Palestine in US Presidential Elections

Dr. Hasan Afif El-Hasan*, PalestineChronicle.com, 22.11.07. In the 2004 presidential campaign, Howard Dean, a strong supporter of Israel, did not help himself politically when he promised to take more “even-handed role” in dealing with the conflict should he become a president. One of his rivals called such reasonable idea “irresponsible” approach that would lead to “selling Israel down the river”. And majority of Dean’s fellow Democrat members of Congress signed a letter criticizing his statement. Dean failed to win the Democratic nomination for many reasons including his “even-handed role” suggestion.

Senator Barak Obama was attacked by his political opponents for expressing some sympathy for the Palestinians’ “suffering”. He was accused of being anti-Israel even when he had not mentioned Israel in the statement that has been attributed to him. Obama had to do something to correct his mistake and stay in the race. He explained the suffering of the Palestinians he had talked about was at the hands of their own leaders not Israel. He praised Israel for what it stands for and promised not to change the US-Israeli close relationship if he was elected as a president. Perhaps forgiveness has been granted!

Rudy Giuliani is the Republican national front runner. His main platform in foreign policy suggests no interest in pursuing justice for the Palestinians. In a speech to a London based Atlantic Bridge conference, Giuliani called among other things for expanding NATO to include Israel. Even some Republican leaders perceive him too dangerous to be trusted with the presidency of the US. Pat Buchanan, a conservative Republican commentator and a one time presidential candidate, wrote an article criticizing his foreign policy titled “Is a Vote for Rudy a Vote for War?” On the Palestinian issue, Buchanan asked whether Giuliani would send “American boys to fight Hizbullah and Hamas” if Israel joined NATO. Rudy was asked if he would be even-handed in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. His answer was no, "America shouldn't be even-handed in dealing with ... an elected democracy [Israel] ... and a group of terrorists [the Palestinians]."

To know Giuliani better we should examine where his advisors and supporters stand on the issues. Ken Silverstein, the editor of Harper’s magazine referred to Giuliani’s campaign advisory team as "AIPAC's Dream Team". For those who are not familiar with AIPAC, it is the acronym for the powerful America Israeli Political Action Committee that promotes and defends the right wing interests of Israel in the US. It has big influence on American policy makers including the high office occupants and candidates. According to Wall Street Journal, “no less than 51 pro-Israel PAC’s are operated by AIPAC officials or people who hold seats on AIPAC’s two major policymaking bodies”. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated on August 5, 2006 “Thank God we have AIPAC, the greatest supporter and friend we have in the whole world”.

One of Rudy’s advisors is Daniel Pipes, "who has called for profiling Muslims at airports and scrutinizing American Muslims in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps”. Should Rudy win the Republican nomination and the general elections, mapping Muslim communities profiling may become part of the US counterterrorism policy.

Rudy’s candidacy was endorsed by the television Evangelist Pat Robertson who has been preaching that Israel should be supported in its war against the Arab Palestinians at all cost. The birth of Israel according to Robertson was the first part of a long series of God’s plan to be followed by violent events that would lead to the defeat of the evil forces and the return of Jesus. He identifies Arabs and Muslims among the forces of evil. Robertson attributes the former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon debilitating stroke that left him in comma, as a punishment from God for withdrawing the Israeli army and settlers from Gaza Strip.

Hillary Clinton, the first lady, was perceived to have sympathy with the Palestinians in 1999 when she visited the West Bank. But she became an ardent defender of Israel’s policies once she started running for office. In 2006, Hillary and Bill Clinton were among the main participants in the pro-Israel Saban Center annual conference. The center was established in 2002 by the ardent Zionist Los Angeles mogul media investor, Haim Saban who said he was “a one-issue guy, and my [his] issue is Israel”. Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate, supported Israel’s destructive 2006 war against Lebanon. She suggested in a speech to a local chapter of AIPAC last February that Israel had been threatened by the Palestinians. She said: “in this moment of great difficulty for Israel ,..What is vital is that we stand by our friends and our ally and we stand by our values”.

It is the election ritual season in the US. Presidential aspirants are campaigning, debating issues and attacking each other. Candidates from both major parties seem to have profound disagreements among themselves on almost every major issue facing the US except in their support of Israel. If there is any difference it is how far they can go to support and protect the Jewish state even when its survival is not threatened. Announced reasons for such unqualified and uncompromised support include the importance of Israel as a strategic partner in the war against terror or sharing the same values, but the real reason is the presidential candidates “electability”. Calling for even-handed approach in solving the Arab-Israeli conflict or expressing sympathy with the Palestinians can ruin the prospects of the candidate.

The Democratic contenders are as strong supporters of Israel as the Republican candidates, but they display less hostility toward the Palestinians than the Republican front runners. Of the Democratic candidates, only Congressman Denis Kucinich, a critic of US Middle East policy, and Governor Bill Richardson made appearances in the Arab American gathering. Their leading candidates sent video presentations and assistants to respond to questions on their behalf.

For six years, President Bush has paid only lip service to the two-state solution. The Annapolis meeting that Bush is counting on has no agenda, no clear American message and its aims are shrinking. Its focus will be on the first stage of the defunct 2002 so-called “Road Map”. Yossi Alpher writes “no amount of impassioned statements of commitment to the summit’s [Annapolis meeting] success on the part of Olmert, Abbas and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice can change the sorry political reality shared by all three”. All signs suggest that the Arab-Israeli conflict will not be settled under Bush presidency and the issue will be there for the next US administration to solve or ignore.

Should Senator Clinton win the nomination and the general elections, she has the potential of building on the effort of her husband policy that failed to achieve peace. But Hillary has been too close to the supporters of the right wing Israeli policies. According to the Jewish daily “Forward”, by January 2007 Clinton was “expected to snare the lion’s share of the Jewish political donations”. The national network of Jews supporting Hillary Clinton has been hosting events to raise money for her presidential campaign.

The US has enormous powers and experience to deal with both sides of the Palestinian-Israeli issue. It has the key to solve the conflict, but it never exercised its leverage to make any substantive progress toward achieving just peace. The US never acted as a neutral party mediating between two parties that cannot reach a middle ground on their own. President Bush sided publicly with the Israelis on the main contested issues, the refugees and the settlements. His administration lined up international support for Israeli policy of isolating and starving the Palestinians and violating their human rights.

The Palestinians have the misfortune of competing with an adversary who has great influence on the centers of power in the US. While acting as a mediator, the US treated the Palestinians as part of the problem rather than victims seeking overdue Justice. There is an Arab proverb that says “if the judge is your opponent, to whom do you complain!”. The Palestinians are defeated and oppressed by their enemies, abandoned by their friends and treated unfairly by the US mediators. They have nowhere to go but to Almighty as their last resort.

*Born in Nablus, Palestine, Hasan Afif El-Hasan,Ph.D, is a political analyst and an author. He worked for 30-years in Avionics Engineering.

Accettare Israele come stato ebraico?

Daniel Pipes, danielpipes.org, 29.11.07. Il riconoscimento da parte araba della natura ebraica di Israele deve avere la massima priorità diplomatica. Finché i palestinesi non accetteranno ufficialmente il sionismo, seguitando poi a porre fine a tutte le loro varie strategie per eliminare Israele, i negoziati dovrebbero essere interrotti e non riavviati. Fino ad allora, non c'è nulla di cui discutere.

A sorpresa, qualcosa di utile è emerso dalla combinazione del mal concepito vertice di Annapolis e un debole premier israeliano, Ehud Olmert (secondo il quale "la pace va raggiunta con le concessioni"). Rompendo con la tradizione dei suoi predecessori, Olmert ha coraggiosamente chiesto che i suoi partner negoziali palestinesi accettino l'esistenza di Israele come stato ebraico, suscitando così una eloquente reazione.

A meno che i palestinesi non riconoscano Israele come "stato ebraico", ha annunciato Olmert l'11 novembre scorso, i colloqui di Annapolis avrebbero subito una battuta d'arresto. "Non intendo in alcun modo trovare un compromesso sulla questione dello stato ebraico. Ciò costituirà una condizione per il nostro riconoscimento di uno stato palestinese".

Il giorno dopo, egli ha confermato questi punti definendo il "riconoscimento di Israele come stato per gli ebrei" come il "trampolino di lancio per tutti i negoziati. È assolutamente fuori discussione il fatto che Israele sia uno stato degli ebrei". La leadership palestinese, egli ha osservato, deve "voler fare pace con Israele, inteso come stato ebraico".

Sollevare tale questione ha il vantaggio di focalizzare finalmente l'attenzione su quello che costituisce il punto nevralgico del conflitto arabo-israeliano: il sionismo, il movimento nazionalista ebraico, un tema che come al solito viene ignorato nel parapiglia dei negoziati. Pressoché sin dalla nascita dello stato, l'attenzione è stata focalizzata su grovigli di questioni secondarie come i confini, dislocamento delle truppe, il controllo degli armamenti e delle armi, i principi sacrosanti, le risorse naturali, i diritti di residenza, la rappresentanza diplomatica e i rapporti esteri.

La leadership palestinese ha replicato prontamente e inequivocabilmente alle richieste di Olmert:

• The Higher Arab Monitoring Committee, di Nazareth, ha chiesto all'unanimità all'Autorità palestinese di non riconoscere Israele come stato ebraico.
• Salam Fayad, "premier" dell'Autorità palestinese, ha così asserito: "Israele può definirsi come vuole, ma i palestinesi non lo riconosceranno come stato ebraico".
• Yasser Abed Rabbo, segretario generale del Comitato esecutivo dell'OLP, ha così chiosato: "Tale questione non è negoziabile; è stata sollevata ad uso e consumo interno [israeliano]".
• Ahmad Qurei, capo-negoziatore palestinese, ha così commentato: "Tale richiesta è del tutto inaccettabile".
• Saeb Erekat, a capo del Dipartimento Negoziati dell'OLP, ha così asseverato: "I palestinesi non riconosceranno mai l'identità ebraica di Israele (…) Non esiste alcun paese al mondo dove l'identità religiosa e quella nazionale si intrecciano".

La generalizzazione di Erekat è al contempo curiosa e significativa. Non solo 56 paesi e l'OLP fanno parte dell'Organizzazione della Conferenza islamica; ma la maggior parte di questi membri, inclusa l'OLP, considerano la Shari'a (la legge islamica) come la loro principale, se non unica, fonte di legislazione. L'Arabia Saudita esige perfino che ogni suddito sia musulmano.

Inoltre, il nesso religioso-nazionale si estende ben oltre i paesi musulmani. Jeff Jacoby del Boston Globe fa notare che la legislazione argentina "autorizza l'appoggio governativo alla fede cattolico-romana. La Regina Elisabetta II è il governatore supremo della Chiesa Anglicana. Nel regno himalayano del Bhutan, la Costituzione proclama il Buddismo ‘patrimonio spirituale' della nazione (…) ‘La religione predominante in Grecia', dichiara il paragrafo II della Costituzione ellenica, ‘è quella della Chiesa Ortodossa Orientale di Cristo' ".

E allora, perché il rifiuto camuffato da principio di riconoscere Israele come stato ebraico? Probabilmente perché l'OLP vuole ancora eliminare Israele come stato ebraico.

Si noti l'utilizzo del verbo "eliminare", non distruggere. Sì, è vero, l'antisionismo ha prevalentemente assunto fino ad ora una forma militare, dal proclama di Gamal Abdel Nasser di "gettare gli ebrei in mare" a quello di Mahmoud Ahmadinejad che "Israele deve essere cancellato dalle carte geografiche". Ma la potenza delle IDF ha spinto l'antisionismo verso un più sottile approccio volto ad accettare uno stato israeliano, ma smantellando il suo carattere ebraico. Gli antisionisti prendono in considerazione diversi modi per conseguire ciò:

Demografia. I palestinesi potrebbero sopraffare demograficamente la popolazione ebraica di Israele, un obiettivo evidenziato dalla loro pretesa di esercitare un "diritto al ritorno" e dalla loro cosiddetta guerra dell'utero.

Politica. I cittadini arabi di Israele ricusano sempre più la natura ebraica del paese ed esigono che esso diventi uno stato binazionale.

Terrorismo. Il centinaio di attacchi sferrati settimanalmente dai palestinesi dal settembre 2000 al settembre 2005 cercarono di provocare il declino economico, l'emigrazione e l'appeasement.

Isolamento. Tutte quelle risoluzioni delle Nazioni Unite, le condanne editoriali e le aggressioni nei campus intendono intaccare lo spirito sionista.

Il riconoscimento da parte araba della natura ebraica di Israele deve avere la massima priorità diplomatica. Finché i palestinesi non accetteranno ufficialmente il sionismo, seguitando poi a porre fine a tutte le loro varie strategie per eliminare Israele, i negoziati dovrebbero essere interrotti e non riavviati. Fino ad allora, non c'è nulla di cui discutere.