letters to the editor

Executive Editor: DELINDA C. HANLEY Managing Editor: DALE SPRUSANSKY Contributing Editor: WALTER HIXSON Contributing Editor: JULIA PITNER

Other Voices Editor: JANET McMAHON Middle East Books and More Director: SAMI TAYEB

Assistant Bookstore Dir.: NATE BAILEY Finance & Admin. Dir.: CHARLES R. CARTER Art Director: RALPH-UWE SCHERER

Founding Publisher: ANDREW I. KILLGORE (1919-2016)

Founding Exec. Editor: RICHARD H. CURTISS (1927-2013) Board of Directors: HENRIETTA FANNER JANET McMAHON JANE KILLGORE Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (ISSN 87554917) is published 7 times a year, monthly except Jan./Feb., March/April, June/July, Aug./Sept. and Nov./Dec. combined, at 1902 18th St., NW, Washington, DC 20009-1707. Tel. (202) 939-6050. Subscription prices (United States and possessions): one year, $29; two years, $55; three years, $75. For Canadian and Mexican subscriptions, $35 per year; for other foreign subscriptions, $70 per year. Periodicals, postage paid at Washington, DC and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, P.O. Box 91056, Long Beach, CA 90809-1056.

PublishedbytheAmericanEducationalTrust(AET),anonprofitfoundationincorporatedinWashington,DCbyretired U.S.foreignserviceofficerstoprovidetheAmericanpublicwith balancedandaccurateinformation concerningU.S.relations withMiddleEasternstates.AET’sForeignPolicyCommitteehas includedformerU.S.ambassadors,governmentofficials,and membersof Con gress,includingthelateDemo craticSen.J. WilliamFulbrightandRepublicanSen.CharlesPercy,both formerchairmenoftheSenateForeignRelationsCommittee. MembersofAET’sBoardofDirectorsandadvisorycommittees receivenofeesfortheirservices.ThenewBoardofAdvisers includes:AnisaMehdi,JohnGareeb,Dr.NajatKhelilArafat, WilliamLightfootandSusanAbulhawa.

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs does not take partisan domestic political positions. As a solution to the Palestinian- Israeli dispute, it endorses U.N. Security Council Resolution 242’s land-for-peace formula, supported by nine successive U.S. presidents. In general, it supports Middle East solutions which it judges to be consistent with the charter of the United Nations and traditional American support for human rights, self-determination, and fair play.

Materialfromthe WashingtonReport maybereprinted withoutchargewith attributionto WashingtonReporton MiddleEastAffairs. Bylinedmaterialmustalsobeattributed totheauthor.Thisreleasedoesnotapplytophoto graphs, cartoonsorreprintsfromotherpublications. IndexedbyProQuest, Gale, EbscoInformationServices, Info Trac,LexisNexis, PublicAffairsInformationService, IndextoJewishPeriodicals,EthnicNewsWatch,PeriodicaIslamica. CONTACT INFORMATION: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs Editorial Office and Bookstore: 1902 18th St. NW, Washington, DC 20009-9062 Phone: (202) 939-6050 • (800) 368-5788 Fax: (202) 265-4574 E-mail: wrmea@wrmea.org bookstore@wrmea.org circulation@wrmea.org advertising@wrmea.org Web sites: http://www.wrmea.org http://www.middleeastbooks.com Subscriptions, sample copies and donations: P.O. Box 91056, Long Beach, CA 90809-1056 Phone: (888) 881-5861 • Fax: (714) 226-9733 Printed in the USA

LetterstotheEditor

ISRAEL DEMOLISHES HOMES AS ITS ALLIES WEAPONIZE ANTI-SEMITISM The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) recently destroyed yet another Bedouin settlement in the illegally occupied Jordan Valley on the pretext that the land was needed for a “military firing zone.” It could be suggested that the regular assaults on Gaza’s captive population already provide a lethal form of target practice that renders so-called firing ranges redundant.

This “firing range” tactic has been frequently employed as a handy excuse to displace both Bedouins and Palestinians.

Such actions are standard policy for a powerful nation that has declared itself the “Middle East's only democracy.” Unfortunately, the many benefits of Israeli “democracy” are mainly reserved for Israeli Jews, passive Israeli Arabs and senior members of the collaborationist Palestinian Authority.

The factual basis for my observations is apparently irrelevant to those who support the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) “working definition” of anti-Semitism, which is supposedly designed to reduce hate crimes against Jews. However, the breadth of the definition suggests different goals.

According to this expansive definition, those who dare offer a reasoned critique of Israeli policy are anti-Semitic, unless they simultaneously detail the sins of every other nation. This policy both excuses Israeli offenses and discourages dissent, creating a chilling effect on public discourse.

It is worth noting that Jews in every nation are increasingly critical of Israeli state policy toward those Palestinians and Bedouins living under martial law in illegally occupied territories. Those deploying the IHRA definition are well-aware of this uncomfortable reality and may be seeking to delegitimize Israeli critics by accusing even Jews of anti-Semitism.

Morgan Duchesney, Ottawa, Canada

For more on this important topic, we encourage you to read Jonathan Cook’s article, “lsrael Uses Closed Military Firing Zones to Drive More Palestinians From Their Land,” in the September 2014 issue of this publication. In the article, he noted that “18 percent of the West Bank has

KEEP THOSE CARDS & LETTERS COMING!

Send your letters to the editor to the Washington Report, P.O. Box 53062, Washington, DC 20009 or e-mail <letters@wrmea.org>.

been declared as Israeli military training and firing zones.”

ISRAEL’S HYPOCRISY IN DENOUNCING TERRORISM In the Oct. 3 New York Post, Manhattan lawyer Neal Sher cited “an overwhelming amount of publicly available evidence” to suggest that Saeb Erekat, the since deceased chief negotiator for the Palestine Liberation Organization, incited terrorist violence by helping facilitate financial support to the families of Palestinian “terrorists.”

It is so hypocritical for Israel and its defenders to make such claims when “terrorism” has deep roots in Israel’s history.

Indeed,Israelisguiltyofpracticingterrorismwhileestablishingitsstate.Among manyotherthings,terroristsblewupthe KingDavidHotelin1946,killing91people, mostlyBritishsoldiers.Jewishterrorists alsoassassinatedU.N.peacekeeper CountFolkeBernadottein1948.Theindividualsinvolvedinthismurderwererewarded,notwithapittanceofmoney,but withimportantpositionsinIsrael’sgovernment.OnesuchpersonwasfuturePrime MinisterYitzhakShamir,whoseSternGang participatedinBernadotte’sassassination.

Yet, so many in the world somehow accept Israel’s claim that this was all merely “freedom fighting.”

Of course, Israel’s modern, U.S.-taxpayer funded military apparatus no longer needs to resort to such primordial methods of terrorism. It can simply deploy the might of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on the Palestinians who were dispossessed by Israel’s founding fathers.

Doris Rausch, Columbia, MD

It’s a sad reality that the powerful often write and share history in self-serving ways. But your letter is proof that these efforts can only go so far. The more we insist on sharing the unadulterated true history of the “conflict,” the less weight nationalist myths carry. ■

Three Views On-the-Ground Realities for Biden in The Middle East

PHOTO BY JAAFAR ASHTIYEH/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES Israeli soldiers and members of the Humsa Al Baqai’a Bedouin community, east of the occupied West Bank village of Tubas in the Jordan Valley, on Nov. 6, 2020, two days after Israel's army razed the village, including tents, sheds, portable toilets and solar panels, leaving dozens of people homeless.

Some Advice on How to Succeed Where Others Have Failed By Rev. Alex Awad

ADDING TO THE CHORUS of millions of peace and justice-loving people in the U.S. and around the world, I sincerely offer my heartfelt

Rev. Dr. Alex Awad is a retired United Methodist Missionary. He and his wife, Brenda, served in Jerusalem and in Bethlehem for more than 25 years. Rev. Awad served as pastor of East Jerusalem Baptist Church, dean of students at Bethlehem Bible College, and director of the Shepherd Society. Awad has written two books, Through the Eyes of the Victims and Palestinian Memories. Rev. Awad is a member of the Palestinian Christian Alliance for Peace (PCAP).

congratulations to you, President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President- elect Kamala Harris. You passed through the election fray graciously, and you won.

It will soon be time for the passing of the leadership “baton.” And it will be your cabinet’s turn, Mr. President-elect, to tackle tremendous tasks such as the pandemic, the economy, racism and global warming among many others. Most likely, sooner rather than later after you move to the White House, like all U.S. presidents for the past half century, you will be called upon to address the challenge of the Israel-Palestine conflict. I imagine you will have many advisers ready to help you develop your policy toward what seems to be an intractable conflict.

I am a Palestinian who has lived through and experienced all of the stages of the Israel-Palestine conflict. When I was two years old,

my father was killed during the first Arab-Israeli War of 1948, leaving behind a widow with seven children. Soon after his death, we became refugees. In 1967, while studying in Europe, I became a man without a country when Israel occupied the West Bank and Israeli authorities refused to repatriate me. Now I am an American citizen who yearns to see peace and justice both for my people and for all Israelis. I write to you because in the last half a century, I’ve observed U.S. presidents try again and again to tackle the conflict and observed each, in turn, fail miserably.

Over the decades, several U.S. presidents concocted elaborate peace plans to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Scores of conferences and international peace conventions were organized by the U.S. and other major powers to resolve the conflict. Each and every one of them failed to achieve peace. Did they fail because peace in this part of the world is simply unattainable? Is the conflict simply too ingrained and complex for any world leader to have a chance at making a difference? No! The problem is that each U.S. president has been handling the issue along the same lines that didn’t work for the previous presidents.

I pray that you, President-elect Biden, will succeed in breaking away from the pack and making real strides toward peace where all your predecessors did not. In the next few paragraphs, I will point out some of their strategies that led to failure and suggest a fresh way to deal with the conflict that may produce real peace and reconciliation.

I urge you, Mr. Biden, to steer clear of summoning another peace convention—at least during the first year of your presidency. Rather than start with a convention, it would be much more effective to observe the daily facts on the ground in Israel and Palestine. Truly look at what is happening in the West Bank: the land confiscations, the home demolitions, the incarceration and torture of thousands of Palestinian youths, and the tightening of the noose around the Palestinian economy.

Start by asking Israel, which receives billions of dollars in U.S. military aid annually, to stop violating international laws that call for the protection of people under its military occupation. Start by asking the Israelis to end the 13-year-old blockade of Gaza and to stop building Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Call on Israeli leaders to release Palestinian political prisoners. If you use your influence with Israeli leaders to achieve these measures, this will create confidence-building measures that will encourage the antagonists of the peace table to negotiate peace.

Mr. Biden, please avoid the temptation of designing yet another peace plan that merely pays lip service to peace while ignoring the realities that are creating conflict and violence. Instead, seek to open channels of communication with the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah and Gaza and listen to them while you are listening to the Israelis. Let Palestinians share with you their vision of peace and reconciliation.

In the last four years, the president of the United States, his vicepresident, and his secretary of state made declarations in support of the State of Israel that are counter to long-standing U.S. positions on the Arab-Israeli conflict and counter to long-standing U.N. resolutions. Examples of this are the declaration by Mike Pompeo that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are legal. In addition, the Trump administration unilaterally declared the right of Israel to annex the Golan Heights. Such lopsided declarations that favor one side of the dispute deepen the conflict rather than resolve it. I urge you, Mr. Biden, to avoid such declarations. Instead, please heed international wisdom and existing international law. The U.S. cannot side with Israel and continue to assume that all 180 member nations of the U.N., who side with international law, are wrong.

Presidents who came before you hired extreme Zionists to manage the U.S. approach to Israel and Palestine. Many of these diplomats cared more to have a U.S. policy that favors the rightwing government of the State of Israel rather than achieve a just peace. President Donald Trump hired Jared Kushner, David Freidman and Jason Greenblatt to oversee his policies for Israel and Palestine. All three are right-wing supporters of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. How can anyone expect justice from such a combination of advisers? Their Deal of the Century was viewed as the cruelest joke of the century by Palestinians. I urge you, Mr. Biden, to employ diplomats who will pursue U.S. policies that lead to justice rather than unabashedly favoring one side of the divide against the legitimate aspirations of the other. As a relief from the outgoing administration, I urge you to place Palestinian-American experts on your Middle East policy team.

My people, who have suffered tremendously over the past 70 years and continue to suffer, are looking to you, Mr. Presidentelect, with the hope that you will be the president who finally manages to implement justice and only justice, to turn this ship around, and to usher in an era of true and lasting peace for Israel and Palestine.

Six Middle East Realities Biden Can’t Afford to Ignore

By Rami G. Khouri THE AVALANCHE of analyses of how President-elect Joe Biden will address the many Middle Eastern wars, confrontations and other issues, in which the U.S. is entangled, will remain entertaining speculation unless they do three things that every American government in the past half a century has failed to do: grasp the underlying (and worsening) realities on the ground in the Middle East, acknowledge their actual causes, and craft foreign policies that serve the U.S. itself, the people of the region and the wider cause of world peace and stability.

We hear often that Biden’s 40 years of foreign policy experience give him an edge over other American officials who try to navigate our region. Those 40 years are most useful for him if he looks back and tracks how and why the current conditions and trends across the Middle East have changed so much, even since Biden was vice president four years ago.

Rami G. Khouri is director of global engagement and senior public policy fellow at the American University of Beirut, and a non-resident senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School. Follow him on Twitter: @ramikhouri. This article originally appeared in The New Arab. Copyright ©2020 Rami G. Khouri, distributed by Agence Global.

Issues like Israel-Palestine, Iran, Turkey, Russia, aggressive Saudi-UAE policies, sectarian conflicts and other current realities are best dealt with on the understanding that they are mostly consequences of deeper drivers of change in the region.

An honest and comprehensive analysis of how the Middle East has reached its current violent condition would help interested policy-makers anywhere in the region or the world craft policies that actually make a difference in people’s lives. This is especially true of Middle Easterners whose thirst for dignity, development and stability remains largely unquenched—and widely ignored by Middle Eastern and foreign leaders alike.

Now that Biden is heading back to the White House, here is my six-point list of the most important and consistent drivers of Middle Eastern events in recent history. All six remain active dynamics, not historical issues. In chronological order, they are: 1. Uninterrupted foreign military intervention in the Middle East since Napoleon, two-and-a-quarter centuries ago, stokes both internal turmoil and popular anger against foreign powers. Such militarism has significantly increased since the end of the Cold War 30 years ago, and now includes regional militarism (most notably by Turkey, Iran, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Israel) alongside international powers like the U.S., Russia, France and the UK.

Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Palestine and Libya are showcases of the destruction and mass human suffering this causes, and this legacy continues and even expands these days. Replacing military action with diplomacy and economic development drives would be a sensible policy option across the board. 2. The Palestinian-Zionist and wider Arab-Israeli conflict has now entered its second century, and remains the most radicalizing and destabilizing political force within the Middle East. It helped trigger the advent of Arab military regimes in the 1940s to ’70s, all of which ravaged and bankrupted their own societies, cemented inefficient and repressive regimes, increased anti-western sentiments, and expanded regional conflicts, including new Iranian-Israeli-Arab tensions.

It is a serious element in citizens’ lack of respect for their rulers across many Arab lands, especially as a few Arab leaders decide to normalize relations with Israel while it continues its colonization of Arab lands. Resolving the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Zionist conflict equitably, according to the wishes and needs of the people of the region, rather than a handful of autocrats, is a major priority for anyone seeking to promote stability and dignity across the region for all its people. 3. The foreign militarism and Arab-Israeli conflict together generated a modern legacy of Arab authoritarian and autocratic regimes, all of which needed foreign support to survive. The cruel and incompetent regimes were also developmental failures that ravaged national economies and ultimately drove masses of the brightest Arab (and some Iranian, Turkish and even Israeli) men and women to emigrate. Middle Eastern autocracy must be removed if we wish to end our region's wars and despair. 4. Due to the three factors above, the Arab region's 440 million people today are mostly economically poor and vulnerable and politically marginalized and powerless. The steady pauperization of the Arab middle classes since the 1990s has aggravated all the current destructive trends, including sectarian and ethnic conflicts, mass civilian uprisings, and large-scale emigration, displacement and refugeehood of millions of desperate families.

It also hardens already vicious authoritarian regimes who reply to citizens' expressions of discontent and demand for rights with greater state violence, arrests and intimidation of peaceful protesters. 5. These trends have seen the Arab region and parts of Iran and Israel in recent years break out in sustained citizen protests against their increasingly autocratic leaderships.

The Arab region in particular has witnessed ongoing protests in a dozen countries since 2010; only Tunisia has transitioned to a pluralistic democracy and Sudan is in the midst of a delicate threeyear transition. Polling evidence confirms large-scale, chronic citizen discontent with state institutions such as parliaments, the media, and the executive and judicial branches. Citizens and their ruling governmental authorities are increasingly distant from each other, which makes some states more brittle. 6. The Arab countries and people suffer the ultimate indignity of being subjected to the forces mentioned above: some have started to unravel as sovereign states, in at least two key dimensions. First, many have lost control over most of their borders and lands such as in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Israeli-occupied Palestine, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraqi Kurdistan and southern Sudan, to mention only the most flagrant. As non-state actors take control of some autonomous regions beyond the control of the central government, foreign powers also wage war at will in the country, directly or through local proxies.

Second, they cannot make fully sovereign decisions related to their national security. Most Arab countries, for example, must get the approval of Israel to buy advanced American weapons. Some must get the approval of Iran, Turkey or Russia for their military or diplomatic moves. These and other examples represent a de-sovereignization of important dimensions of national life in Arab countries—probably a priority issue to grasp by anyone seeking engagement in the region.

So the Biden administration and other foreign powers who look at the turbulent Middle East would do well to pause for a moment from their focus on Iran's nuclear industry, terrorism, non-state militia expansions, refugee flows and other important realities, and instead try to grasp how we reached this situation, and how we can get out of it. This is all the more important because the six drivers I outlined above continue to devastate our countries, where conditions will worsen more due to the COVID-19 pandemic, low oil prices and economic stagnation. Biden’s Moral Hazard By Matthew Hoh

AFTER I RESIGNED from my position with the State Department in Afghanistan in 2009 due to that war’s escalation, I was asked to meet with the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB). One of the heads of the PIAB at the time wanted to know why the things I was saying about the Afghan war, echoed by military, diplomatic and intelligence officers he knew personally, were not being com-

municated officially to the president. The The lies to elected officials and the Amer- these wars reaches nearly 25,000. More simple answer was the honest answer: ican people continue. This month, Ambas- than 50,000 U.S. service-members have President Obama was being systemically sador James Jeffrey explained to journalists been wounded, with more than a half-millied to by the people advising him and run- how he intentionally lied to the President of lion veterans permanently disabled by trauning the war. the United States about the number of matic brain injury and an equal number suf-

Next month will mark a year since U.S. troops in Syria. In case you think this is fine fering from PTSD. Overseas, more than a newspapers published the Afghan Papers, because the president was Donald Trump, million people have died, tens of millions a mass trove of secret U.S. government remember it was the computers of Demo- have been made refugees, and entire nadocuments that irrefutably detailed a coor- cratic Senators who were hacked and mon- tions have been economically, environmendinated effort by the U.S. government, itored by the CIA in retaliation for the tally and psychologically devastated. The through three presidential administrations, Senate’s investigation of the CIA’s torture running financial cost of the wars is $6.4 trilto lie to the American people and their program. lion, to include almost $1 trillion in interest elected leaders, about the war in When the numbers of military contractors and debt payments, while every year the Afghanistan. Of course, these lies of the killed and the deaths by suicide of Afghan U.S. spends more than $1.2 trillion on its Afghan War followed the lies that made and Iraq veterans are included in the total, military and national security. possible the U.S. invasion and destruction the numbers of young Americans killed in As the Biden administration begins its of Iraq. The 2011 war in Libya transition, names are floated was another war built on lies, (Advertisement) in the media for potential cabas documented by the British inet and senior-level officials. Parliament. Slips of the tongue Any of the names included for and leaks by senior U.S. offi- positions at the Pentagon, cials, including the incoming Foggy Bottom or in the NaU.S. president, have shown tional Security Council are the U.S. and its allies’ role in those of men and women the Syrian war to be in support who have been essential to of al-Qaeda and the Islamic the last 20 bloody years of State. Lies, perjury and propa- catastrophe, chaos and conganda characterize what the fusion of American war policy. U.S. people have been told If someone walked into your with regards to torture; intelli- workplace with a resume catgence surveillance of their aloging two decades of phones and computers; the in- wasteful, counter-productive credibly high rate of civilians and malfeasant failures would killed by U.S. drones, including you hire them? Yet, from all inAmerican citizens; and the dications from the Biden tranpresence of U.S. forces in sition team, that seems to be Africa, including hiding knowl- exactly the plan. edge U.S. soldiers have been Playgrounds for Palestine is a project to build playgrounds for our Joe Biden has promised to killed and wounded in coun- children. It is a minimal recognition of their right to childhood and “be the most progressive tries that senior members of creative expression. It is an act of love. president in history.” If Biden Congress had no idea U.S. Playgrounds for Palestine (PfP) is a registered 501(c)3 non-profit is serious about that, then his troops were in. organization, established in 2001. We’re an all-volunteer organiza- progressivism must extend to tion (no paid staff) that raises money throughout the year to con- foreign and military policy and Matthew Hoh is a member of the advisory boards of Expose Facts, Veterans For Peace and World Beyond War. In 2009 he resigned struct playgrounds and fund programs for children in Palestine. Selling Organic, Fair Trade Palestinian olive must address the mistakes, follies and crimes of the last 20 years. Allowing those who his position with the State oil is PfP’s principle source of fundraising. consistently and intentionally Department in Afghanistan in is year, PfP launched AIDA, a private participated in the systemic protest of the escalation of the label olive oil from Palestinian farmers. lying that enabled these wars Afghan War by the Obama ad- Please come by and taste it at our table. means a Biden presidency ministration. He previously had been in Iraq with a State Department team and with the U.S. We hope you’ll love it and make it a staple in your pantry. begins burdened with moralfallacy and hazard, and only Marines. He is a senior fellow For more information or to make a donation visit: gives evidence the U.S. and with the Center for International https://playgroundsforpalestine.org • P.O. Box 559 • Yardley, PA 19067 the world are headed for Policy. more death and waste. ■

Special Report

Pompeo’s Settlement Visit Caps a Four-Year Effort to Destroy the Two-State Solution By Khaled Elgindy

PHOTO BY EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES Israeli winemaker Yaakov Berg holds a bottle of his red blend named after U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the Psagot Winery in the occupied West Bank north of Jerusalem on Nov. 18, 2020. The hashtag on the label,”#madeinlegality” rejects the EU’s ruling that he makes his wine on a land where Israelis don't belong. Berg’s estate and vineyard are located on land owned by the Quran family, Palestinians who have no access to it.

SECRETARY OF STATE Mike Pompeo made history, Nov. 18-20, by visiting two Israeli settlements; the Psagot Winery located on the outskirts of Ramallah in the heart of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, and the City of David located in the Palestinian neighborhood of Silwan just outside Jerusalem’s Old City, the first ever such visits by a sitting American secretary of state. The visits were clearly aimed at legitimizing and normalizing Israel’s settlement enterprise, which is considered illegal under international law, in keeping with the administration’s approach of the last three years.

Palestinian officials roundly condemned Pompeo’s visit, which they said “blatantly violates international law”—which of course is precisely the point. Since recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in December 2017, upending decades of U.S. policy and broad in-

Khaled Elgindy is director of the Program on Palestine and Palestinian-Israeli Affairs at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC and the author of Blind Spot: America and the Palestinians, from Balfour to Trump, available from Middle East Books and More. Reprinted with permission of Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, Inc. ©2020

ternational consensus, the Trump administration has worked assiduously to eliminate international norms, including the principle of the inadmissibility of acquiring territory through force, and destroy any last vestiges of a two-state solution.

Pompeo’s latest gesture, however, went further than anything we’ve seen thus far and may not be easily undone. Unless the incoming Biden administration is prepared to reaffirm the centrality of international law and Palestinian rights as firmly and as explicitly as Trump has sought to eviscerate them, all of which entail a political cost, Trump’s scorched earth policies could yet succeed.

Indeed, Pompeo’s settlement tour is yet another major gift to embattled Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who has been plagued by periodic protests, a looming corruption trial scheduled to start in early 2021, and the possibility of yet another election— Israel’s fourth in less than two years. Some have speculated that Pompeo may be laying the groundwork for his own presidential bid in 2024. Whatever his political ambitions, Pompeo’s gesture is consistent with other measures taken by the Trump administration, such as the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the State Department’s declaration a year ago that settlements would no longer be deemed illegal, all of which are designed to upend international norms, erase Palestinian rights and political aspirations, and consolidate Israel’s permanent control of all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

With the Psagot winery as a backdrop, Pompeo used the visit as an opportunity to announce even more radical shifts in U.S. policy. First, Pompeo announced that products originating from areas under the sole control of Israel, known as “Area C,” must henceforth be labelled as “Made in Israel,” including goods produced by Palestinians. In effect, this amounted to U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over all of Area C, which makes up some 60 percent of the West Bank.

At the same time, Pompeo doubled down on the administration’s stance that “anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism,” with the announcement that the U.S. government would blacklist organizations that engaged in or supported boycotts directed at either Israel or Israeli settlements. In other words, organizations—including human rights and humanitarian organizations—that choose to abide by the international legal requirement not to work with or legitimize Israeli settlements would be deemed “anti-Semitic” and denied U.S. funding.

As such, the visit also lays bare the true intent of Trump’s now obsolete “Peace to Prosperity” plan, which was never really about ending the conflict as much as about consecrating permanent Israeli occupation and the “Greater Israel” agenda to which Pompeo, U.S. ambassador to Israel David Friedman, and their fellow travelers in the administration are personally and ideologically devoted.

PHOTO BY PATRICK SEMANSKY/POOL/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (center-r) leaves following a security briefing on Mount Bental in the Israeli-annexed Golan Heights, near Merom Golan on the border with Syria, on Nov. 19, 2020. Pompeo became the first top American diplomat to visit a West Bank Jewish settlement and the Golan Heights, cementing Donald Trump’s strongly pro-Israel legacy.

And this may not necessarily be the end. Given the administration’s ideological commitment to Greater Israel as well as its own denial about the results of the presidential election, the administration may have more surprises to deliver before leaving office in January. Indeed, we have already seen a major uptick in Israeli demolitions, evictions, settlement announcements and other “facts on the ground” since November 3, as Netanyahu and his allies in the settler movement seek to capitalize on Trump’s remaining time in office.

On Nov. 15, Israel’s Ministry of Housing and Israel Land Authority opened the bidding process for 1,257 housing units in Givat HaMatos, a new Israeli settlement strategically located between Bethlehem and Palestinian East Jerusalem. Givat HaMatos, which some have labelled a “doomsday” settlement for its lethal effect on the prospect of a viable, contiguous Palestinian state, would permanently sever the Palestinian neighborhood of Beit Safafa from the rest of East Jerusalem, as well as prevent contiguity between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

Less than two weeks earlier, on the day of the U.S. election, the Israeli army demolished the Palestinian community of Khirbet Humsa in the Jordan Valley, leaving 73 people, including 41 children, homeless, in what U.N. officials described as “the largest forced displacement incident in over four years.”

As a lame-duck president with little to lose, Trump may bestow even greater gifts on the embattled Israeli prime minister and his allies in the settler movement. Netanyahu is said to be pushing the U.S. administration to greenlight yet another “doomsday” settlement, known as Atarot, located between Ramallah and Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Moreover, having already secured effective U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over most of the West Bank, it is not inconceivable that formal Israeli annexation of parts of the occupied territories would be back on the table at some point before January 20.

President-elect Joe Biden has not commented on the latest moves by the Trump administration—and is unlikely to do so given the tradition of one president at a time. However, Biden has previously said he would reverse most of Trump’s policies that conflict with the goal of two states and established international norms,including, mostly likely, by reinstating pre-Trump U.S. policies.

Therein lies the problem. Even before Trump’s arrival, U.S. policy toward Jerusalem, settlements, and other core issues of the conflict had already been severely eroded by previous U.S. administrations. Simply reinstating an ambiguous or ambivalent status quo ante is unlikely to be enough to salvage a two-state solution.

To effectively counteract Trump’s embrace of Israeli maximalism, Biden will need to be as explicit in reaffirming international norms, including the illegality of Israeli settlements, and the legitimacy of Palestinian political aspirations and rights as the Trump administration has been in eviscerating them. This could entail a political cost for Biden, as many members of his own political party are on board with aspects of Trump policy, such as the conflating of Israeli settlements with Israel and criminalizing boycotts of Israel.

Meanwhile, recent decisions by the Palestinian Authority to resume security coordination with Israel and reform its policy of making payments to the families of Palestinians killed or imprisoned by Israel— both seen as gestures to the incoming Biden administration—could also inadvertently play into Trump and Netanyahu’s hands. The fact that the PA has made these gestures several months before Biden even takes office will further reduce the incentives for Biden to make the difficult choices that a genuine two-state solution requires. In which case, Trump and Pompeo’s attempts to destroy what is left of a two-state solution could yet succeed. ■

History’s Shadows

LBJ Tops Trump in History’s Recount By Walter L. Hixson

ONCE AGAIN Donald J. Trump has finished in second place to a Democrat.

I’m not talking about the 2020 presidential election—rather I’m referring to my ranking of American presidents who have done the most to appease Israel since the creation of the Zionist state in 1948. In my judgment, Trump, though merely a one-term president, is the second most pro-Israel chief executive in American history.

In this “ballot” of history, Trump loses not to Joe Biden but to another Democrat—Lyndon Baines Johnson. Beginning with his youth in Texas, Johnson nurtured a religious affinity for the biblical Israel. In 1956-57, after entering politics and advancing to the post of Senate majority leader, Johnson came to the defense of Israel as the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower threatened sanctions over Israel’s refusal to withdraw from Egypt, which it had invaded, together with Britain and France, in the Sinai War. As president in the 1960s, Johnson abandoned U.S. efforts to stymie the Israeli

PHOTO COURTESY LBJ LIBRARY PHOTO BY FRANK WOLFE

(L-r) Lady Bird Johnson, Arthur, Mathilde, their daughter Daphna Krim and President L.B. Johnson. The Krims had a bedroom in the White House and exerted their influence on American policy during the 1967 war. Donald Neff wrote that Krim’s influence on the president “left himself more open to a passionately partisan voice than was prudent or even healthy during the accelerating crisis.”

nuclear weapons program, enabling Israel to introduce weapons of mass destruction into the Middle East in direct violation of its promises and the U.S.-sponsored global Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968.

Johnson failed to head off Israeli aggression in the June 1967 war, during which he remained mute about the savage Israeli assault

on the unarmed American spy ship, the USSLiberty, which killed 34 American sailors and wounded 174 others. LBJ capped off his appeasement policies by failing to force the Israelis out of the illegally occupied territories in the wake of the Six-Day War. Johnson thus enabled the prolonged

occupation, repression and Zionist refusal to negotiate a just peace. Instead, Johnson rewarded Israeli aggression with massive military assistance, including the sale of supersonic Phantom jets.

While Johnson is safely ensconced as the preeminent enabler of Israeli aggression, Trump, in just four years, did enough damage to rank second on my list. Trump cut off aid to the Palestinians, recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s “eternal capital,” recognized Israel’s illegal annexation of the Golan Heights while declaring that the United States also no longer considered West Bank settlements to be illegal, which they clearly are under international law. Trump’s

History’s Shadows, a regular column by contributing editor Walter L. Hixson, seeks to place various aspects of Middle East politics and diplomacy in historical perspective. Hixson is the author of Israel’s Armor: The Israel Lobby and the First Generation of the Palestine Conflict (available from Middle East Books and More), along with several other books and journal articles. He has been a professor of history for 36 years, achieving the rank of distinguished professor.

farcical “deal of the century” peace plan entailed ramping up political and military support for Arab regimes—the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Sudan—in return for their recognition of Israel.Trump withdrew the United States from a multilateral agreement to contain the Iranian nuclear program, as it joined Israel and the Israel lobby in the demonization of Iran that complemented the racist disdain

FROM THE BOTTOM UP

Flippingourapproachfromthetopdownto the bottom up, Eisenhower ranks as the president most willing to confront Israel’s aggressionintheMiddleEast,althoughhe, like all the chief executives, was frustrated in the effort by Israel and the increasingly powerful Zionist lobby. The next “least-appeasing”presidentwasGeorgeH.W.Bush, whotriedtobringahalttoillegalIsraelisettlementsandsecureaviablepeaceaccord. ThefirstBush’spublicconfrontationwiththe Israellobbycontributedtohisfailedreelection bid in 1992. Third from the bottom is Jimmy Carter, who sympathized with the Palestiniansandlaboredforacomprehensive Middle East peace, but ultimately acquiesced to Menachem Begin’s intransigence and the machinations of the lobby.

Like Carter, Barack Obama offered rhetorical support for Palestine and a twostatesolution,butultimatelysuccumbedto Israel and the lobby. Obama overcame intense opposition to achieve the Iran nuclearagreementand,attheendofhistwoterm presidency, declined to veto a U.N. Security Council condemnation of Israel’s illegal settlements. On the other hand, he perpetuated massive military assistancetotherepressiveZionist state. Although only a care-

RANKING OF PRESIDENTIAL APPEASEMENT OF ISRAEL

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Lyndon B. Johnson Donald J. Trump George W. Bush Ronald W. Reagan Richard M. Nixon Harry S. Truman William J. Clinton John F. Kennedy Gerald R. Ford Barack H. Obama James E. Carter George H.W. Bush Dwight D. Eisenhower

refugees and strove to contain the Israeli nuclear program, but by the end of his abortive presidency he had failed at both andhadalsocavedtothelobby.Nixon,together with Henry A. Kissinger, undermined the U.N. -brokered Middle East peaceplan(Resolution242),leadingtothe 1973WarandmassiveU.S.militaryassistance to Israel.

Just above Nixon in the appeasement rankings is Ronald Reagan, who stood up

(Advertisement) tothelobbywhenhewantedtosellAWACS to Saudi Arabia in 1981, but spent the rest of his two terms enabling massive illegal Jewishsettlementoftheoccupiedterritories. Inthe1990s,Clintonsoughtatwo-statesolution, which led him however to preside over the disastrous Oslo process and then, inanefforttosavetheprimeministershipof Ehud Barak, to blame the Palestinians for its failure.

The final president on our list—the third most appeasing president—was George W. Bush, who worked closely with the war criminal and Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharoninenablingthebrutalrepressionof theSecondIntifadaaswellasongoingsettlement construction and massive military assistance to Israel. “W” learned from his father’s experience that any effort to confront Israel would exact a political price, hencehegavethemurderousSharonand the Israel lobby a free rein.

President-electJoeBiden’strackrecord offers little hope that he will threaten to unseat Eisenhower or the first Bush president to be among the few presidents willing,evenoccasionally,tostanduptoIsraeli aggression and its routine violations of international law. A middle of the list approach may be the most we can reasonably expect from the Biden-Harris team. ■

taker president in the wake of Richard Nixon’s resignation in 1974, Gerald Ford confronted the Israel lobby over its stonewalling of peace efforts, but he too was forced to back down in the end.

In the middle of our list we find Presidents Harry S.

Palestinian Medical Relief Society, a grassroots community-baseddPalestinian health organization, founded in 1979 by Palestinian doctors, needs your support today. Visit www.pmrs.ps

Truman, John F. Kennedy, Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Visit our Website <friendsofpmrs.org> to see our work in action and donate.

Clinton. Truman, who shared Johnson’s religious affinity for Israel, recognized the Zionist state in 1948 and tilted U.S. support against the Palestinians. Kennedy tried to achieve an accord on the Nakba

Mail your U.S. Tax-Deductible check to our American Foundation:

Friends of PMRS, Inc PO Box 450554 • Atlanta, GA 31145

For more information call: (404) 441-2702 or e-mail: fabuakel@gmail.com

Israel and Judaism

2020 Election Shows Growing Split Between American Jews and Israel By Allan C. Brownfeld

ALTHOUGH PRESIDENT Donald Trump repeatedly proclaimed himself “Israel’s best friend” ever in American history, and pursued a series of policies in line with Israel’s right wing, such as moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, his efforts to attract Jewish voters failed dramatically.

According to exit polling, Trump received only 21 percent of the Jewish vote to Joe Biden’s 77 percent. Only 5 percent of Jewish voters listed Israel as one of their two most important issues, down from 9 percent in 2016. Top voting priorities for Jewish voters were the coronavirus pandemic (54 percent), climate change (26 percent), healthcare (25 percent), and the economy (23 percent). Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street, declared that, “Jewish voters have just totally repudiated Donald Trump and a Republican Party that has catered to the most far-right xenophobic elements of the country.”

Israelis, on the other hand, favored Trump over Joe Biden by 77 to 23 in one recent survey. Chemi Shalev of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz writes that, “Israeli Jews have a blind worship of Donald Trump.” Discussing the growing divide between American Jews and Israel, Eric R. Mandel, director of the Middle East Political Information Network, writes in the Oct. 30-Nov. 5 edition of the International Jerusalem Post: “A recent poll of Israeli and American Jews regarding whom they favor in the American presidential election revealed results that were polar opposites. The overwhelming majority of Israelis favor the re-election of President Donald Trump...crediting him with moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, putting consequences on the Palestinian Authority’s incentifying of terrorist activity, and for the first time laid down a peace plan that prioritized Israeli security interests, while creating the diplomatic work for Israel’s first peace treaties with Arab nations in a generation.”

On the other hand, writes Mandel, “American Jews overwhelmingly favor the defeat of Trump, prioritizing domestic progressive or liberal concerns over Israeli security concerns. It is no surprise there is a profound difference between the two largest Jewish communities’ perspectives....American Jews have a much more universalistic perspective, identifying Judaism more as a religion they have or had, and are uncomfortable with the survival issues of the Jewish state. This has led too many to not only criticize Israel but join with boycotters and delegitimizers who share their progressive values.”

Allan C. Brownfeld is a syndicated columnist and associate editor of the Lincoln Review, a journal published by the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, and editor of Issues, the quarterly journal of the American Council for Judaism.

The division between American Jews and Israel has been growing steadily for many years. In his book Trouble in the Tribe: The American Jewish Conflict Over Israel, Prof. Dov Waxman of Northeastern University writes: “A historic change has been taking place in the American Jewish relationship with Israel. Israel is fast becoming a source of division rather than unity for American Jewry...A new era of American Jewish conflict over Israel is replacing the old era of solidarity...This echoes earlier debates about Zionism that occurred before 1948. Then, as now, there were fierce disagreements among American Jews and the American Jewish establishment...It was only after Israel’s founding that the communal consensus came to dominate American Jewish politics. Thus, from a historical perspective, the pro-Israel consensus that once reigned within the American Jewish community is the aberration, rather than the rule. Jewish division on Israel is historically the norm.”

Beyond this, in Waxman’s view, the overwhelming majority of American Jews, while wishing Israel well, were never really Zionists. He writes: “Classical Zionism has never had much relevance or appeal to American Jewry. Indeed, the vast majority of American Jews reject the basic elements of classical Zionism—that Diaspora Jews live in exile, that Jewish life in Israel is superior to life in the Diaspora, and that Diaspora Jewish life is doomed to eventually disappear. American Jews do not think that they live in exile and they do not regard Israel as their homeland...for many American Jews, America is more than just a home, it is itself a kind of Zion, an ‘almost promised land.’ Zionism has never succeeded in winning over the majority of American Jews.”

In recent years, sympathy for Zionism among American Jews has been in steady decline. A study by social scientists Ari Kelman and Steven M. Cohen found that among American Jews, each new generation is more alienated from Israel than the one before. Among American Jews born after 1980, only 54 percent feel “comfortable with the idea of a Jewish state.” The reason, Cohen asserted, is an aversion to “hard group boundaries” and the notion that “there is a distinction between Jews and anybody else.” Other polls show that among younger non-Orthodox Jews only 30 percent think that “caring about Israel is essential to being Jewish.” Slowly, it has become increasingly clear to American Jews that Israel does not share their values of religious freedom, separation of religion and state, and a citizenship that does not differentiate between people on the basis of race, religion and ethnic origin.

After the elections, commentator Philip Weiss argues that, “Israel will never be a bipartisan issue again because Jews are divided.” He points out that, “This [election] cycle has seen the rise of a young

progressive Jewish camp on the left. J Street’s survey of Jewish voters shows that more than one in five Jewish voters under 40 support boycotting Israel...The two organizations that represent Israel-critical Jews, Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow both back up Israel’s biggest critics in the House...IfNotNow is rallying its following in defense of Raphael Warnock, one of two Democratic Senate candidates in Georgia, from smearing over the fact that he criticized Israel for human rights abuses from the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church. IfNotNow is also trying to discredit AIPAC over its acceptance of Trump—‘AIPAC belongs in the dustbin of history, along with Trump.’”

There is much speculation about how all of this will affect the Biden administration’s approach to Israel. Michael Koplow of the Israel Policy Forum believes that, “Not every single thing that President Trump has done in Israel is going to automatically be something that is opposed by the Biden administration.” But Biden’s election revisits the relationship between the U.S. and Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu and Joe Biden have a long history, not all of it good. When the Obama administration entered into a nuclear agreement with Iran, Netanyahu went around the White House and encouraged opposition to the deal in Congress and among the American public. He was widely criticized for interfering in American politics.

Former U.S. ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, now a Middle East specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations says, “They [Netanyahu and Biden] have two very different approaches and Bibi is going to oppose him [over Iran]. That is going to come up early on, and clearly that is going to determine the relationship far more than the question of how to deal with Bibi when he calls every other day and demands that the United States do this or that, which is what he does—very needy.”

Biden has said he intends to rejoin the nuclear deal, conditioned on Iran’s compliance with its terms. The Washington Post reports that Biden is “likely to confront Netanyahu over Jewish settlements on land Palestinians claim for a future state, a sore spot from the beginning of the Obama administration. Biden is also expected to reverse Trump policies seen as punitive, such as a cutoff of humanitarian aid in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. He is likely to try to reopen the Palestinian consulate in Washington...and to re-establish ties with the Palestinian government in the West Bank.” The history of relations between Biden

Biden will have on his foreign policy team Obama veterans who feel burned by their failures to get a deal

and Netanyahu is clearly mixed. On March 9, 2010, Michael Oren, then Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., was in Netanyahu’s motorcade pulling into an underground garage of Jerusalem’s David Citadel Hotel, en route to meet Biden. His American counterpart, Daniel Shapiro, rushed toward him with the news that Israeli officials had approved 1,600 new housing units in an ultraOrthodox settlement in East Jerusalem against U.S. wishes. Biden considered leaving immediately and kept Netanyahu waiting for more than an hour while the Americans prepared a response.

In fact, shortly after Biden’s victory, Israel announced a rush of controversial settlement plans, including building 1,257 homes at the Givat Hamatos settlement outside Jerusalem.

Netanyahu also remains angry at the Obama administration’s decision to allow a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements to pass in December 2016. In the past, the U.S. vetoed such resolutions. How Joe Biden will proceed in the Middle East is not clear. But there is no indication that Netanyahu will have the free hand in Washington he has had with Trump. In a feature article about Biden’s new chief of staff, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency said of Ron Klain, who is Jewish, that, “Middle East policy is not Klain’s area of expertise, but when he weighs in he usually criticizes the conservative Israeli prime minister.”

Ron Kampeas, writing in theWashington Jewish Week provides this assessment: “Biden will reinstitute the emphasis on the two-state outcome as an endgame, but don’t expect a major push for peace from his White House. Biden will have on his foreign policy team plenty of Obama veterans and they feel burned by their two failures (2010-2011 and 2013-2014) to get a deal. The sense on Biden’s foreign policy team is that peace has to be organic, and must be initiated by the Israelis and Palestinians...During the primaries, some Democratic candidates spoke of conditioning defense aid to Israel on its behavior. Biden repeatedly rejected that proposal outright. He intervened to keep the word ‘occupation’ out of the Democratic platform...Biden has said that he will reestablish the diplomatic ties with the Palestinians that Trump ended...Biden has also said he would resume the assistance to the Palestinians that Trump cut off.”

WhichdirectionU.S.MiddleEastpolicy willtakeinaBidenadministrationis,of course,notpossibletoknow.Whatdoes seemclear,however,isthatgroupssuch asAIPACareunlikelyeveragaintohave vetopoweroversuchpolicy.Thebasisfor theirinfluencewaslargelythemyththatit andlike-mindedgroupsspokeforAmericanJews.Thiswasnevertrue,butthe growingdivisioninAmericanJewishopinionrevealedinthe2020electionmakes thisclearforalltosee.Hopefully,theBiden administrationwillnotfailtoseetheinherentproblemwithpursuingracialequalityat homeandembracingIsrael’spolicyofinequalitywithregardtobothitsPalestinian citizensandthoseintheoccupiedterritories.Now,effortstoachieveagenuine MiddleEastpeaceandaPalestinianstate haveagrowingJewishconstituency,asthe electionresultsshowus.Thisconstituency islikelytogrowdramaticallyasdemographicchangealtersthenatureofthe Jewishcommunity,anewrealitythatisyet tobewidelyunderstoodbymany. ■

From the Diaspora

As Israel Destroys EU Projects in Palestine, Europe Remains Impotent By Ramzy Baroud

PHOTO BY AHMAD GHARABLI/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES Israel demolished a number of Palestinian homes it considered illegally constructed in the Sur Baher area of East Jerusalem in the occupied West Bank on July 22, 2019, in a move that drew international condemnation.

BELGIUM IS FURIOUS. On Nov. 6, the Belgian government condemned Israel’s destruction of Belgian-funded homes in the occupied Palestinian West Bank. Understandably, Brussels wants the Israeli government to pay compensation for the unwarranted destruction. The Israeli response was swift: a resounding “no.”

The diplomatic row is likely to fizzle out soon; neither will Israel cease its illegal demolitions of Palestinian homes and structures in the West Bank nor will Belgium, or any other EU country, receive a dime from Tel Aviv.

Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of palestine Chronicle. His latest book is these Chains Will be broken: palestinian stories of struggle and defiance in israeli prisons(available from AET’s Middle East Books and More). Dr. Baroud is a non-resident senior research fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA) and also at the Afro-Middle East Center (AMEC). His website is <www.ramzybaroud.net>.

Welcome to the bizarre world of European foreign policy in Palestine and Israel. The EU still champions a two-state solution and advocates international law regarding the legality of the Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian territories. To make that possible, the EU has, for nearly four decades, funded Palestinian infrastructure as part of a state-building scheme. It is common knowledge that Israel rejects international law, the two-state solution, and any kind of outside “pressure” regarding its military occupation.

To back its position with action, Israel has been actively and systematically destroying EU-funded projects in Palestine. In doing so, it aims to send a message to the Europeans that their role in supporting the Palestinian quest for statehood is vehemently rejected. Indeed, in 2019 alone, 204 Palestinian structures were demolished just in occupied East Jerusalem, according to the Euro-Med Monitor. Included in this destruction —in addition to similar demolition in the West Bank Area C—are 127 structures that were funded mostly by EU member states.

Yet, despite the fact that Israel has been on a collision course with the EU for years, Europe remains Israel’s number one trade partner. Worse, Europe is one of Israel’s largest weapons suppliers and also a main market for Israel’s own weapons—often touted for being “combat-proven,” as in successfully used against Palestinians.

THE CONTRADICTION DOES NOT END HERE

In November 2019, the European Court of Justice ruled that EU countries must identify on their labels the specific products that are made in illegal Jewish settlements, a decision that was seen as an important first step to hold Israel accountable for its occupation. Yet, bizarrely, European activists who promote the boycott of Israeli products are often tried and indicted in European courts, based on the flimsy claim that such boycotts fall into the category of “anti-Semitism.” France, Germany and others have repeatedly utilized their judicial system to criminalize the legitimate boycott of the Israeli occupation.

And here, again, European contradictions and confused policies are evident with total clarity. Indeed, last September, Germany, France, Belgium and other EU members spoke firmly at the United Nations against Israel’s policy of demolition, which largely targeted EU-funded infrastructure. In their statement, the EU countries noted that “the period from March to August 2020 saw the highest average destruction rate in four years.”

Because of the absence of any meaningful European action on the Palestinian front, Israel no longer finds the European position, however rhetorically strong, worrisome. Just consider the defensible Belgian position on the destruction of Palestinian homes that were funded by the Belgian government in the village of Al-Rakeez, near Hebron (Al-Khalil).

“This essential infrastructure was built with Belgian funding, as part of humanitarian aid implemented by the West Bank Protection Consortium. Our country asks Israel for compensation or restitution for these destructions,” the Belgian foreign ministry said in a statement on Nov. 6.

Now, marvel at the Israeli response, as communicated in a statement issued by Israel’s foreign ministry. “Donor states should utilize their tax payer's (sic) money towards the funding of legal constructions and projects in territories that are controlled by Israel, and make sure those are planned and executed in accordance with the law and in coordination with the relevant Israeli authorities.”

But are Europeans violating any law by helping the Palestinians build schools, hospitals and homes in the Occupied Territories? And what “law” is Israel following when it is systematically destroying hundreds of EU-funded Palestinian structures?

Needless to say, the EU support for Palestinians is consistent with international law that recognizes the responsibility of all U.N. member states in helping an occupied nation achieve its independence. It is, rather, Israel that stands in violation of numerous U.N. resolutions, which have repeatedly demanded an immediate halt to Israel’s illegal settlement activities, home demolition and military occupation altogether.

Israel, however, has never been held accountable for its obligations under international law. So, when the Israeli foreign ministry speaks of “law,” it refers only to the unwarranted decisions made by the Israeli government and Knesset (parliament), such as the decision to illegally annex nearly a third of the West Bank, a massive Area C—where most of the destruction is taking place.

Israel considers that, by funding Palestinian projects in Area C, the EU is deliberately attempting to thwart Israel’s annexation plans in this region. The Israeli message to Europe is very clear: cease and desist, or the demolition will go on. Israeli arrogance has reached the point that, according to Euro-Med Monitor, in September 2014, Israel destroyed a Belgianfunded electrification project in the village of Khirbet Al Tawil, even though the project was, in fact, installed in coordination with Israel’s civil administration in the area.

Alas, despite the occasional protest, EU members are getting the message. The

total number of internationally-funded projects in Area C for 2019 has shrunk to 12, several folds lower than previous years. Projects for 2020 are likely to be even lower.

The EU may continue to condemn and protest the Israeli destruction. However, angry statements and demands for compensation will fall on deaf Israeli ears if not backed by action.

The EU has much leverage over Israel. Not only is it refusing to leverage its high

trade numbers and military hardware, but it

is also punishing European civil society organizations for daring to challenge Israel. The problem, then, is not typical Israeli obstinacy alone but Europe’s own foreign policy miscalculation—if not an all-out failswath of Palestinian land that is located in ure—as well. ■ (Advertisement)

oject ofr P A P A Alliances en’Middle East Childr

United Nations Report

The Riddle of the Sands and the Sound of Silence By Ian Williams

A group of Sahrawi demonstrators wearing face masks hold flags and placards in Malaga, Spain on Nov. 28, during a protest in support of the self-determination of Western Sahara. On Nov. 13 the Polisario Front declared war against Morocco after the Moroccan government broke the peace truce with Western Sahara.

PALESTINIANS AND THEIR FRIENDS have every reason to lament the sound of silence about the Palestinians, but even noise about them is not necessarily that productive. The “Annual Resolution Fest” has just finished with the General Assembly passing the “traditional” resolutions on Palestine and the even more often overlooked Golan Heights.

As always, it is geopolitically instructive to see who votes with the U.S. and Israel and thus against international law and previous U.N. decisions which their countries had originally supported. Even the abstentions are significant in their way, since in this context they usually mean “We agree with the resolution but we don’t want or don’t dare, annoy Israel and its big brother in Washington.” But lest we get too scornful of smaller weaker powers who bow to bullying, just remember that many U.S. congress people take a similar attitude when AIPAC’s lobbyists come calling!

It is a source of wry amusement and consolation for the Palestinians that the tiny cabal of states, which actually side with Israel are, well...tiny, either in size or moral standing in the world. The assorted Israeli-allied atolls of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Nauru are U.N. correspondent Ian Williams is the author of UNtold: the Real Story of the United Nations in Peace and War (available from Middle East Books and More).

totally dependent on foreign aid, but this year they were not even joined by Palau, whose recent votes for Israel have always been a shocking fall from grace.

The U.S. denied Palau, a former U.S. “strategic trust territory,” even nominal sovereignty for ten years for its principled refusal to come under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. The Pacific Islands, all threatened by climate change and sea level rise are happy to vote with Trump, the president who denies them.

So it is perhaps not surprising that the other Trumpista states backing Israel form an “Axis of Intolerance” to immigrants and their own indigenous peoples: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Czechia, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary and Malawi whose tolerance for apartheid was always outstanding for an African country.

Since 2004, Canada has been the epitome of unprincipled invertebracy and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau continued the floppy spinelessness of Stephen Harper’s regime under pressure from its vociferous domestic Israel lobby. Although its official positions agree with the U.N. resolutions on issues like the illegality of settlements and the wall, its weaselly excuse was that the resolutions were “one-sided” and directed disproportionately at Israel. This lobby-engendered trope of “whataboutery” completely evades the actual irrefutable Israeli violation of international law by implying that it’s rude and repetitive to