Indigenous peoples’ global fight with big business

June 16, 2009

As mining and oil firms race for dwindling resources, indigenous peoples battle to protect their land, and often pay the ultimate price

Taipi Times,

By John Vidal | THE GUARDIAN, LONDON
Monday, Jun 15, 2009, Page 9

It has been called the world’s second “oil war,” but the only similarity between Iraq and events in the jungles of northern Peru over the last few weeks has been the mismatch of force. On one side have been the police armed with automatic weapons, tear gas, helicopter gunships and armored cars. On the other are several thousand Awajun and Wambis natives, many of them in war paint and armed with bows and arrows and spears.

In some of the worst violence seen in Peru in 20 years, the natives this week warned Latin America what could happen if companies are given free access to the Amazonian forests to exploit an estimated 6 billion barrels of oil and take as much timber they like. After months of peaceful protests, the police were ordered to use force to remove a road bock near Bagua Grande.

In the fights that followed, nine police officers and at least 50 Indians were killed, with hundreds more wounded or arrested. The indigenous rights group Survival International described it as “Peru’s Tiananmen Square.”

Continued >>

Agent Orange Continues to Poison Vietnam

June 16, 2009

by Marjorie Cohn | CommonDreams.org, June 14, 2009

From 1961 to 1971, the U.S. military sprayed Vietnam with Agent Orange, which contained large quantities of Dioxin, in order to defoliate the trees for military objectives. Dioxin is one of the most dangerous chemicals known to man. It has been recognized by the World Health Organization as a carcinogen (causes cancer) and by the American Academy of Medicine as a teratogen (causes birth defects).

Between 2.5 and 4.8 million people were exposed to Agent Orange. 1.4 billion hectares of land and forest – approximately 12 percent of the land area of Vietnam – were sprayed.

The Vietnamese who were exposed to the chemical have suffered from cancer, liver damage, pulmonary and heart diseases, defects to reproductive capacity, and skin and nervous disorders. Children and grandchildren of those exposed have severe physical deformities, mental and physical disabilities, diseases, and shortened life spans. The forests and jungles in large parts of southern Vietnam have been devastated and denuded. They may never grow back and if they do, it will take 50 to 200 years to regenerate. Animals that inhabited the forests and jungles have become extinct, disrupting the communities that depended on them. The rivers and underground water in some areas have also been contaminated. Erosion and desertification will change the environment, contributing to the warming of the planet and dislocation of crop and animal life.

The U.S. government and the chemical companies knew that Agent Orange, when produced rapidly at high temperatures, would contain large quantities of Dioxin. Nevertheless, the chemical companies continued to produce it in this manner. The U.S. government and the chemical companies also knew that the Bionetics Study, commissioned by the government in 1963, showed that even low levels of Dioxin produced significant deformities in unborn offspring of laboratory animals. But they suppressed that study and continued to spray Vietnam with Agent Orange. It wasn’t until the study was leaked in 1969 that the spraying of Agent Orange was discontinued.

U.S. soldiers who served in Vietnam have experienced similar illnesses. After they sued the chemical companies, including Dow and Monsanto, that manufactured and sold Agent Orange to the government, the case settled out of court for $180 million which gave few plaintiffs more than a few thousand dollars each. Later the U.S. veterans won a legislative victory for compensation for exposure to Agent Orange. They receive $1.52 billion per year in benefits.

But when the Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange sued the chemical companies in federal court, U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein dismissed the lawsuit, concluding that Agent Orange did not constitute a poison weapon prohibited by the Hague Convention of 1907. Weinstein had reportedly told the chemical companies when they settled the U.S. veterans’ suit that their liability was over and he was making good on his promise. His dismissal was affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The chemical companies admitted in their filing in the Supreme Court that the harm alleged by the victims was foreseeable although not intended. How can something that is foreseeable be unintended?

On May 15 and 16 of this year, the International Peoples’ Tribunal of Conscience in Support of the Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange convened in Paris and heard testimony from 27 victims, witnesses and scientific experts. Seven people from three continents served as judges of the Tribunal, which was sponsored by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL).

Testimony given by the witnesses showed the following:

Mai Giang Vu, a member of the Army of South Vietnam, carried barrels of the chemicals on his back. His two sons could not walk or function normally, their limbs gradually “curled up” and they could only crawl. They died at the ages of 23 and 25.

Pham The Minh, whose parents also served in the South Vietnamese Army, showed the Tribunal his severely deformed, crooked, skinny legs; he has great difficulty walking, as well as digestive and pulmonary diseases.

To Nga Tran is a French Vietnamese who worked as a journalist during the spraying. Her daughter weighed 6.6 pounds at the age of three months. Her skin began shredding and she could not bear to have skin contact or simple demonstrations of love. She died at 17 months, weighing 6.6 pounds. Ms. To described a woman who gave birth to a “ball” with no human form. Many children are born without brains; others make inhuman sounds.

Rosemarie Hohn Mizo is the widow of George Mizo, who served in the U.S. Army in Vietnam in 1967. He slept on contaminated ground and consumed food and drink that were also contaminated. George refused to serve after he was wounded for the third time; he was court-martialed and sentenced to 2-1/2 years in prison and a dishonorable discharge. George helped found the Friendship Village where Vietnamese victims live in a supportive environment. He died from conditions related to his exposure to Agent Orange.

Georges Doussin, co-founder of the Friendship Village, visited a dormitory where he saw 50 highly deformed “monsters,” who produced inhuman sounds. One man whose parent had been exposed to Agent Orange had four toes on each foot. Doussin said Agent Orange creates “total anarchy in evolution.”

Dr. Nguyen Thi Ngoc Phuong, from Tu Du Hospital in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon), sees many children born without arms and/or legs, without heads or faces, and without a brain chamber. According to the World Health Organization, only 1 – 4 parts per trillion (PPT) of Dioxin in breast milk can cause severe deformities in fetuses and even death. But up to 1450 PPT are found in maternal milk in Vietnam.

Dr. Jeanne Stellman, who wrote the seminal article about Agent Orange in the magazine Nature, testified that “this is the largest unstudied environmental disaster in the world (except for natural disasters).”

Dr. Jean Grassman, from Brooklyn College at City University of New York, testified that Dioxin is a potent cellular disregulator which alters a variety of pathways to disrupt many systems. Children, she said, are very sensitive to Dioxin; the intrauterine or post natal exposure to Dioxin may result in altered immune, neurobehavioral, and hormonal functioning. Women pass their exposure to their children both in utero and through the excretion of Dioxin in breast milk.

Many ecosystems have been destroyed and Dioxin continues to poison Vietnam, especially in the several “hot spots.”

Chemist Dr. Pierre Vermeulin testified that it was estimated that $1 billion would be required to restore one hectare of land in Vietnam. The cost of caring for the victims, many of whom need 24-hour care, is enormous.

In 1973, President Richard Nixon promised $3.25 billion in reconstruction aid to Vietnam “without any preconditions.” That aid was never granted.

There are only 11 Friendship Villages in Vietnam; 1000 are needed to care for the child victims of Agent Orange.

Last week, the Bureau of the IADL, meeting in Hanoi, presented President Nguyen Minh Triet of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam with the final decision of the Tribunal. The judges found the U.S. government and the chemical companies guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ecocide during the illegal U.S. war of aggression in Vietnam. We recommended that the Agent Orange Commission be established in Vietnam to assess the damages suffered by the people and destruction of the environment, and that the U.S. government and the chemical companies provide compensation for the damage and destruction.

I told the President that it always struck me that even as U.S. bombs were dropping on the people of Vietnam, they always distinguished between the American government and the American people. The President responded, “We fought the forces of aggression but we always reserved our love for the people of America . . . because we knew they always supported us.”

An estimated 3 million Vietnamese people were killed in the war, which also claimed 58,000 American lives. For many other Vietnamese and U.S. veterans and their families, the war continues to take its toll.

Several treaties the United States has ratified require an effective remedy for violations of human rights. It is time to make good on Nixon’s promise and remedy the terrible wrong the U.S. government perpetrated on the people of Vietnam. Congress must pass legislation to compensate the Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange as it did for the U.S. Vietnam veteran victims.

Our government must know that it cannot continue to use weapons that target and harm civilians. Indeed, the U.S. military is using depleted uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will poison those countries for incalculable decades.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and President of the National Lawyers Guild. She is the author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law and co-author of Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent (with Kathleen Gilberd). Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com

Several killed at Iran rally

June 16, 2009
Al Jazeera, June 16, 2009

Several people were injured in the incident, but
the protest itself was largely peaceful [AFP]

An Iranian state radio channel has reported that seven people were killed after an attack on a military post close to a rally disputing the results of a presidential election.

The violence occurred on Monday in the capital, Tehran, amid protests against the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Radio Payam reported on Tuesday.

“Several thugs wanted to attack a military post and vandalise public property in the vicinity of Azadi Square,” the radio said, referring to the site of the rally.

In depth

Video: One dead at Iran rally
Video: Iranians rally in Europe
Video: Poll result triggers protests in Tehran
Iran curbs media after poll result
Mousavi sees election hopes dashed
Iran writer on poll result
Mousavi’s letter to the people
Iran poll result ‘harms US hopes’
West concerned by Iran fraud claims
The Iranian political system
Inside Story: Iran’s political future

“Unfortunately, seven people were killed and several others wounded.”

Also on Tuesday, the Iranian authorities arrested two prominent reformists, Saeed Hajjarian and Mohammad Ali Abtahi, their aides said.

The arrests came amid mounting unrest in the capital as Mousavi supporters pledged to continue their demonstrations.

Ahmadinejad supporters said they too planned a demonstration on Tuesday at the same location, raising the possibility of further clashes between the rival camps.

State television reported that Iran’s highest legislative body, the Guardian Council, was willing to recount the votes and that the recount may lead to changes in cadidates’ tallies.

Ahmadinejad in Russia

The news of the deaths came as Iran’s president arrived in Russia for a security conference, despite the popular protests at home against a vote in which the authorities declared him the winner.

Ahmadinejad landed in Yakaterinburg for the Shanghai Co-Operation Organisation (SCO), in which Iran has observer status.

“We welcome the fact that elections took place, we welcome the new president on Russian soil and see it as symbolic that he made his first visit to Russia,” Sergei Ryabkov, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, told reporters after Ahmadinejad’s arrival.

“This allows hope for progress in bilateral relations,” he said.

Ahmadinejad’s trip had been scheduled for Monday but he postponed it in the wake of the protests.

Violent clashes

Initial reports suggested that armed men loyal to Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard opened fire during the protest rally in Azadi Square which was attended by tens of thousands of people.

Police mingled among the protesters in an attempt to control those attending [EPA]

An Associated Press photographer in the square said one person had been shot dead and several others appeared to be seriously wounded.The incident occurred in front of a local base of the Basij, Iran’s volunteer paramilitary force, which had been set ablaze.

Many at the rally were supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi, the election candidate defeated in Friday’s poll.

Mousavi addressed the rally, his first public appearance since his defeat.

Clashes were reported hours after the demonstration, which was held in defiance of a ban imposed by the interior ministry, began.

Police fired tear gas as dozens of protesters set several motorbikes on fire.

“There has been sporadic shooting out there … I can see people running,” said a reporter of Iran’s English-language Press TV who was at the demonstration.

Peaceful protest

The demonstration had been largely peaceful until the shooting.

Robert Fisk, a writer and journalist who was observing the rally, told Al Jazeera that he had heard shots being fired and saw demonstrators break into a run, but that things had continued to be largely peaceful.

“It’s extraordinary to me that anyone would start shooting at such a huge crowd of people,” he said.

“Especially people who have been continuously non-violent all the way from the start of this march, which has of course been prohibited so I suppose that will be the excuse.”

Fisk said that not all the protesters were supporting Mousavi and that many were simply making a statement about the vote.

“I don’t think they [the demonstrators] are all supporting Mir Hossein Mousavi, they are objecting to the presence of Ahmadinejad as the president. They don’t believe he won those votes,” he said.

The official results of the election gave Ahmadinejad 63 per cent of the vote and Mousavi 34 per cent, figures Mousavi has dismissed as a “dangerous charade”.

Alireza Ronaghi, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Tehran, said several different police units were at the rally.

“There were several kinds of police there; riot police were easily distinguishable from the rest of them with their gear and vests and helmet,” he said.

“There were normal police, with their green outfits. There were also plainclothes police who you could only recognise because they were carrying wireless communicators. And there were also others, who were just walking but looked like they didn’t belong to the rally.”

Poll backlash

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, on Monday ordered officials to look into the complaints against the veracity of the election.

The 12-man Guardian Council said it would rule within 10 days on the two official complaints it had received from Mousavi and Mohsen Rezaie, another losing candidate.

Further protests by rival camps have been planned for Tuesday [AFP]

The council, headed by Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who endorsed Ahmadinejad before the vote, vets election candidates and must formally approve the results for the outcome to stand.Earlier in the day, about 400 pro-reform students, many wearing green face masks to conceal their identity, gathered at a mosque in Tehran University and demanded Ahmadinejad’s resignation.

Iran has faced a growing international backlash over the validity of the polls.

Barack Obama, the US president, said on Monday that he was deeply troubled by the post-election violence.

Saying the world was inspired by Iranian demonstrators, he added that free speech and the democratic process must be respected.

France and Germany summoned the respective Iranian ambassadors to account for events.

What Kind of Two-State Solution?

June 15, 2009
Agence Global, June 15, 2009
by Immanuel Wallerstein,   Commentary No. 259, J

Now that President Obama has put his weight so openly and publicly behind the concept of a two-state “solution” for the Israel-Palestine controversy/struggle, such a “solution” may well be achieved in the coming years. The reason is simple. Stated abstractly, such a solution has overwhelming support in world political opinion. Polls show a majority of Jewish Israelis favor it, as do a majority of Jews elsewhere in the world. Support among Arab leaders is strong and wide. Even Hamas indicates it is willing to accept the concept of two states on the basis of an indefinite “truce” in the struggle. Some “truces” in the modern world have lasted four centuries. And more recently, there has been “truces” on the Korean peninsula and in Kashmir for more than a half-century. Some “truces” seem pretty permanent.

What seems to be left out of the discussion these days is what does the expression “two states” mean? Quite diverse definitions exist. We should remember that the last real negotiations, those between Yasir Arafat and Ehud Barak in 2000, foundered at the last minute at Taba over diverse definitions.

What are the issues in these contrary definitions? There are at least six different issues which the mere slogan of “two states” hides. The first issue is the definition of sovereignty. The Palestinians of course think that sovereign means sovereign – a state with the same powers as any other sovereign state. Even those Israeli political leaders who have accepted the terminology of two states have been thinking of a limited version of sovereignty. For example, what kind of military apparatus would such the Palestinian state have? Would it control completely overflight permissions? Would it have unlimited control of its borders?

The second issue is of course the borders of such a state. Both the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Hamas feel that accepting the 1967 borders is already an enormous concession on their part. They certainly do not expect to obtain anything less. But such borders of course do not include the post-1967 Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories, nor east Jerusalem. Tiny adjustments in these borders might be acceptable. But tiny means truly tiny.

The third issue is  internal democracy  in Israel. Will non-Jewish Israelis continue to have fewer rights than Jewish Israelis? This is a central and very little discussed question.

The fourth issue is whether the two states will be defined as secular states or religious states. Will the Palestinian state be a Muslim state? Will Israel continue to be a Jewish state?

The fifth issue is the so-called right of return. Israel was founded on the unlimited right of return of any Jew who wishes to come to Israel. The Arabs who fled from Israel (or were forced out) demand a right of return. This has been the knottiest issue in the entire historic debate. It is a question of both demography and land. The Palestinians might accept a merely symbolic gesture on this question, if all other issues were resolved in ways they considered appropriate.

Finally, of course, there is the question of what would happen with the existing Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories. It is conceivable that the Palestinians might say that some of them could remain where they are. But it seems hardly likely that the settlers would agree to stay in a Palestinian state, or would willingly accept evacuation to Israel.

Now what has Obama done? He has taken a strong position on two questions the present ultra-right Israeli government refuses to accept: no further expansion of any kind of the existing settlements and a commitment to a two-state solution. This is unquestionably positive and courageous in the context of U.S. internal politics.

However, it risks being dangerous in terms of any real solution. For consider the following possibility. Under severe twisting of the arm of Israeli Prime Minister Netanhayu by Obama, Netanyahu concedes both points, and reshuffles his cabinet in the light of this shift in position. Will he then not turn around and say to Obama that now the Palestinians must make comparable concessions? But he would not really be talking about “controlling violence” by the Palestinian Authority – the usual Israeli governmental mantra. He will mean concessions on all the issues I have listed above – on none of which any Palestinian leadership can today make any significant further concession.

Obama’s courageous gestures will then turn out to be a mode of distraction from the real underlying issues.

Should the U.S. also suppress evidence of civilian deaths in Afghanistan?

June 15, 2009

Glenn Greenwald | Salon.com, Friday June 12, 2009 07:13 EDT

Something that has happened repeatedly in Afghanistan over the last eight years happened yet again this week:

After U.S. Strike, Dispute Over Afghan Deaths

KABUL, Afghanistan — Sharply conflicting reports on an American airstrike this week continued to trickle out Friday from American military and Afghan officials as to whether the attack killed civilians.

The airstrike in Ghor Province in western Afghanistan Tuesday had targeted a local Taliban militant, Mullah Mustafa, but instead killed 10 civilians and 12 insurgents, according to Sayed Iqbal Munib, the governor of Ghor Province.

But American officials Friday said the strike killed up to 16 militants and no civilians.

I obviously don’t know what the truth is about this latest incident, but let’s assume just for the sake of argument that — as has been true so many times before — it is the claim of local Afghan officials, rather than the U.S. military, that is accurate, and Afghan civilians, once again, really were killed by our airstrike.

Continued >>

Former US President Carter: Gazans “are literally starving”Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

June 15, 2009
Ma’an News Agency, Date: 14 / 06 / 2009
تصغير الخط
Carter [Ma’anImages]

Bethlehem – Ma’an/Agencies – Former US President Jimmy Carter on Sunday condemned Israel’s “maltreatment of the people in Gaza, who are literally starving and have no hope at this time.”

“According to the UN 41,000 of their homes are either severely damaged or destroyed. And for five months they haven’t gotten a single sack of cement, or single sheet of plaster. They’re being treated like savages,” Carter said in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

Asked what he was hoping to hear in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech later on Sunday evening, Carter said a commitment to “[t]he alleviation of their plight to some means I think would be the most important the Israeli PM could do.”

Carter was honored with the annual Palestine International Award for Excellence and Creativity on Saturday in Ramallah, where he said, “I have been in love with the Palestinian people for many years.” “I have two great-grandsons that are rapidly learning about the people here and the anguish and suffering and deprivation of human rights that you have experienced ever since 1948.”

The former American leader also vowed to fight, “as long as I live, to win your freedom, your independence, your sovereignty and a good life.”

He also called on the Palestinian government to reject the ongoing internal rivalry and embrace a unity government with Hamas, whose exiled leadership he met with on Thursday in Syria, where he said that a peace agreement with Israel would have to include the group.

“I don’t believe there is any possibility to have peace between Palestinians and Israel unless Hamas is involved directly, with Fatah,” Carter said after meeting Syrian President Bashar Al-Asad in Damascus, according to AFP.

The former president said he hoped Hamas would commit to the Arab Peace Initiative, which offers Israel normalized relations in exchange for a withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders.

Carter also said he expected current President Barack Obama would engage with Hamas if it forms a unity government with the rival Fatah movement under Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, according to DPA.

Amnesty International cites “shocking” beating of Iran protesters

June 15, 2009

Middle East News, June 14, 2009

London/Washington – The human rights organization Amnesty International Sunday condemned reports of excessive violence by Iranian security forces against people protesting the results of Friday elections and called for an investigation.

‘The shocking scenes of violence meted out by the security forces need to be urgently investigated and those responsible for human rights violations must be brought to justice,’ said Hassiba Hadj, an AI official, in a statement e-mailed to dpa in Washington.

Hadj is deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa programme of the London-headquartered organization.

Amnesty International said that at least 170 people were arrested on Saturday as supporters of Iran’s opposition leader Mir-Hossein Moussavi protested the results that declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad re-elected by a 62 per cent majority.

Iranian police said 60 people had been arrested as some protestors threw rocks at store windows and carried out other acts of violence.

Amnesty International said it had reports that plain-clothes security forces used batons to beat and disperse many non-violent individuals, causing many injuries.

The report cited several incidents, saying University of Tehran students had reportedly been chased by 100 riot police. It said police on motorcycles had beat Moussavi supporters who were staging a peaceful sit-in in Tehran’s Vanak Square.

According to the rights organization, protests had spread to other cities including Rasht, Mashahd, Shiraz, Ahwaz, Zahedan and Oroumiye.

‘We deplore that the new presidential term is heralded with widespread abuses,’ the group said. ‘Amnesty International considers anyone arrested simply for demanding transparency and for questioning the results of the election is to be a prisoner of conscience who should be immediately and unconditionally released.’

Obama’s Cairo speech

June 15, 2009

Dr Mahathir Mohamad, chedet.co, June 15, 2009

Finally Obama, the black President of the United States has made his much awaited speech  outlining his views and policies on Islam, the Muslims and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a carefully crafted speech and certainly it is different from those of George W. Bush or even other US Presidents.

2. The arrogance and the preachings are out but two things American still stand out, and that is the United States is a world super power and that American loyalty to Israel is undiminished. Other things can change but not these two.

3. Hamas is asked to give up terrorism because like the struggles of the blacks of America and South Africa, violence achieves nothing. This is not quite true, at least with other national struggles for freedom and justice. The white Americans themselves fought a war against the British and another war to prevent the break-up of the United States.

4. Elsewhere the struggles for freedom and justice e.g. the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution just to name two, all involve violence.

5. It is not the Palestinians who choose violence. It was the Jews who violently seized Palestinian land, massacred the Arabs and expelled them from their country. With no one prepared to restrain the Jews, the beleaguered Palestinians had to resort to violence. The world, the United Nations, even fellow Muslims have deserted them.

6. I am against violence but when Israel seized more Palestinian land, build settlements, impose military rule, divide the Palestinians with high walls, barred the Palestinians from using roads built by the Israelis on Palestinian territory, denied the Palestinian right to a homeland, denied the right of return of the expelled Palestinian while upholding the rights of return of Jews who for centuries had been citizens of other countries, labelled Palestinians as terrorists while exonerating the Israelis for the massive attacks on Gaza and other places, left the Palestinians helpless when attacked by the Western-armed Israeli Military Forces, incarcerated thousands of Palestinians in Israeli jails, unnecessarily provoke the Palestinians by Sharon’s visit to Jerusalem and many, many more assaults and provocations, is it any wonder that the Palestinians resorted to violence?

7. And now they are asked to stop violence to respect agreements. But what about the Israelis? Shouldn’t they be told to stop their massive violence; shouldn’t they be told to respect agreements and all the UN resolutions, such as those against their setting up settlements on Palestinian soil, the occupation of land beyond the UN set boundaries for Israel?

Continued>>

Netanyahu defies Obama with harsh conditions for Palestinian ‘entity’

June 15, 2009

The Times Online/UK, June 15, 2009

Benjamin Netanyahu

(Baz Ratner/Reuters)

Binyamin Netanyahu refused to halt Israeli settlement-building in his speech

Image :1 of 2

James Hider in Jerusalem

Binyamin Netanyahu threw down the gauntlet to the US last night, grudgingly agreeing to a limited Palestinian state that would be demilitarised and not in control of its airspace or borders.

The hawkish Prime Minister insisted that Israel would never give up a united Jerusalem as its capital, and said that established Jewish settlements in the West Bank would continue to expand — despite explicit objections from Washington.

In a keynote speech that referred to a Palestinian “entity” far more frequently than an actual state, Mr Netanyahu tried to advance elements of his economic peace plan — whereby the Palestinians would get increased investment but only limited sovereignty — while still conceding to US insistence on the creation of an independent Palestinian country.

The right-wing Israeli leader said the moderate Palestinian leadership in the West Bank must agree to recognise Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, as well as fight the Islamic hardliners Hamas, who now control Gaza, in return for the resumption of peace talks.

“The key condition is that the Palestinians recognise in a clear and public manner that Israel is the state of the Jewish people,” he told dignitaries in an auditorium at Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv. “If we have the guarantees on demilitarisation, and if the Palestinians recognise Israel as a state of the Jewish people, then we arrive at a solution based on a demilitarised Palestinian state alongside Israel,” Mr Netanyahu said.

“Each will have its flag, each will have its anthem. The Palestinian territory will be without arms, will not control airspace, will not be able to have arms enter.”

He said that “effective security safeguards” would have to be in place, without specifying what they might be. Israeli military officers have long argued that without an Israeli military presence, the Fatah-controlled West Bank would quickly fall to the Iranian-backed Hamas, which took control of Gaza two years ago amid fierce fighting.

Mr Netanyahu said that Hamas rocket-fire from Gaza, attacking Israeli cities in the south, would quickly reach Tel Aviv and its airport if the Islamist hardliners came to control the West Bank. “Many a worthy person has told us that withdrawal is the key to peace between us and the Palestinians. But the fact is that every withdrawal has been accompanied by rockets and suicide attacks.” He said that the Palestinians had to drop the right of return for hundreds of thousands of refugees to their homes inside Israel.

Mr Netanyahu has been forced to tread a fine line between placating his largely nationalist-religious coalition while not flying in the face of Israel’s main ally, the US — which wants a total halt to all settlement growth and recognition of an independent Palestinian state. He said last night that he would not agree to US demands for a total freeze on the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

“I do not wish to build new settlements or to confiscate lands to that end, but we have to allow the residents of the settlements to live normal lives,” he said.

The much anticipated speech, in part a response to President Obama’s address to the Muslim world in Cairo two weeks ago, was condemned by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. “This speech torpedoes all peace initiatives in the region,” said Nabil Abu Rudeina, a spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President. Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior Palestinian official, said that Mr Netanyahu “spoke of a Palestinian state while emptying it of any substance by excluding a stop to settlements”.

Same old, same old on Israeli settlements

June 14, 2009

Joel Brinkley | San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday, June 14, 2009

It’s a familiar story: An exceeding popular president with a strong electoral mandate decides soon after taking office that, to advance Middle East peace efforts, he must push Israel to freeze construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

“The most significant action Israel could take to demonstrate good faith,” the president says, “would be a settlement freeze.”

As soon as he voices the idea, Israel’s prime minister publicly refuses. Within weeks, reporters discover that settlers are putting up even more new West Bank homes, in defiance of the president’s request. The White House expresses irritation, and the matter passes.

The episode just described took place in 1983, early in the Reagan administration. But look at the early years of almost any administration over the past 30 years, and you’ll discover a similar effort and similar disappointing results. President Jimmy Carter was an outspoken critic of settlements. Shortly after leaving office, he declared: “Settlements are illegal and an obstacle to peace.” At that time, 23,000 Israeli Jews lived in West Bank settlements.

Now it’s President Obama’s turn. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” Obama told an appreciative audience in Cairo this month. “The construction violates previous agreements.”

Well, Mr. President, I wish you luck. You’ll need it.

Why can’t the president of the United States, who authorizes an annual gift to Israel of at least $3 billion, persuade any Israeli government left, right or centrist to stop building settlements? The settlements violate international law, and Israel has agreed, more than once, to freeze settlement growth. The European Union, the United Nations and many other individual states have all inveighed against settlements. No other nation anywhere in the world endorses Israel’s settlement policy. In fact, the majority of Israelis disapprove of continued settlement expansion. And so it has always been.

After Reagan left office, President George H.W. Bush made settlement expansion his signature issue with Israel. At that time, tens of thousands of Soviet Jews were emigrating to Israel, and Jerusalem asked Washington for a $10 billion housing loan.

Bush said repeatedly that Israel would not get the money until it froze settlements. But the prime minister then, Yitzhak Shamir, didn’t even seem troubled.

“Settlement in every part of the country continues and will continue,” Shamir said with his characteristic nonchalant shrug. “They try to link the two things, but no one said aid will end. I don’t think it will happen.”

And he was right. Bush finally relented, late in the 1992 election campaign, when the president feared he could lose the election because he had so angered American Jews and their political allies. And, of course, he did lose.

Shortly after President Bill Clinton took office, in 1993, he cut the loan guarantee by almost 25 percent because Israel was once again refusing to stop new settlement construction. By then, 10 years after Reagan’s effort, 112,000 Israeli Jews lived in the West Bank. After the Oslo Peace Accords in 1993, Israel more or less stopped building new settlements but aggressively expanded existing ones.

President George W. Bush, chastened by his father’s loss to Clinton in 1992, chose not to make much of the settlement issue. The White House called the settlements “unhelpful,” and its “road map” for peace called for a settlement freeze. But when Bush took office 177,000 Israeli Jews lived in the West Bank. When he left, the number approached 300,000.

This month, Obama said “part of being a good friend is being honest” with Israel. Well, I would argue that Carter was honest. So were Reagan, Bush and Clinton. On the settlement issue, it did no good.

A week or so ago, TV news recorded Israeli security officers tearing down an illegal settlement outpost in the West Bank. That tape got a lot of air play. No one was there with a camera that same evening, NPR reported, when settlers came back and put up even more buildings.

Perhaps Obama will be able to do what none of his predecessors has. Maybe he can persuade Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to freeze settlements and to make peace with the Palestinians. Maybe, though I doubt it. The political costs of following through are too high, and the Israelis know that.

Obama does at least seem to be aware of the risks. Asked this month what the president might do if Israel ignored his request, a White House official pointedly noted that holding back loan guarantees “is not under discussion.”

Joel Brinkley is a professor of journalism at Stanford University and a former foreign policy correspondent for the New York Times. To comment to him, e-mail brinkley@foreign-matters.com. Contact us at forum@sfchronicle.com.