Hating Trump for Wrong Reasons | Regularization Bill: Israel's Final Vision | Canada's Conservatives: Pro-Israel Circus | More ..

The Palestine Chronicle - Daily News and Commentary on Palestine. Your Trusted newspaper since 1999.  LIKE US on FACEBOOK and FOLLOW US on TWITTER EDITORIAL The Uncomfortable Truth: Are We Hating Donald Trump for the Wrong Reasons? By Ramzy Baroud  I fear that many of us are hating Donald Trump for the wrong reasons. Multitudes are being swayed by mainstream media-inspired demonization of the new US president, based on selective assumptions and half-truths. US mainstream media, which rarely deviates from supporting the American government's conduct, however reckless, is now presenting Trump as if an aberration of otherwise egalitarian, sensible, and peace-loving US policies at home and abroad. Trump may be described with all the demeaning terminology that one's livid imagination can muster: evil, wicked, tyrannical, misogynist, war-mongering, rich buffoon, 'insulting our allies', infatuating with 'dictators', etc. But do not miss the point. If you chant in the street: 'I am with her', with reference to the defeated Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, it means that you are entirely missing the point. To reminisce about the days of Barack Obama, his oratory skills, clean diplomacy and model, 'relatable' family, means that you have bought into the mass deception, the intellectual demagoguery, stifling group-think that pushed us to these extremes, in the first place. And, within this context, 'missing the point', can be quite dangerous, even deadly. It is interesting how the lives of Yemenis suddenly matter, referring to the US military botched a raid late last month against an alleged al-Qaeda stronghold in that country, killing mostly civilians. A beautiful 8-year-old girl, Nawar al-Awlaki, was killed in the operation - planned under the Obama administration, but approved by Trump. Many chose to ignore that Nawar's 16-year-old brother - both US citizens - was killed by the US military under Obama, a few years earlier. Yemen has been a target in the US so-called 'war on terror' for many years. Many civilians have been killed, their deaths only being questioned by human rights groups, seldom mainstream media. Yemen is one of the seven Muslim-majority countries whose citizens are now being barred from entering the US by the ban. The emotional mass response by hundreds of thousands of protesters rejecting such an abhorrent decision is heartening but also puzzling. The US military, under Obama, has shied away from leading major wars but instigated, instead, numerous smaller conflicts. "The whole concept of war has changed under Obama," 'LA Times' quoted a Middle East expert. Obama "got the country out of 'war,' at least as we used to see it," Jon Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said. "We're now wrapped up in all these different conflicts, at a low level and with no end in sight." From a numerical context, the Obama administration has dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016 alone. Countries that were bombed included Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Somalia, five of the seven countries whose citizens are now denied entry by Trump. The harm that Obama has done to devastate some of the poorest, war-torn countries on earth by far exceeds what Trump has done, so far. Iraq and Libya were not always poor. Their oil, natural gas and other strategic reasoning made them targets for US wars, under four different administrations prior to Trump's infamous arrival. Libya was the richest in Africa, and relatively stable until Hillary Clinton decided otherwise. Clinton was Secretary of State during Obama's first term in office. In 2011, she craved for war. A 'New York Times' report citing 50 top US officials, left no doubt that Clinton was the 'catalyst' in the decision to go to war. Former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, furious about her support for a 'broader mission' in Libya, told Obama and Clinton that his army was already engaged in enough wars. "Can I finish the two wars I'm already in before you guys go looking for a third one?" Gates had reportedly said. Now, we are being led to believe that the war enthusiasts of the past are peacemakers, because Trump's antics are simply too much to bear. The hypocrisy of it all should be obvious, but some insist on ignoring it. Party tribalism and gender politics aside, Trump is a mere extension and a natural progression of previous US administrations' agendas that launched avoidable, unjust wars, embedded fear, fanned the flames of Islamophobia, hate for immigrants, etc. There is hardly a single bad deed that Trump has carried - or intends to carry out - that does not have roots in another policy championed by previous administrations. Trump's intention to build a wall at the US-Mexico border is the brainchild of President Bill Clinton. In fact, when Clinton proposed the wall and a crackdown on illegal immigrants in his 1995 State of the Union address, the Democrats gave him a standing ovation. As for Muslims, they have been an easy target for at least 20 years. Muslims were mainly the target of the 'Secret Evidence law' in 1996, and 'suspected' Muslims were either jailed indefinitely or deported without their lawyers being informed of their charges. It was then called the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, later expanded to give immigration authorities the right to deport even green card holding permanent residents. Few protested the undemocratic, no due-process law - and the media barely covered it - as most of those held were Palestinian activists, intellectuals and university professors. The 1996 Act morphed into the Patriot Act, following the attacks of September 11, 2001. The new Act undermined the very US Constitution, giving the government unprecedented domestic authority to arrest, detain people, and spy on whoever they wished, with no legal consequences. The Obama administration had no qualms using and abusing such undemocratic, unconstitutional powers. But where were the millions protesting 'fascism', as they are doing now? Was Obama simply too elegant and articulate to be called 'fascist', although he engendered the same domestic policy outlook as Trump? Trump is extremely wealthy, but if one is to examine the US wealth inequality gap under Obama, one perceives some uncomfortable truth. While the rich got richer under Obama, "inequality in America (grew) even at the top," reports Inequality.org. In fact, the gap between the rich and the super-rich continued to expand, barely phased out by the Great Recession of 2008. In 2014, a 'Mother Jones' headline summed up the tragic story of unfair distribution of wealth in America: "The Richest 0.1 Percent is About to Control More Wealth than the Bottom 90 Percent." Therefore, Trump is but merely one profiteer from an economy driven by real-estate gamblers and financial chancers. The truth is, today's political conflict in the US is not a clash over 'values', but an elites vs. elites war, par excellence. It is also a war of brands. Obama has spent eight years reversing George W. Bush's bad brand. Yet, Obama has done so without reversing any of Bush's disreputable deeds. On the contrary, he has redefined and expanded war, advanced the nuclear arms race and destabilized more countries. Trump is also a brand, an unpromising one. The product - whether military aggressions, racism, islamophobia, anti-immigration policies, economic inequality, etc. - remains unchanged. And that is the uncomfortable truth. - 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. SPEAK FRENCH? Visit our French website:  http://chroniquepalestine.com/ COMMENTARY Israel's Settlers Clear Path to Annexation with New Land Law By Jonathan Cook The Israeli parliament passed the "Regularization Bill", on Monday night-a piece of legislation every bit as suspect as its title suggests. The law widens the powers of Israeli officials to seize the final fragments of Palestinian land in the West Bank that were supposed to be off-limits. Palestinian leaders warned that the law hammered the last nail in the coffin of a two-state solution. Government ministers gleefully agreed. For them, this is the extension of Israeli law into the West Bank and the first step towards its formal annexation. The legalization law-also commonly translated from Hebrew as the regulation or validation law-was the right's forceful response to the eviction last week of a few dozen families from a settlement "outpost" called Amona. It was a rare and brief setback for the settlers, provoked by a court ruling that took three years to enforce. The evacuation of 40 families was transformed into an expensive piece of political theater, costing $40 million. It was choreographed as a national trauma to ensure such an event is never repeated. The uniforms worn by police at demolitions of Palestinian homes-guns, batons, black body armor and visors-were stored away. Instead officers, in friendly blue sweatshirts and baseball caps, handled the Jewish lawbreakers with kid gloves, even as they faced a hail of stones, bleach, and bottles. By the end, dozens of officers needed hospital treatment. As the clashes unfolded, Naftali Bennett, the education minister and leader of the settler party Jewish Home, called Amona's families "heroes". Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu empathized: "We all understand the extent of their pain." The settlers have been promised an enlarged replacement settlement and will be richly compensated. In a more general preparation, plans have been unveiled for thousands of extra settler homes in the West Bank. But the main prize for Bennett and the far right was the legalization law itself. It reverses a restriction imposed in the 1970s-and later violated by dozens of "outposts" like Amona-designed to prevent a free-for-all by the settlers. International law is clear that an occupying power can take land only for military needs. Israel committed a war crime in transferring more than 600,000 Jewish civilians into the occupied territories. Successive governments ignored their legal obligations by pretending the territories were disputed, not occupied. But to end the Israeli courts' discomfort, officials agreed to forbid settlers from building on land privately owned by Palestinians. It was not much of a constraint. Under Ottoman, British and Jordanian rule, plenty of Palestinian land has never been formally registered. Ownership derived chiefly from usage. Much of the rest was common land. Israel seized these vast tracts that lacked title deeds, or that belonged to those expelled from the West Bank by the 1967 war, and declared them "state land"-to be treated effectively as part of Israel and reserved exclusively for Jewish settlement. But even this giant land grab was not enough. The settlers' territorial hunger led to dozens of settlement outposts being built across the West Bank, often on private Palestinian land. Despite the fact they violated Israeli law, the outposts immediately received state services, from electricity and water to buses and schools. Very belatedly, the courts drew a line in Amona and demanded that the land is returned to its Palestinian owners. The legalization law overrules the judges, allowing private lands stolen from Palestinians to be laundered as Israeli state property. Israel's attorney general has refused to defend the law. Will the supreme court accept it? Possibly. The aim of the "traumatic" scenes at Amona was to depict the court as the villain of this drama for ordering the evictions. Nonetheless, there could be silver linings to the legalization law. In practice, there has never been a serious limit on theft of Palestinian land. But now Israeli government support for the plunder will be explicit in law. It will be impossible to blame the outposts on "rogue" settlers, or claim that Israel is trying to safeguard Palestinian property rights. Dan Meridor, a former government minister from Netanyahu's Likud party, called the law "evil and dangerous." Israel, he pointed out, can have jurisdiction over private Palestinian land only if Palestinians vote for Israel's parliament-in short, this is annexation by other means. It shuts the door on any kind of Palestinian state. Over time, he added, it will bring unintended consequences. Rather than make the outposts legal, it will highlight the criminal nature of all settlements, including those in East Jerusalem and the so-called "settlement blocs"-areas previous US administrations had hinted they might accept for annexation to Israel in a future peace deal. The other major danger was noted by opposition leader Isaac Herzog. "The train departing from here has only one stop-at The Hague," he said, in reference to the home of the International Criminal Court. If ICC prosecutors take their duties seriously, the legalization law significantly raises the pressure on them to put Israeli officials - even Netanyahu - on trial for complicity in the war crime of establishing and nurturing the settlements. (A version of this article first appeared in the National Abu Dhabi on Feb. 7, 2017.) - Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are "Israel and the Clash of Civilizations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books). He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. Visit: jonathan-cook.net.  OPINION Canada: Conservative Hopefuls in pro-Israel Circus, but Real Action is in NDP Race By Yves Engler The Conservative party leadership campaign has unleashed pro-Israel quackery, but it is the NDP race that could have greater impact on Canada's Palestine policy. Aping Donald Trump, former Conservative minister Kellie Leitch recently asked her Twitter followers to "join me in calling on the Government of Canada to immediately move our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem." This would likely contravene international law. For her part, former cabinet minister and fellow leadership candidate Lisa Raitt dubbed the recently passed UN Security Council Resolution (2334) on Palestine "disgusting". Offering Israel a diplomatic blank check, Raitt said her government would make sure Canada's voice was heard "loud and clear all over the world as Israel's best friend and ally - no matter what." Another former member of cabinet running to be party leader labelled most of the world anti-Semitic. Chris Alexander called Resolution 2334, which passed 14-0 with a US abstention, "yet another round of UN anti-Semitism." A Facebook ad for former foreign minister and leadership front-runner, Maxime Bernier, was titled "my foreign-policy is simple: put Canada first". It linked to a petition saying, "foreign policy must focus on the security and prosperity of Canadians - not pleasing the dysfunctional United Nations ... which for years has disproportionately focused its activities on condemning Israel." Evidently, putting "Canada first" means advancing Israel's diplomatic interests. While 'I heart Israel' and 'I really heart Israel' bile flows out of Republican Party North, it is the NDP contest that's more likely to shape the Palestine debate going forward. Since party members rejected leader Thomas Mulcair, who once said "I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances", the Canadian Jewish News has run an editorial, front-page story and column expressing concern about how the NDP's leftward shift will impact Israel policy. As the NDP race revs up expect Palestine to be debated in a way that troubles Israeli nationalists.  "Sid Ryan for NDP Leader", a website launched to enlist the former head of the Ontario Federation of Labor to run for the head of the party, notes: "Sid Ryan's advocacy for the Palestinian people, starting in his days in CUPE where he endorsed the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement, shows that an NDP leader could muster broad support for a process where Canada is non-aligned, expresses solidarity with Palestinians and other oppressed nations in the Global South, and champions a foreign policy based on peace, democracy, social justice and human rights." If Ryan enters the race. his support of Palestinian rights will set the bar fairly high on this important international issue.  Another individual discussing a run, Jagmeet Singh, was the only member of the Ontario legislature to speak out against an Ontario legislature vote to condemn BDS in December. Singh criticized a Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs backed motion supporting the spurious "Ottawa Protocol on Combating Anti-Semitism" and rejecting "the differential treatment of Israel, including the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement." Cognizant of party members' support for Palestinian rights, Singh likely had a federal leadership bid in mind when he addressed the Ontario legislature. The only individual officially in the race, Peter Julian, has said little on the subject. As a former critic and NDP House Leader, Julian needs to clearly distance himself from Mulcair's shadow on the issue or it will dog his campaign.  Another sitting MP who will likely seek the leadership, Charlie Angus, has been more vocal on Palestinian rights. At the start of last year he criticized an effort to condemn BDS in the House of Commons and in 2014 Angus denounced the "undue influence" that sponsored tours of Israel were having on MPs. During Israel's onslaught on Gaza in 2014 Angus wrote on his Facebook page: "Our thuggish prime minister pumps his chest while people die in Gaza. He may think there are votes to be had by cheering on Netanyahu from the sidelines." The Green Party's recent stand in favor of Palestinian rights demonstrates that progressives want action on the issue. Despite opposition from the media and popular party leader Elizabeth May, Green members voted overwhelmingly to support "economic measures such as government sanctions, consumer boycotts, institutional divestment, economic sanctions and arms embargoes" to pressure Israel. Progressives are less and less likely to be confused or intimidated by pro-Israel groups and their media lackeys. At this point a backlash against an NDP candidate's support for Palestinian rights would likely increase their chance of winning the leadership. (In a somewhat relevant parallel, Jeremy Corbyn seems to have benefited from pro-Israel media attacks during his bid to lead the British Labour Party). The considerable disconnect between the corporate media and engaged progressive opinion on Palestinian rights makes it important for the solidarity movement to politicize the subject when politicians are seeking the support of progressive party members. It is during the leadership fight that the Palestinian solidarity movement has the most leverage to force politicians to articulate a clear position. In this vein, I suggest a modest Palestine litmus test: no NDP leadership candidate deserves support if they fail to call on the federal government to adhere to UN Resolution 2334. Passed by the Security Council, it has the force of international law (unlike General Assembly motions) and its narrow focus should make it fully palatable to mainstream opinion (it says nothing about the rights of Palestinians ethnically cleansed in 1948 or the inequities faced by Palestinian citizens of Israel). Resolution 2334 "reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law."  For NDP candidates the relevant part of the resolution is the demand it places on other countries. Resolution 2334 calls on "all states ... to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967." While past governments have made halting efforts to do as much, Ottawa doesn't currently differentiate between "Israel proper" and the Occupied Territories. The two-decade old Canada-Israel free trade agreement allows settlement products to enter Canada duty-free. The European Union trade agreement, on the other hand, explicitly precludes Israel from putting "made in Israel" on goods produced in the occupied West Bank. Nor does Ottawa distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Territories in immigration policy. Individuals who live in illegal settlements are able to enter Canada without a visa like all Israelis. Additionally, a number of registered Canadian charities raise funds for projects supporting illegal Israeli settlements. Since all NDP candidates likely claim to support international law calling on Ottawa to implement a Security Council resolution shouldn't be tough. While 2334 is a low bar, Canada's tilt in favor of Israel is so pronounced that getting NDP candidates to commit to take action against illegal settlements would have significant ripples. Its long-term impacts would certainly outweigh the 'I heart Israel' ravings from the Conservative Party. - Yves Engler's latest book is A Propaganda System: How Canada's Government, Corporations, Media and Academia Sell War and Exploitation. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. SELECTED ARTICLES The Uncomfortable Truth: Are We Hating Donald Trump for the Wrong Reasons? Israel's Settlers Clear Path to Annexation with New Land Law Current Lord Balfour: Balfour Declaration 'A Humanitarian Act' Canada: Conservative Hopefuls in pro-Israel Circus, but Real Action is in NDP Race Are We Seeing Theresa May Perform an About-turn on Palestine? 'Giant' Victory for BDS Malaysia Amid Protests, Netanyahu Seeks UK Support for New Sanctions on Iran (PHOTOS & VIDEOS) Report: Illegal Israeli Settlers to Reach 800,000 in Occupied Territories in 2017 Protesting 'Racist' Israeli State and Home Demolitions: Thousands Rally in Tel Aviv (VIDEO) B'Tselem: 1,000 Olive Trees Uprooted to Build Bypass Road Name | Company | Phone | Email | Website STAY CONNECTED:

The Palestine Chronicle, PO Box 196, Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Sent by info@palestinechronicle.com in collaboration with Try it free today