs/uspressu/SUaddressWJClinton.pdf

[4] Bush, George W. 2005. “2005 State of the Union Address,” University of Virginia, http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/4464

[5] Smith, Robert O. 2012. Anglo-American Christian Zionism. Ecumenical Review 64(1): 27-35

[6] Gross, Terry.  May 16. 2008 “Pastor John Hagee on Christian Zionism, Katrina,”, NPR, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90508742

[7] Finkelstein, Norman. 2009. “The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on The Exploitation of Jewish Suffering,” http://archive.org/stream/HolocaustIndustry/nf_holocaust_industry#page/n17/mode/2up

 

[8] “U.S. Vetoes of UN Resolutions Critical of Israel”, 2013, Jewish Virtual Library, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

Palestine: The Usurped Non-State

Since the UN partitioning of Palestine after World War II and the independence, or creation, of the nation-state of Israel, the unrecognized and stateless Palestinian people have been ignored by the international community.  The Palestinian people have withstood Israeli military occupation, apartheid-like treatment, military air strikes on civilian populations, and an economically debilitating Israeli naval blockade.  While the United States and her ally Britain have made repeated speeches of a promising two-state future and the possibility of a recognized Palestinian state living in equality with the nation-state of Israel, these western state powers have only continued to build the state of Israel into a regional military hegemon with extreme amounts of international capital, international political support, and international protection of Israel.

Political Palestine

The main political goal of the Palestinian people is the achievement and recognition of statehood on the international stage.  In November 2012 the United Nations General Assembly “overwhelmingly passed” a resolution raising the Palestinian status to a “non-member observer state” with 138 nation-states in favor, 41 abstentions, and only 9 General Assembly member nation-states voting against the resolution[1].  Two of those nine states were the usually suspects: Israel and the United States.  In the direct aftermath of the vote, the nation-state of Israel instantly resumed the rapid building of illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian Territories while American Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, stated that the United States would “continue to oppose firmly any and all unilateral actions in international bodies or treaties that circumvent or prejudge the very outcomes that can only be negotiated, including Palestinian statehood. And, we will continue to stand up to every effort that seeks to delegitimize Israel or undermine its security.”[2]

The political condition of the Palestinian Territories is worse than it was at the time of UN partition, as Israel has continuously usurped Palestinian land and isolated and oppressed the Palestinian population while preventing Palestinian statehood on the international stage through international Zionist support.

Economic Palestine

According to the World Bank, in 1998 twenty-five percent of Palestinians were living in poverty. A more recent Haaretz report from 2012 on poverty in Jerusalem  states that “78 percent of Palestinians in the city - and 84 percent of Palestinian children - live under the poverty line”[3].  One of the reasons for the inability for economic growth is the Israeli blockade that prevents “greater access to external markets and to better paying jobs” while the “majority of poor Palestinians live in households headed by working adults in low-paying jobs that do not provide sufficient income to raise their families to a minimally acceptable standard of living”[4].  One of the problems that the World Bank identified in the 2001 report is that the Palestinian population growth threatened that “unless the economy grows by 4.6 percent annually, the share of the population living below the poverty line will rise”[5].  This is certainly a challenge for Palestinians in the Gaza due to the Israeli naval blockade which has produced the end result that “Gaza's exports dropped 97 percent from 2007-12”[6].

Another economic issue facing the Palestinian economy and Palestinian civilians is the current rash of “price tag” assaults on property and settler violence which have occurred against Palestinians by Israeli settlers.  These assaults range in form from destruction of property, such as crops, and vehicular attacks to shootings and physical attacks on civilians.  The annual peak of “settler violence incidents in the north occurs in the months of October and November during the Palestinian olive harvest” which also hinders economic existence[7].   With very little international support to advance and protect Palestinians and their hope for statehood and self-sufficiency, while international Zionist capital continues to strengthen the nation-state of Israel, the Palestinians will almost have to placate their Israeli oppressors, from a kneeling position, to stay afloat economically with very little opportunities for growth or international recognized statehood.  What would you do if this was the plight of your children?

Cultural and Social Palestine

Even under Israeli military occupation, economic strangulation and naval blockade, the Palestinian people are not so culturally different from Americans.  In Ramallah, “many cafes, coffee shops” and theatres are operational and provide the people with a semblance of normalcy and a peace of mind despite political and economic ills, especially among the youth[8].  Palestinian people are so similar to Americans that thousands of Palestinians in Gaza recently turned out to welcome home a 22 year old Palestinian singer who “was declared the winner of the popular pan-Arab competition in Beirut on Saturday” which has been coined on international news reports as an Arab version of American Idol [9].

Despite geographical and ethnic cultural differences, the children of Palestine are similar to American children.  The main difference is the harsh political and economic environment that the Palestinian children are raised under due to aggressive military, capital and political oppression of international Zionism and the nation-state government of Israel.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I am not sure what the future holds for the Palestinian people or if a positive transition can even occur under the current international and regional bias towards the nation-state of Israel, the territorial expansions of the nation-state of Israel, and the ethnic cleansing that continues to occur under the false justifications of self-defense.

 

Notes

[1] NPR staff, “Now What? The State of Palestinian Statehood,” NPR, December 1, 2012, http://www.npr.org/2012/12/01/166313016/the-state-of-palestinian-statehood

[2] Rice, Susan, Explanation of Vote by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Following UN General Assembly Vote on Palestinian Observer State Status Resolution, http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/201226.htm

[3] Hasson, Nir, “Report: 78% of East Jerusalem Palestinians Live in Poverty,”, Haaretz, May 20, 2012, http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/report-78-of-east-jerusalem-palestinians-live-in-poverty-1.431384

[4] World Bank Report, Poverty in the West Bank and Gaza, June 18, 2001, p. 1, http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/08/04/000094946_01072104010092/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf

[5] World Bank Report, Poverty in the West Bank and Gaza, June 18, 2001, p. 12, http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/08/04/000094946_01072104010092/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf

[6].Bryant, Christa, “Gaza Exports Have Plummeted Under Israeli Blockade,” Christian Science Monitor, May 25, 2013, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/0525/Gaza-exports-have-plummeted-under-Israeli-blockade

[7].Munayyer, Yousef, “When Settlers Attack,” The Palestine Center, p.4, http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/32678

[8] Odgaard, Lena, “Palestinian Cultural Scene Thrives Amid Hardships,” Al Monitor, June 7, 2013, http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/06/palestinian-culture-art-ramallah.html

[9] Al-Mughrabi, Nidal, “Gaza Palestinians Give Hero’s Welcome to Their ‘Arab Idol’”, Reuters, June 25, 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/25/entertainment-us-palestinians-idol-idUSBRE95O0UJ20130625

Historical British Documents on Palestine: Churchill White Letter, Peel Commission Report, British Policy Letter 1939

In this second installment of analyzing historical documentation leading to the establishment of the modern nation-state of Israel we will analyze the Churchill White Paper from July 1, 1922, the Peel Commission Report from July 1937, and the British Policy statement on Palestine from May 17, 1939.  Examination of these documents show several key political errors by the British government, hypocritical Zionist favoritism on behalf of the British government, and a lack (possibly purposely) of political foresight concerning international capital available through international Zionist investment and how this capital influx would ensure a shift in technological power and the eventual establishment of a new nation-state that would become the dominant power in the region.

Churchill White Letter - July 1, 1922

The Churchill White Paper was designed to ease tensions in Palestine, especially since the area had fallen under British protectorate, which were increasing due to demographic shifts on the ground and “interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favoring the establishment of a Jewish National in Palestine”[1].  It is indisputable fact that the Zionist Congress possessed heavy influence in the British Parliament during the decades leading to the establishment of the modern nation-state of Israel, no differently than Zionist pro-Israeli influence infiltrates the two Congressional bodies in the United States today.  While many will attempt to argue over Churchill’s affiliation with Zionism, a statue of Winston Churchill stands in Israel today “just yards away from the King David Hotel, scene of a deadly Jewish terror attack on British military headquarters in 1946 that was to hasten the demise of mandate rule in Palestine”[2]. Churchill’s policy statement tries to clarify the Zionist position, whether falsely or unwittingly, on Palestine by reiterating claims on the “determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect”, only this statement can be clearly seen as false or misleading in retrospect to the establishment and expansion of the modern nation-state of Israel. [3].

Two of the most notable elements of Churchill’s White Letter are the Zionist claim that a Jewish National Home rests “upon ancient historical connection” and the issue of Jewish immigration in 1922, which would be seen again in the British policy letter of 1939 [4].  It must be stated here that implementing international political border partitions and creating new nation-states based on ancient religious text with unconfirmed authorship is irrational and, especially in cases that create mass displacement and refugees, it is internationally irresponsible.   Second, even though the Churchill White Letter appears to offer reassurances of equality in Palestine, the support for the pro-Zionist immigration issue is sleekly placed within the statement “that the Jewish community in Palestine should be able to increase its numbers by immigration” [5].

A last note on the white letter content would be the staunch denial of alleged government acquisition by the Zionists.  Churchill reassures the native Arabs in Palestine that “the Palestine Zionist Executive Organisation, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country.  Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organisation in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions”[6].  The following considerations are for speculation:  Did Zionists know, through British promises that the area would eventually be partitioned and the opportunity of an independent Jewish state possible?  Was the international Zionist network still in the planning stages for a Jewish state to be implanted, even by possible force at some point, in the region?  Or were Zionist forces simply playing the political hand they were dealt at the time of Churchill’s letter?  The influence that international Zionist capital had on empowering Jewish-Zionist networks inside Palestine to a position for establishing a Jewish state in the region is undeniable, just as international capital, both Zionist and Christian Zionist through representative democracies of the west, has made the state of Israel a regional military hegemon with international political immunity.

Peel Commission Report 1937

The Peel Commission Report by the British Government on the condition of Palestine in 1937 was the British government’s way of endorsing partition, making an easy way for the creation of the nation-state of Israel, and washing their hands of the commitments that were made to earn Arab support during the Second World War.  The conclusion of the report supporting partition stated that “the Arabs must acquiesce in the exclusion from their sovereignty of a piece of territory, long occupied and once ruled by them.  It means that the Jews must be content with less than the Land of Israel they once ruled and have hoped to rule again”[7].  What this position actually admits is that the century long Zionist efforts at establishing a national, or nation-state, home for Jews was about to be accomplished, with or without approval, and thereafter strengthened by the influx of international capital into the newly created government.  The political insanity of this historical decision is that the partition is justified on the Zionist side by a claim that Jewish people once ruled the land of Israel, which is based off an authorless ancient text written over 2300 years ago accompanied with the misconception that the modern Jewish population is the direct blood ancestry of the Hebrew Tribes and the Kingdom of Judah (a kingdom which assimilated and converted many gentile subjects). From the Arab Palestinian perspective, modern historians could easily trace the ancestry of the majority of Arab population through the land of Palestine.

The Commission report admits that the British Government “made promises to Arabs and Jews in order to obtain their support” during World War II [8].  As if it could not be foreseen by the British government, the report perplexes over the failure for a conciliatory effect that was expected by “the material prosperity which Jewish immigration” was predicted to “bring to Palestine as a whole”[9].  This statement directly implies Jewish-Zionist capital.  Realistically, Zionist immigrants and Zionist capital never cared to contribute to Palestine as a whole; the goal was a Jewish state from the beginning.  In order to understand the power of international capital, we need to consider 1937 demographics in the region.  At the time of the Peel Commission Report, there were approximately “1,000,000 Arabs” and “some 400,000 Jews”[10].  The Arabs were never able to be on equal economic footing with Jewish immigrants and absentee land owners die to the international capital of the Zionist network, which means Arab Palestinians were never on an equal level technologically or militarily with Jewish immigrants.  The Peel Commission Report notes the rise in nationalism on both sides, but history shows that Zionism was originated on national sentiments and nationalistic goals while the growth of Arab nationalism in Palestine was “primarily political, though the fear of economic subjection to the Jews is also in Arab minds”[11].  Today, it is no different as international capital, secured by political and private sectors means, continues to flow across state borders and ensure that the nation-state of Israel maintains its military hegemony in the region. 

Now let us shift focus and analyze the pro-Zionist position of the British government.  The strongest pro-Zionist statement in the Peel Report states that “there is a strong British tradition of friendship with the Jewish people” and that nowhere outside of Britain is there “a more genuine desire to do what can be done to help”, and nowhere was “Zionism better understood before the war or given such practical proofs of sympathy”[12].  Analyzing these sentiments, it is not surprising that the mandate protected Jewish immigration to “admit as many Jews into Palestine as the National Home can provide with a livelihood”[13]. 

British Policy Letter of 1939

                The proclamation of British policy towards Palestine in 1939 reflects an explosive period where Arab-Jewish tensions on the ground in Palestine, due greatly to pro-Zionist British policy since the initiation of the mandate and the British protectorate, were close to breaking into violent instability.  First and foremost, especially under the realization of the Peel Commission Report that a population partition was the only solution for Palestine, the British government desired to maintain stability for economic purposes in Palestine and among neighboring Arab states.  In analyzing the policy letter of 1939, it appears that the internationally preoccupied British government still viewed the possibility of an economically prosperous independent Palestinian state, shared between Arabs and Jews, as a viable outcome.  The policy letter sets forth a 10 year window for establishing “an independent state in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom” which would be beneficial “for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries”[14]. 

The policy letter was much too late to maintain stability in Palestine and establish a one state constitution.  The British government, for the first time, recognized the ambiguities of the mandate and the Balfour Declaration on issues such as Jewish immigration, the accumulation of land by Jewish immigrants and absentee owners, and shifting demographics coupled with nationalistic sentiments in Palestine, and reactively attempted to implement restrictions to maintain stability.  The British policy letter set a five year window for Jewish immigration to raise the Jewish population in Palestine to one third of the Arab-Palestinian population, which is noteworthy because the approximate numbers put forth in the Peel Commission Report had placed the population ratio at approximately 29% Jewish in 1937.  The 1939 policy letter also addressed the mass land acquisition by Jewish immigrants and absentee Zionist land owners in acknowledging that “no restriction has been imposed hitherto on the transfer of land from Arabs to Jews”[15].  The British government understood the problem of Jewish land accumulation, generated by international Zionist capital, and that in some “areas such transfers of land must be restricted if Arab cultivators are to maintain their existing standard of life and a considerable landless population is not soon to be created”[16].

                Regardless of the British intention for maintaining stability, Palestine was already past the point of no return in 1939.  A century of Ottoman liberal immigration and foreign land purchasing and British Zionist favor in Palestine had taken deep Zionist roots.  The Zionists were prepared to take arms against the Arab population and the British occupation.

Notes

[1] Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 155.

[2] Stewart, Catrina.  Sir Winston Churchill: Zionist Hero.  The Guardian, November 3, 2012, accessed on June 19, 2013 from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/sir-winston-churchill-zionist-hero-8277918.html

[3] Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 155.

[4] Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 156.

[5] Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 156.

[6] Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 156.

[7] Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 160.

[8] Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 157.

[9] Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 157.

[10] Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 157.

[11] Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 158.

[12] Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 159.

[13] Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 159.

[14] Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 163.

[15] Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 163.

[16] Smith, Charles  D.  2010.  Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed.  New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 163.

What Can The U.S. Do To Win The Hearts And Minds Of The Near East?

For starters, the United States could stop showing the international community, especially the regional players in the Near East, such blind bias towards Israel regardless of human rights violations and terrible treatment to Arabs in the region. This type of blatant bias comes in several forms stemming from incredibly lopsided amounts of annual foreign aid (economic and military), the consistent usage of the U.S. UN veto in the UN Security Council against any (and all) resolutions that condemn Israel or reflects Israel in a negative light, the boycotting of world leaders that are critical of Israel during annual UN General Assembly conferences, and the brutish advancement and enforcement of economic sanctions against any nation-states in the region that might challenge the regional Israeli hegemon.

This political bias, guised behind empty political promises of supporting, and at times brokering, an elusive peace process in the Middle East which can bring prosperity, colors the United States in a negative hypocritical manner. Let’s take a look at some significant quotes from previous U.S. administrations that display this hypocritical bias. Please keep in mind that I could expand this exercise all the way up to President Obama, illustrating a growing hypocrisy (and control mechanism by Israel), but in order to avoid too lengthy of a forum I will concentration on three administrations from 1960 through Nixon’s resignation.

John F. Kennedy August 26, 1960:

“First, I propose that the new President reaffirm our sincere friendship for all the peoples of the Middle East, whatever their religion or race or politics. Second, I propose that we make it crystal clear that the United States means what it said in the tripartite declaration of 1950 that we will act promptly and decisively against any nation in the Middle East which attacks its neighbor. I propose that we make clear to both Israel and the Arab States our guarantee that we will act with whatever force and speed are necessary to halt any aggression by any nation. Third, I propose that all the authority and prestige of the White House be used to call into conference the leaders of Israel and the Arab States to consider privately their common problems, assuring them that we support in full their aspirations for peace, unity, independence, and a better life and that we are prepared to back up this moral support with economic and technical assistance. The offer would be made with equal frankness to both sides; and all the world would be watching the response of each side. I sincerely believe that an American presidential initiative for peace, honestly intended and resolutely pursued, would not be lightly rejected by either side. And I promise to waste no time in taking this initiative.” [1].

The speech appears to be fair and unbiased, but upon election to the U.S. presidency, the Kennedy administration “decided to enter the Middle East arms race by providing military aid to Israel”[2].

The geographic position of Israel and the balance of power created by the Cold War may have justified, to some extent on a political level, an arms build-up in Israel (as a proponent of global capitalism) to check Soviet communist influence in the region, but at the same time….the threatening Soviet menace which began heavy increases in American welfare to Israel, in the form of foreign aid, resembles the current radical Islamic menace that falsely justifies providing Israel with over 3 billion dollars in annual military-economic foreign aid. Create an enemy or enhance the stature of an enemy, and create justification.

Lyndon Johnson:

“The quest for stable peace in the Middle East goes on in many capitals tonight. America fully supports the unanimous resolution of the U.N. Security Council which points the way. There must be a settlement of the armed hostility that exists in that region of the world today. It is a threat not only to Israel and to all the Arab States, but it is a threat to every one of us and to the entire world as well” - January 14, 1969 State of the Union Address [3]

Kennedy’s predecessor, President Johnson, decided not to run for re-election, but had already committed that the United States “would furnish Israel with Phantom jets along with the grant of Skyhawk aircraft promised in October 1967, thus giving Israel clear air superiority in the area. The presidential election campaign, in which both candidates declared full support for Israel” [4].

Richard Nixon:

“In the Middle East, 100 million people in the Arab countries, many of whom have considered us their enemies for nearly 20 years, now look on us as their friends. We must continue to build on that friendship so that peace can settle at last over the Middle East and so that the cradle of civilization will not become its grave” – Nixon resignation speech August 8, 1974 [5]

This humanitarian rhetoric sounds good, but during the Nixon administration “the influx of new American weapons to Israel ensured its qualitative advantage over its Arab neighbors, meaning that Israel could reject Arab overtures it did not consider totally acceptable [6].

Conclusion:

The short answer is that for the United States to earn the respect of the Middle East and the surrounding region, the hypocrisy and political lip service on the international stage and the bias toward Israel must end. These three examples are lightweight in substance compared to the levels of hypocrisy during the 1980s, 1990s and the first decade of the millennium. The United States is constantly placed in a disdainful light when Israel, a loose cannon funded by billions of dollars annually by the United States for over 50 years, commits acts of aggression against the Palestinian people and neighboring nation-states which border human rights violations and outright apartheid-like instigations.

[1] Kennedy, John F. Speech to the Zionist of America Convention, August 26, 1960: New York. Accessed on June 17, 2013 from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=74217

[2] Smith, Charles D. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed. (New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010), 276.

[3] Johnson, Lyndon B. Presidential State of the Union Address, January 14, 1969. Accessed on June 17, 2013 from http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/poldocs/uspressu/SUaddressLBJohnson.pdf

[4] Smith, Charles D. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed. (New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010), 306.

[5] Nixon, Richard. Presidential Resignation Speech, August 8, 1974 Accessed on June 17, 2013 from http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/speeches/rhetoric/rmnresig.htm

[6] Smith, Charles D. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed. (New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010), 318.