By: Sami Jarjour
In his 2006 work Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy, Noam Chomsky observes that the “image of righteous [American] exceptionalism” seems to have become a universal truth that has contributed to “the responsibility of the educated classes to endorse with due solemnity the sincerity of the high-minded principles proclaimed by leaders, on the basis of no evidence apart from their declarations…” (my emphasis). This is important to keep in mind when assessing Obama’s May 19 speech. It will help us avoid the pervasive trap of misinformation, for succumbing to propaganda is a costly affair, and therefore it is critical to carefully check the record, which will always prove to be Obama’s adversary.
What does the record show? For one, it does not show US support of democratic movements or uprisings in the Middle East. On the contrary, it shows American support of brutal and repressive dictators. Graham E. Fuller, former CIA station chief in Kabul, explains that “Washington finds it more efficient to support a range of dictators across the Arab world as long as they conform to U.S. foreign policy needs.” And this certainly is not a recent phenomenon. In 1958, the National Security Council explained that in “the eyes of the majority of Arabs the United States appears to be opposed to the realization of the goals of Arab nationalism. They believe that the United States is seeking to protect its interest in Near East oil by supporting the status quo and opposing political or economic progress…”
The NSC goes further, critically informing that “If we [US] are not to accommodate to Arab nationalism” due to the “many disparities between our interests and the demands of radical Arab nationalism [Arab unity]”, then “we must face the probable necessity of continued deployment of troops in the Near East, with the likelihood of increasingly serious incidents and the resultant risks of war.” To pose a key question to the reader, which direction in policy does it seem the United States has taken in the Middle East? One that is, as Obama says, “…essential…to people’s hopes” and therefore accommodating to “radical” Arab unity (not such a horrible notion it would seem), or one that is unaccommodating, requiring “continued deployment of troops” and “the likelihood of increasingly serious incidents and the resultant risks of war”? Not a question requiring a Ph.D. in International Relations to answer.
Yet according to President Obama, “America’s interests are not hostile to people’s hopes [in the Middle East], they’re essential to them.” Naturally, any claim in accordance with “American exceptionalism” is a fact of life, despite the lack of evidence supporting it and a historical record showing otherwise.
Similarly, the US position on the Israel-Palestine conflict has remained steadfast since the early 1970s. This of course refers to supporting Israeli expansion (contrary to exotic rhetoric), in violation of International Law. UN Resolution 242, emphasizing “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” in the preambular paragraph, was clear in its intent. In fact, Moshe Dayan, former Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces and later Defense Minister, had no trouble in conveying in 1968 that “it means [Israeli] withdrawal to the June 4 [1967] boundaries…but we [Israel] are in conflict with the SC [Security Council] on that resolution.” Furthermore, Article 49 of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention is explicit: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” There are presently over 120 settlements and approximately half a million settlers in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem (B’Tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories).
And predictably, Obama fails to address the need for Palestinian security as well as Israeli security (although Israel could have security if it simply adhered to International Law). Benny Morris, one of Israel’s New Historians, describes the Israeli military occupation as ”founded on brute force, repression and fear, collaboration and treachery, beatings and torture chambers, and daily intimidation, humiliation, and manipulation.” This judgment is affirmed by, in addition to many other studies, a 2008 report by John Dugard of the UN Human Rights Council, which states that Israel “has maintained and expanded the instruments that most seriously violate human rights – military incursions, settlements, the separation wall, restrictions on freedom of movement, the Judaization of Jerusalem and the demolition of houses.” The report additionally informs that while “Palestinian terrorist acts are to be deplored, they must be understood as being a painful but inevitable consequence of [this] colonialism, apartheid or occupation”. So the question arises: how do we put an end to Palestinian terrorism? The answer is quite obvious and can also be found in the words of John Dugard: by bringing the occupation “to a speedy end”, which, alongside its expansionist program, is devastating the Palestinian population and in turn shaping them “into a sullen community, hostile and nurturing a desire for revenge” (Meron Benvenisti, former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem).
Of course, terrorism is not simply limited to the Palestinians, as I’ve already revealed. The UN report also mentions (explicitly) Israeli terrorism: “the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) are guilty of terrorizing innocent Palestinian civilians by military incursions, targeted killings and sonic booms that fail to distinguish between military targets and civilians.” This failing to “distinguish between military targets and civilians” is noted by Ze’ev Schiff, the “dean of Israeli military correspondents”, in which he points out the admission of former Chief of Staff of the IDF Mordechai Gur “…that the Israeli Army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously” and “has never distinguished civilian [from military] targets…[but] purposely attacked civilian targets even when Israeli settlements had not been struck.”
However, let’s not forget the US is “…pursuing Arab-Israeli peace,” as Obama asserts. Coming from our sincere leader, there is no question of the claim’s validity; therefore the burden of proof is lifted. Not to mention the boldness of the claim is truly astounding considering the main hindrance to peace is in fact the United States. For those of us who believe in such things as International Law should be aware of the constant US rejection (as well as Israeli rejection) of UN resolutions to the conflict, while the rest of the world has consistently voted in favor of them (http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/resolving-the-israel-palestine-conflict-what-we-can-learn-from-gandhi/, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html). The US rejection of UN resolutions allows the conflict to continue, and massive US aid to Israel (for further illegal expansion) ruins any possibility of a just two-state settlement. As John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt observe, since “the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing the amounts provided to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct U.S. economic and military assistance since 1976 and the largest total recipient since World War II.” Thus any declarations of the US being a “fair broker” in the Israel-Palestine conflict seems at odds with the actual reality: the US is extremely one-sided.
There is a very simple solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It can be found in the words of former president Jimmy Carter: “Peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law.” And if I may add, peace will come when the United States is also willing to comply with International Law.
So despite a new president in the White House, US policy towards the Middle East has not altered. Continuous support of repressive governments and an unwavering stance towards Israel (shielding it from compliance with International Law) is the essence; and this policy will not change without substantial pressure on the American government, which must come from the American public.
