|  | We greatly appreciate your support. Please click HERE to help. The Palestine Chronicle is a non-profit 501(c)3 organization. All donations are tax deductible. Your contribution to the Palestine Chronicle is extremely necessary in order to allow it to stay afloat. You are the link needed between us and promoting the truth.
|
| Palestine Chronicle | | The Palestine Chronicle is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization whose mission is to educate the general public by providing a forum that strives to highlight issues of relevance to human rights, national struggles, freedom and democracy in the form of daily news, commentary, features, book reviews, photos, art, and more.
|
| | |
| |
You can continue to be at the forefront of news converge by supporting the Palestine Chronicle. Your contributions are what makes us one of the leading news agencies on Palestine.
The Palestine Chronicle is a non-profit 501(c)3 organization. All donations are tax deductible. To make a contribution using your paypal account or credit card,
Or kindly send your contribution to:
PO Box 196
Mountlake Terrace
WA, 98043
USA
|
| EDITORIAL | Ban Ki-moon's Legacy in Palestine: Failure in Words and Deeds By Ramzy Baroud
Ban Ki-moon's second term as UN secretary-general is ending this December, he was the most ideal man for the job as far as the United States and its allies are concerned. Of course, there will always be other Ban Ki-moons. In fact, the man himself was a modified version of his predecessor, Kofi Annan. The unspoken but unmistakable rule about UN secretary-generals is that they must come across as affable enough so as not to be the cause of international controversies, but also flexible enough to accommodate the US' disproportionate influence over the United Nations, particularly the Security Council. At the end of their terms, the "success" or "failure" of these secretaries has been largely determined by their willingness to play by the aforementioned rule: Boutros Boutros-Ghali had his fallout with the US, as did Kurt Waldheim. But both Annan and Ban learned their lessons well and followed the script to the end of their terms. It would be utterly unfair to pin the blame for the UN's unmitigated failure to solve world conflicts or obtain any real global achievement on a single individual. But Ban was particularly "good" at this job. It would be quite a challenge to produce another with his exact qualities. His admonishment of Israel, for example, can come across as strong-worded and makes for a good media quote, yet his inaction to confront Israel's illegal violations of numerous resolutions passed by the very UN he headed, is unmatched. Even his purportedly strong words of censure were often cleverly coded, which, ultimately, meant very little. When Israel carried out its longest and most devastating war on Gaza in the summer of 2014, a large number of international law experts and civil society organisations signed a letter accusing the UN chief of failing to clearly condemn Israel's unlawful action in the Occupied Territories, its targeting of civilian homes and even the bombing of UN facilities which killed and wounded hundreds. The signatories included former UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk who, along with the others, called on Ban to either stand for justice or resign. He did neither. The signatories criticised him, specifically, about the Israeli shelling of a school managed by the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), in which ten civilians were killed. In his "condemnation" of the Israeli attack, Ban even failed to mention Israel by name as the attacker, and called on "both parties" to provide protection for Palestinian civilians and UN staff. "Your statements have been either misleading, because they endorse and further Israeli false versions of facts, or contrary to the provisions established by international law and to the interests of its defenders, or because your words justify Israel's violations and crimes," they wrote. And they were right. This is Ban Ki-Moon's signature policy - his ability to sidestep having to criticise Israel so cleverly (and, of course, the US and others) when that criticism could have, when needed most, at least given a pause to those who violate international law at will. Considering this, many have perceived Ban's farewell speech at the 71st session of the UN General Assembly on 15 September as a departure from his old reserved self. It was understood that it was the end of his term and he was ready to show some backbone, however belatedly. Sadly, this was not the case. "It pains me that this past decade has been lost to peace. Ten years lost to illegal settlement expansion. Ten years lost to intra-Palestinian divide, growing polarisation and hopelessness," he surmised, as if both parties - the occupied and the military occupier - were equally responsible for the bloodshed and that Palestinians are equally blamed for their own military occupation by Israel. "This is madness," he exclaimed. "Replacing a two-state solution with a one-state construct would spell doom: denying Palestinians their freedom and rightful future, and pushing Israel further from its vision of a Jewish democracy towards greater global isolation." But again, no solid commitment either way. Who is "replacing a two-state solution?" Why would a "one state reality" - which incidentally happens to be the most humane and logical solution to the conflict - "spell doom"? And why is Ban so keen on the ethnic status of Israel's "Jewish democracy" vision, considering that it was Israel's demographic obsession that pushed Palestinians to live under military occupation or live under perpetual racial discrimination in Israel itself? The fact is that there is more to Ban's muddled language than a UN chief who is desperately trying to find the balance in his words, so that he may end his mission without registering any serious controversies, or raise the ire of Israel and the US. (Incidentally, Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, still ranted against the UN chief for calling Israel's illegal Jewish settlements "illegal" in his address. Other Israeli commentators raged against him for being a "liar". Strange that even repeating old, irrefutable facts is still a cause of anger in Israel.) Yet again, this is not the matter of the choice of words. A WikiLeaks document from August 2014 is an excellent case in point. According to the document released by WikiLeaks, Ban collaborated secretly with the US to undermine a report issued by the UN's own Board of Inquiry's report on Israeli bombing of UN schools in Gaza during the war of December 2008 - January 2009. "Collaborated" is actually a soft reference to that event, where Susan Rice - then the White House national security adviser - called on him repeatedly to bury the report, not to bring it to the council for discussion and, eventually, to remove the strongly-phrased recommendations of "deeper" and "impartial" investigations into the bombing of the UN facilities. When Ban explained to Rice that he was constrained by the fact that the Board of Inquiry is an independent body, she told him to provide a cover letter that practically disowns the recommendations as ones that "exceeded the scope of the terms of reference and (that) no further action is needed." Ban Ki-moon obliged. When the UN chief is gone, he will be missed - but certainly not by Palestinians in Gaza or refugees in Syria, or war victims in Afghanistan. But by the likes of Susan Rice, whose job was made very easy when all she needed to do was merely instruct the chief of the largest international organisation on earth to do exactly as she wished and for him to gladly do so. In his last visit to Palestine in June, Ban Ki-Moon told distraught Gazans that the "UN will always be with you." As tens of thousands there still stand on the rubble of their own homes, denied freedom to move or rebuild, his statement is as forgettable as the man's legacy at the UN. - Dr. Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for over 20 years. He is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His books include "Searching Jenin", "The Second Palestinian Intifada" and his latest "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story". His website is www.ramzybaroud.net. |
| COMMENTARY | Shimon Peres Has Died - Commentary Roundup
Former Israeli President Shimon Peres has died at a hospital near Tel Aviv at the age of 93, after his condition deteriorated following a stroke, local media report.
Peres was admitted to Sheba Medical Centre in Ramat Gan two weeks ago, where he was intubated and sedated. On Tuesday, the former top politician suffered a serious setback incurring irreversible brain damage, The Times of Israel reported. The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement of mourning following news of Peres' death. "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara express deep personal sorrow over the passing of the nation's beloved former president, Shimon Peres," the statement said. US President Barack Obama also offered his condolences, saying: "There are few people who we share this world with who change the course of human history, not just through their role in human events, but because they expand our moral imagination and force us to expect more of ourselves. My friend Shimon was one of those people." These are the views of several writers on Peres' death. Nuclear Man Peres - one of the disciples of David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister - spent his long political career in the public spotlight, but his greatest successes were engineered in the shadows, noted Yaron Ezrahi, a politics professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Peres' most important task, to which he was entrusted by Ben-Gurion, was developing in secret - and over United States opposition - Israel's nuclear weapons programme through the 1950s and 60s. To that end, he recruited the assistance of France, Britain and Norway. Peres, like his mentor, believed an Israeli bomb was the key to guaranteeing Israel's status - both in Washington DC and among the Arab states - as an unassailable Middle East power. The testing of the first warhead in the late 1960s was probably at least as responsible for ensuring rock-solid US patronage in subsequent decades as Israel's rapid victory against neighbouring Arab states in the Six-Day War. Demographic Threat Peres had a key role in the military regime imposed on Palestinian citizens until 1966, under which authorities carried out mass land theft and displacement. One such tool was Article 125 which allowed Palestinian land to be declared a closed military zone. Its owners denied access, the land would then be confiscated as "uncultivated". Peres praised Article 125 as a means to "directly continue the struggle for Jewish settlement and Jewish immigration." Another one of Peres' responsibilities in his capacity as director general of the defence ministry was to "Judaise" the Galilee; that is to say, to pursue policies aimed at reducing the region's proportion of Palestinian citizens compared to Jewish ones. In 2005, as Vice Premier in the cabinet of Ariel Sharon, Peres renewed his attack on Palestinian citizens with plans to encourage Jewish Israelis to move to the Galilee. His "development" plan covered 104 communities - 100 of them Jewish. In secret conversations with US officials that same year, Peres claimed Israel had "lost one million dunams [1,000 square kilometres] of Negev land to the Bedouin", adding that the "development" of the Negev and Galilee could "relieve what [he] termed a demographic threat." False Prophet Ramzy Baroud wrote: Shimon Peres is a false prophet, yet he is one of Israel's most successful political brands. He was promoted as the quintessential 'dove' of Israeli politics abroad. But like Ehud Barak, Tzipi Livni and others, he was a 'peacemaker' by name only. Fearing that his reputation as 'too soft' to lead Israel - which is often led by battle-hardened generals - would affect his standing among voters, Peres has meted out severe punishment on the Palestinian and Lebanese people for many years. His history was rife with many war crimes that went unpunished. Although he is remembered for his ordering of the bombing of a UN shelter in the Lebanese village of Qana in 1996 - which killed and wounded hundreds of innocent people - the list of war crimes associated with his name is as long as his career. Even as a 'peacemaker' he failed terribly. He championed the Oslo Accords as a political treaty that would entrench the Israeli occupation and turn the little that remained of historic Palestine into disjointed Bantustans, similar, if not worse than those of South Africa. Yet he never took responsibility, or expressed any remorse for his action. The Israelis may praise him as a hero, but for Palestinians he is another war criminal who escaped any accountability for his terrible misdeeds.
|
| OPINION |
Why I'll Vote for the Jewish Candidate in US Presidential Election Let me start off with a confession: I didn't get it right when I speculated the Republican Party would not nominate Donald Trump for US president. I argued in an earlier column that if they did, the narcissistic Trump would most likely run as an independent candidate. I had posited, or hoped in such scenario Bernie Sanders would do the same and run against the Democratic Party establishment's nominee. The Republican leadership however, chose Party unity over what was best for America. And Sanders folded under the Democratic Party for the obvious reasons. Four major candidates running for the final election could have signaled an end to the absolute two-party reign over US politics since 1792. The governing duopoly has made American election process lengthy, expensive and stale, unlike the shorter, less costly and the much more dynamic European elections. Today, American voters are left to choose between the lesser of two evils. The disapproval rating of Clinton and Trump hovers around 60%. Possibly for the first time in American history, the new White House resident will be the least disliked of the two party picks. In 2000, electorates were faced with similar quandary. They had to choose between George W Bush/Dick Cheney or Al Gore/Joe Lieberman tickets. Else, cast their votes for the alternative that had little or no chance of winning. Three years later, it became very clear that "evils" flock together. To make the case for war, Bush's greatest asset in US Senate was none other than Gore's running mate, Lieberman. The Democratic vice presidential candidate who ran against the "evil" Republican, was the most faithful warrior in Bush's loyal "evil" army in US Senate. Hilary Clinton wasn't far behind Lieberman. With her eyes on the White House, she proved to be an opportunist, voting to the sentiment of the majority of Americans who at the time supported the war. Leadership is front of the wagon, not behind it; Clinton failed her biggest leadership test. Experience aside, Clinton and Trump are not much different: She's wicked in politics, he's evil in business. She supported unjust wars. He exploited workers and bankrupted businesses. That's why in 2016, I refuse to vote for the lesser evil and have decided to cast my vote next November for the Jewish US presidential candidate. Jill Stein refuses to sell her soul to "evil doers" and financiers of US elections. She speaks for millions of students who are overburdened by bank loans. Her Green Party platform advocates living wages for hard working Americans. She stood up to American Zionist financiers of the two-party system: Shedlon Adelson supporting Trump and Haim Saban backing Clinton. Heads or tails, Zionist financiers can always count on a winner in the White House. Stein is the only candidate with the courage to tell Israeli leaders that US taxpayers' money will be contingent on peace talk. Unlike current and previous presidents, Stein promised to withhold U.S. financial aid if Israeli continues flaunting American human rights values. In an interview with the Israeli Newspaper Haartz, Stein warned Israel, "Home demolitions, occupation, assassination, apartheid..." against Palestinians wouldn't be tolerated in her administration. Despite my dissatisfaction with Barak Obama's presidency especially on the Palestine question. The truth to be said however, Obama broke the mold of the Party establishment candidate. He rattled the status quo and won. He had created more than 14 million jobs since February 2010 and 20 million new Americans have gained health insurance coverage under his Affordable Care Act. On the International front, he ended most of Bush and the Zioncon's wars. He ended America's last cold war relic and established relationship with Cuba. And to a lesser extent, he stood up to the hubris Israeli rightwing prime minister and the powerful Israeli lobby in Washington. Even though, last week he cowered and agreed to grant Israel $38 billion of US taxpayers' money in next ten years, the largest set-aside entitlement foreign aid package ever. Still, optimistic as it maybe, but I'm hoping Obama will garner the audacity before he leaves office and proclaim an enforceable peace framework and to recognize Palestine. Back to US election, it could be rationally argued that if it wasn't for eight miserable years under Bush, American voters might not have taken a chance on someone, like Obama from outside the Party establishment. The worst that could happen in November is electing the less experienced evil. Unfortunately, Americans would most likely suffer as a result. But hopefully short pain, long term gain. The bigger the evil in the White House, the better the chance is for no evil next election's round.
American should vote for the greater good, not the lesser evil. - Jamal Kanj (www.jamalkanj.com) writes regular newspaper column and publishes on several websites on Arab world issues. He is the author of "Children of Catastrophe," Journey from a Palestinian Refugee Camp to America. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. (A version of this article was first published by the Gulf Daily News newspaper.) |
| FEATURED NEWS | Students at Top-Ranking University in Chile Support BDS Students at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, one of Latin America's top-ranked universities, have voted to back the Palestinian call to support the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, the Electronic Intifada reported. The motion, put forward by the Organisation of Solidarity with Palestine, calls for the university to end agreements with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Israel Institute of Technology, Technion, because of their complicity with Israel's violations of international law and Palestinian rights. "After weeks of campaigning, awareness raising and debates it is with great joy and honor that we announce that the motion [supporting BDS] was approved," the group said, adding, "We are very proud of having been the motor for such an important effort for Palestine and humanity at large." The student federation said its next step would be to urge the university's higher council to act on the motion. Earlier this month, Palestinian academics called on students and faculties at the Pontifical Catholic University to support efforts "to end the university's institutional links with Israeli universities due to their deep involvement in Israel's system of occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid."
|
| 
The Palestine Chronicle is an independent online newspaper that provides daily news, commentary, features, book reviews, photos, art, etc, on a variety of subjects. However, it's largely focused on Palestine, Israel, and the Middle East region. The Palestine Chronicle is a non-profit 501(c)3 organization. To contact the editor, submit an article or any other material, please write to: editor@palestinechronicle.com. For other inquiries write to: info@palestinechronicle.com. |
| |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment