Imagine that heavily-armed neighbourhood thieves break into your house, steal your property and shoot a family member. Naturally, you would call law enforcement. You know the names of the criminals and expect the police to arrest them. But what if the police hear the murderers’ names, look embarrassed, shrug their shoulders, say ‘sorry, can’t help you,’ and simply walk away?
Imagine that you complain to the chief of police, who is sympathetic at first, but quickly shoos you away when you told him who the perpetrators are. Imagine that the courts, government and international bodies were all determined to protect your attackers even if this meant throwing you to the wolves. You would think the world had gone howling mad, wouldn’t you?
Surely, nobody on earth has immunity from justice. Encouraged by the lack of come-back, imagine that the villains return again and again while all purported defenders of justice continue to turn a blind eye. What would you do? What could you do?
The above scenario may sound outrageous but this has been the essential plight of the Palestinian people for over six decades. They have been forced to remain silent while their lands have been robbed, their olive groves destroyed, their dignity trampled on, their homes demolished or bombed, their freedom to travel denied, their children locked-up and their lives imperiled.
Yet each time they have sought justice or recompense through recognised international legal channels, the door has been firmly barred. And when in utter frustration they have attempted to take justice into their own hands — which, by the way, international law deems their right as a people under occupation — they have been labelled ‘terrorist’.
Time and again, they have cried out to the international community for help to no avail. That isn’t to say that the majority of the world’s nations approve of Israel’s actions. If it was up to the UN General Assembly Israel would have received its come-uppance a long time ago and there would be a state called Palestine in existence today.
But, unfortunately, the UN’s power rests in the hands of a few major powers that hold a power of veto. Shamefully, one veto-holder in particular, the US, is committed to protecting Israel’s interests unconditionally, irrespective of the rights or wrongs, and bludgeons its allies to support its stance.
I’m sure you already know about the dozens of non-binding UN Resolutions upholding Palestinian rights that Israel has studiously ignored along with the judgment of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which characterised Israel’s apartheid ‘fence’ illegal. And you are probably aware that Britain has been tipping-off alleged Israeli war criminals concerning their imminent arrest should they land on British soil.
It seems to me shocking that the very countries that place themselves on a pedestal of human rights and wag their fingers at others for not coming up to scratch, behave like the three not-so-wise monkeys when Israel is involved.
Still not convinced? Last Friday, the UN Human Rights Council voted to affirm a Gaza war crimes report compiled by their own investigators, led by a self-ascribed Zionist and Israel-supporter South African judge Richard Goldstone. The resolution was overwhelmingly approved with 25 in favour, six against and 11 abstentions.
Only two permanent members of the UN Security Council voted ‘yes’ — China and Russia. It goes without saying that the US voted against, while Britain and France chose the road of cowardice by not registering any vote only to be condemned by Israel for not voting against.
By logical progression, the draft resolution calling upon “all concerned parties including United Nations bodies” to ensure the implementation of recommendations in the report, should now be endorsed by the Security Council. Those recommendations include the referral of Israel and Hamas to the International Criminal Court in The Hague in the event the parties fail to conduct open and credible investigation within a six-month period.
To the ears of any fair-minded person, this procedure will surely sound fair and reasonable. Both the Palestinian National Authority and Hamas have welcomed the endorsement, but, predictably, Israel once again cries foul. It calls the resolution terrorist-supporting and threatens to bury the peace process. And we thought it was already dead and buried!
Tragically, the Goldstone report is destined to be buried too. Washington will attempt to keep the resolution out of the Security Council, failing which, if push comes to shove, the US will use its veto.
But all is not lost. The report has placed Israel’s crimes under a magnifying glass and Israelis are debating on the worldwide wind of change that is slowly eroding their de facto immunity status. Moreover, if the US is forced to wave its power of veto, thus negating the value of a serious investigation, it will face the loss of any smidgeon of credibility it still retains as an honest broker in the conflict.
Such a move would also embarrass Nobel’s latest peace prize recipient President Barack Obama. Indeed, following America’s ‘nay’ vote on Friday, the President of the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights Michael Ratner called the peace prize winner’s “protection of a state that has committed war crimes” an “abomination”. Bravo to that!
Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She can be contacted at lheard@gulfnews.com. Some comments may be considered for publication.
Obama’s Peace
October 23, 2009For his continued wars against Pakistanis, Afghanis, and Iraqis, his support for the overthrow of democracy in Honduras, his abetting dictatorships across the Arab and Muslim worlds (which his government finances, arms, and trains in torture methods), his planning for a possible invasion of Iran, and his enthusiastic support for the racist Israeli settler colony (and its colonial wars and occupations against Palestinians), President Barack Obama received the Nobel “Peace” Prize. This comes as no surprise, as Obama joins a long list of recipients of this sham of a prize, who are distinguished for similar “peaceful” pursuits. These include terrorists like Menachem Begin, war criminals like Henry Kissinger, ethnic-cleansing colonial generals like Yitzhak Rabin, dictators like Anwar Sadat, corrupt politicians like Yasser Arafat, and imperial presidents like Jimmy Carter. Granting this overambitious power-hungry man the recognition of the Nobel committee is therefore most apt.
Obama’s most recent pursuit of peace has been to force the corrupt Palestinian Authority to discard the United Nations-issued Goldstone Report which detailed the war crimes committed by Israel in its murderous war against Palestinian civilians in Gaza ten months ago. Indeed, the first Black American President has just enjoined the Palestinians and Arab and Muslim countries from the pulpit of the United Nations to recognize Israel’s right to be a racist “Jewish State.” One wonders what the American reaction would be if Palestinian and Arab leaders would call on Obama and on African Americans to recognize the right of the United States to be a white state.
This is the same Obama whose hubris was of such caliber that when he gave his infamous speech in Cairo several months ago he did not grieve the tens of thousands of Arab, including Egyptian, civilians killed by Israel’s six decade-long wars and massacres against them; nor did he show solidarity with the millions of Arabs who were rendered refugees (including one million Egyptians during the War of Attrition) by Israel’s barbaric bombings. Instead, Obama chose to give Arabs a lesson in European Jewish history and enjoined them to appreciate the holocaust committed by European Christians against European Jews and not the ongoing Nakba committed by European Jewish colonial settlers against Arabs. He has even forbidden Palestinians or other Arabs from ever attempting to destroy Israel’s racist structures to end its racist rule. Indeed, Obama threatened Arabs that any attempt by them to destroy the racist basis of the Jewish state would be seen as tantamount to a holocaust. One wonders if he thinks ending segregation in the United States and Apartheid in South Africa were tantamount to the extermination of white people! This is also the same Obama who, in order to fend off the accusation of being Muslim, told us during his electoral campaign that not only was he a Christian, but that he prays to Jesus every night and that the blood of Jesus Christ will redeem him.
But general wisdom in the US has it that the election of Obama, even if it did not instantiate any change in US imperial policy abroad, has been the best thing that happened to most Americans, or at least to white liberal Americans and all African Americans, at the domestic level. This is a largely mistaken conclusion. Obama in my estimation is the worst thing that happened in recent years to African Americans, who continue to face institutional, structural, economic, cultural, social, and personal discrimination on a daily basis. The racism that informs US domestic policy and causes the poverty of African Americans is not unrelated to the racism that informs US imperial policies that impoverish Egyptians, Palestinians, Hondurans, Iraqis, and Afghanis.
Obama’s election has been best for white liberal Americans whose conscience can be assuaged by pretending that they are not racist at all and that indeed America is no longer a racist place evidenced by the election of a black man to the presidency. The fact that today African Americans are less educated and poorer than they were in the 1960s is immaterial to this self-congratulatory logic. Neither is the fact that there are more African American men today (in relative and absolute numbers) in America’s racist jails than there had been at the height of Apartheid in South Africa. As for Obama’s ongoing policies on education and racialized crime, they of course continue the policies of his white predecessors in pushing for more corporatization of schools and jails and busting teachers unions in the interest of the white business class.
But Obama is the culmination of white liberal hopes entertained since the early seventies when the language of racism was transformed, as an effect of the cooptation of the Civil Rights movement, into a culturalist language. Black people were not inferior racially, white liberals averred, “their problem” was diagnosed as “cultural.” The feeling was that if black Americans would simply speak and act like a fantasized white middle class and adopt its social and cultural values, they would cease to face discrimination and they would break the “cycle of poverty.” Reform, it was decided, should aim to effect such transformation. The black middle class, formed in the late nineteenth century in the wake of the abolition of slavery, though a small minority among African Americans, was seen as a model to be emulated. Indeed white liberal remedies like Affirmative Action (the largest beneficiaries of which were and still are white women and not African Americans) when it benefited any blacks at all, it did so by benefiting the established small black middle class. It was conservative members of this class who, after reaping its benefits, would advocate against Affirmative Action. Thus, white women and middle class African Americans benefited from a program that improved little in the lives of most African Americans, while the latter would increasingly be blamed for benefiting from it at the expense of white men –a refrain used by most white conservatives and not a few white liberals!
As Derrick Bell has eloquently demonstrated, Affirmative Action is a cover for a system by which racism continues to be institutionalized and African Americans continue to be blamed for refusing to improve their lives despite alleged Herculean efforts on their behalf. Some of the culturalist arguments of white liberals centered on Affirmative Action’s production of white-acting black folks who would join the ranks of “hard-working Americans,” a racist code that refers to white people which Obama often invokes in his speeches. The fantasy of low-grade American television programs in the late 1970s and 1980s like “Different Strokes” and “Webster” was to demonstrate that if white families were afforded the opportunity to raise black kids, these kids would end up as model citizens; indeed, they could grow up to become presidents one day. It was culture, you see, not race!
Obama was of course not only raised by his white Christian mother and her family (something he –and Joe Biden –never tired of reminding us during his electoral campaign to fend off his paternal Muslim contamination), but even his black father was African and not African American. Passing him off as an example of what happens when African Americans are raised the “right way” is the pride and joy of white liberals enamored of their own culturalist-cum-racist ideology and inebriated by virulent American nationalism. Obama’s continuation of America’s imperial wars and aggressions is proof that if you put an African American in office who is raised “the right way,” he will perform his imperial duties as well as any white president. Obama’s winning the Nobel Peace Prize was therefore a major gain for white liberal Americans who can bask in the sun of their achievement. For after all, producing a few African Americans in the form of Barack Obama can and will silence whoever can still muster the courage to criticize this thoroughly racist system dubbed “American democracy” which continues to victimize most African Americans and much of the Third World.
The writer is associate professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University.
Share this:
Tags:Afghanistan, America's imperial wars, Goldstone report, Iran, Iraq, Joseph Massad, Nobel peace prize to Obama, Pakistan, President Obama, support for Muslim dictators, wars
Posted in Afghanistan, Commentary, Gaza, imperialism, Iran, Iraq, Muslims, Pakistan, Palestine, President Barack Obama, Uncategorized, US policy, USA, war, warmongers | Leave a Comment »