Robert Fisk: Banality and barefaced lies

Robert Fisk

Here in America, I stare at the land in which I live and see a landscape I do not recognise

Published: 23 December 2006

I call it the Alice in Wonderland effect. Each time I tour the United States, I stare through the looking glass at the faraway region in which I live and work for The Independent - the Middle East - and see a landscape which I do no recognise, a distant tragedy turned, here in America, into a farce of hypocrisy and banality and barefaced lies. Am I the Cheshire Cat? Or the Mad Hatter?

I picked up Jimmy Carter's new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid at San Francisco airport, and zipped through it in a day. It's a good, strong read by the only American president approaching sainthood. Carter lists the outrageous treatment meted out to the Palestinians, the Israeli occupation, the dispossession of Palestinian land by Israel, the brutality visited upon this denuded, subject population, and what he calls "a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights".

Carter quotes an Israeli as saying he is "afraid that we are moving towards a government like that of South Africa, with a dual society of Jewish rulers and Arabs subjects with few rights of citizenship...". A proposed but unacceptable modification of this choice, Carter adds, "is the taking of substantial portions of the occupied territory, with the remaining Palestinians completely surrounded by walls, fences, and Israeli checkpoints, living as prisoners within the small portion of land left to them".

Needless to say, the American press and television largely ignored the appearance of this eminently sensible book - until the usual Israeli lobbyists began to scream abuse at poor old Jimmy Carter, albeit that he was the architect of the longest lasting peace treaty between Israel and an Arab neighbour - Egypt - secured with the famous 1978 Camp David accords. The New York Times ("All the News That's Fit to Print", ho! ho!) then felt free to tell its readers that Carter had stirred "furore among Jews" with his use of the word "apartheid". The ex-president replied by mildly (and rightly) pointing out that Israeli lobbyists had produced among US editorial boards a "reluctance to criticise the Israeli government".

Typical of the dirt thrown at Carter was the comment by Michael Kinsley in The New York Times (of course) that Carter "is comparing Israel to the former white racist government of South Africa". This was followed by a vicious statement from Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who said that the reason Carter gave for writing this book "is this shameless, shameful canard that the Jews control the debate in this country, especially when it comes to the media. What makes this serious is that he's not just another pundit, and he's not just another analyst. He is a former president of the United States".

But well, yes, that's the point, isn't it? This is no tract by a Harvard professor on the power of the lobby. It's an honourable, honest account by a friend of Israel as well as the Arabs who just happens to be a fine American ex-statesman. Which is why Carter's book is now a best-seller - and applause here, by the way, for the great American public that bought the book instead of believing Mr Foxman.

But in this context, why, I wonder, didn't The New York Times and the other gutless mainstream newspapers in the United States mention Israel's cosy relationship with that very racist apartheid regime in South Africa which Carter is not supposed to mention in his book? Didn't Israel have a wealthy diamond trade with sanctioned, racist South Africa? Didn't Israel have a fruitful and deep military relationship with that racist regime? Am I dreaming, looking-glass-like, when I recall that in April of 1976, Prime Minister John Vorster of South Africa - one of the architects of this vile Nazi-like system of apartheid - paid a state visit to Israel and was honoured with an official reception from Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, war hero Moshe Dayan and future Nobel prize-winner Yitzhak Rabin? This of course, certainly did not become part of the great American debate on Carter's book.

At Detroit airport, I picked up an even slimmer volume, the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group Report - which doesn't really study Iraq at all but offers a few bleak ways in which George Bush can run away from this disaster without too much blood on his shirt. After chatting to the Iraqis in the green zone of Baghdad - dream zone would be a more accurate title - there are a few worthy suggestions (already predictably rejected by the Israelis): a resumption of serious Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, an Israeli withdrawal from Golan, etc. But it's written in the same tired semantics of right-wing think tanks - the language, in fact, of the discredited Brookings Institution and of my old mate, the messianic New York Times columnist Tom Friedman - full of "porous" borders and admonitions that "time is running out".

The clue to all this nonsense, I discovered, comes at the back of the report where it lists the "experts" consulted by Messrs Baker, Hamilton and the rest. Many of them are pillars of the Brookings Institution and there is Thomas Freedman of The New York Times.

But for sheer folly, it was impossible to beat the post-Baker debate among the great and the good who dragged the United States into this catastrophe. General Peter Pace, the extremely odd chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, said of the American war in Iraq that "we are not winning, but we are not losing". Bush's new defence secretary, Robert Gates, announced that he "agreed with General Pace that we are not winning, but we are not losing". Baker himself jumped into the same nonsense pool by asserting: "I don't think you can say we're losing. By the same token (sic), I'm not sure we're winning." At which point, Bush proclaimed this week that - yes - "we're not winning, we're not losing". Pity about the Iraqis.

I pondered this madness during a bout of severe turbulence at 37,000 feet over Colorado. And that's when it hit me, the whole final score in this unique round of the Iraq war between the United States of America and the forces of evil. It's a draw!

Olmert is rejecting Hanukkah miracle from Syria

Olmert's Hanukkah miracle

By Israel Harel

Since the Lebanon fiasco, the ground has been shaking beneath Ehud Olmert's chair. He did manage to thwart the demand to establish a state commission of inquiry, but even the Winograd Committee may mark him as the bearer of supreme responsibility for the failures that caused Israel to lose a war for the first time in its history. To survive the political and military failure and the entanglements of the investigations, Olmert knows - and the precedent set by Ariel Sharon proves - that the path of making territorial concessions is his only hope for saving himself from ousting and perhaps a trial. Only by making additional sacrifices in this area will he reach the protected status of "etrog," as the media called Sharon.

This means that every failure will be forgiven, every shady deal laundered, every file closed. If Sharon was absolved retroactively for the sin of Lebanon and the sin of creating the settlements merely by proposing to uproot Jewish communities, all the more will Olmert, who does not bear the burden of even one-hundredth of the reasons for which Sharon was hated and persecuted in Israeli politics, gain the approval of the country's media and legal system.

There is even a Hanukkah miracle, which could win him the validation of all the political and legal elements who are after him: Bashar Assad is calling, publicly, for direct talks with Israel. In contrast to the past, the Syrian leader says, without preconditions.

But in an incomprehensible and even surprising way, the beneficiary of the miracle, who should immediately have grasped that he has been given a one-time opportunity to extricate himself from his troubles, does not discern the miracle and rejects the proffered hand.

Never mind that the head of the Mossad, whose job it is to be suspicious - and who obviously also has information to support his suspicions, told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that "Assad is not really offering negotiations," or "the Syrians have preconditions." But for Olmert to reject, contrary to his survival instinct, dialogue with Assad because "first Syria's actions must be examined, not only its words"?

The declaration is surprising. If he responds positively to the Syrians, he will become the darling of the decision-makers, he will receive the status of etrog and will gain much political and legal time. What is he being asked to sacrifice, after all - the Golan Heights? If, as a graduate of the Betar movement, he is willing to give up most of Judea and Samaria to the Arabs, he will all the more not spare the Golan Heights.

This is unlikely to be the reason. Even his statement after his meeting with Tony Blair, and despite Blair's support of this line, is not persuasive: "Our demands are clear: (even before negotiations) Syria must stop undermining the Siniora government in Lebanon and stop supporting terror."

The prime minister received a hint as to the thoughts of those who have the power to decide his political or legal future, in a series of articles the line of which most of the media and the legal system usually toes: The main thrust is that Olmert should respond positively to the Syrian even if the U.S. is opposed, unless it turns out that this is a Syrian trick. Certainly from the perspective of these circles, there is no reason, if the maneuver turns out to be real, not to give the Syrians the Golan Heights and destroy the settlements. It is therefore entirely incomprehensible that this seasoned man does not take advantage of the most serious opportunity that has ever crossed his path to save his standing and his position and also, as with the Sharon precedent, to get rid of his legal troubles. Moreover, if the talks with the Syrians do get started, it is reasonable to assume that the Winograd Committee, like Menachem Mazuz with disengagement, will take the revolutionary political circumstances into consideration and not dare take responsibility for dismissing a prime minister at the height of peace talks with Syria.

The media, among whom Olmert has more personal friends than Sharon had, will certainly act this way. They will happily once again come to his aid after he has won the appropriate approval.
The accepted explanation, that American interests are the reason Olmert has not responded to the Syrians, is not convincing. In the past the Americans never came out against a move that led to Israeli withdrawal, even if they were surprised and taken aback by Israel's moves, as was the case at the beginning of the Oslo process - and subsequently, when the process was bogged down, they ardently demanded its implementation.

It is a clear American interest that Syria depart the axis of evil following receipt of the Golan. It is therefore reasonable to assume that in absolute contradiction to the public rejection of Assad's initiative, something significant is happening beneath the surface in the Israel-Syria arena. And to surprise us all, and thus increase the effect of the achievement, Olmert's and Livni's unconvincing declarations are being aired ("We must know when the opportunity is real and when it is only an image of one").

Then will the exaltation of the etrog, if the breakthrough is significant, be carried from the ends of the country to the ends of the earth.

UN calls for Israel to pull out from West Bank, Golan

Last update - 01:47 03/12/2006

By Shlomo Shamir , Haaretz Correspondent and AP

NEW YORK - The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution Friday calling for the withdrawal of Israel from the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. As expected, the resolution passed by a large majority of 157. Seven countries voted against: Israel, the U.S., Australia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau. Ten members abstained.

The resolution is one of a series passed Friday in an annual debate that has been held for many years in the General Assembly. The debate, consisting of three days of meetings, began on November 29, the date in 1947 on which the U.N. approved the Partition Plan.

The Palestinian U.N. observer, Riyad Mansour, praised the resolution and said the large majority was an expression of the support of the international community to advance the peace process.

Israel did not take part in the debate Friday, and as its custom in previous years, ignored the outcome of the vote. The deputy head of the Israeli delegation to the U.N., Daniel Carmon, told Haaretz yesterday, "Palestine Day at the U.N. has crystalized as a process that has repeated itself for dozens of years in which the Arab and Muslim bloc raises anew unilateral anti-Israeli resolutions, leaning on an assured automatic majority."

"The Arabs feel this yearly debate is their finest hour," he added.

A related resolution calling for Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights passed by a majority of 107, with 60 abstentions.

A majority of 157, with 10 abstentions, also voted to call any attempt by Israel to extend Israeli jurisdiction and law on Jerusalem illegal.

New this year was the resolution welcoming the cease-fire in the Gaza Strip and urging both sides to maintain the truce.

The General Assembly has no enforcement powers, and its resolutions have declarative significance only.

Until the General Assembly ends its session at the end of December, which is known in the U.N. as "Israeli month," another 14 anti-Israel resolutions are expected to pass, traditionally ensured a majority of the support of the world body's 192 members.

However three new resolutions will be added to the series this year regarding the outcome of the war in Lebanon. One slams Israel for the impact of the war on human rights.

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Anan, who is concluding his term of office at the end of the month, took advantage of the Palestine Day debate to urge the member states to resuscitate the peace process, noting that negotiations were the only way out of the conflict.

Meanwhile, Haaretz has learned that in a meeting Friday in New York between the incoming Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and deputy premier Shimon Peres, Ban told Peres he planned to visit the region and added that the Middle East would be a high priority for him.

He also pledged to work to free Israel's kidnapped soldiers.

UN Human Rights body votes against Israeli annexation of Golan

Last update - 20:01 27/11/2006

UN Human Rights Council urges Israel to dismantle settlements

By The Associated Press


The United Nations Human Rights Council, which has censured only Israel during its six-month existence, overwhelmingly urged Israel on Monday to halt expansion of settlements on occupied land as a first step towards their removal.

A total of 45 countries, including European Union members, Latin American states and Japan, voted in favor of the resolution proposed by Arab and other Islamic countries, with only Canada voting against and Cameroun abstaining.

The resolution, similar to others approved in the past by the old Human Rights Commission which the Council replaced earlier this year, called on Israel to take "serious measures" to prevent settlers attacking Palestinians.

It urged parties in the area to renew efforts to achieve peace and a comprehensive political settlement in order to create a situation "which will allow two states, Israel and Palestine, to live in peace and security".

In a speech urging the 47-member Council to reject the resolution, Israel's ambassador Itzhak Levanon said he had asked the Palestinian delegation to support its withdrawal in the light of the weekend ceasefire agreement between the two sides.

This would have given "an indication of their positive and constructive intention", he declared.

The resolution, Levanon said, failed to take account of Israel's dismantling of settlements in Gaza and the north of the occupied territories last year - "unilateral moves which only served to create an ever-worsening security situation for Israeli civilians".

Rights council votes against Israeli annexation of Golan
The council earlier Monday passed a resolution criticizing Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights.

The council voted 32-1 with 14 abstentions to declare illegal Israel's 1981 annexation of the Golan Heights and demand that Israel rescind its decision to impose its laws and jurisdiction on the area, which it captured in the 1967 Middle East war.

Canada, which said the resolution was unbalanced, was the only no vote, and European Union members abstained.

The United States and Israel are not members, but Israeli Ambassador to
international offices in Geneva Itzhak Levanon said Syria had proposed the resolution "purely to draw attention away from its ... own deplorable human rights record."

"Under Syrian possession, the Golan Heights were used to launch constant
attacks against Israeli civilians," Levanon said. "Today, the Golan Heights is more peaceful than ever, stable and thriving. The economy is booming, fields are blossoming, and everyone is enjoying the benefits of democracy."

The resolution said Israel should "desist from changing the physical
character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan" and allow the displaced population to return to their homes.

The vote came as the council considered resolutions proposed at its September three-week session.

Earlier China, Cuba, Arab and African countries had already demonstrated their dominance of the new council by forcing through a resolution recommending a "code of conduct" for UN human rights experts.

The council approved the resolution proposed by Algeria on a 30-15 vote with two abstentions, overriding objections from the European Union, Canada and Latin American countries.

The vote gave an indication of the strength of countries which some human
rights organizations say are determined to rein in the experts who submit
critical reports on countries to the 47-nation council.

The measure doesn't spell out what should be in the code of conduct, but
requests that an intergovernmental group reviewing the work of the "special rapporteurs" assigned to different countries and issues should draft such guidelines taking into account suggestions made by council members.

The independent experts, who have been assigned to some of the world's worst rights abusers, often anger the governments they report on.

There already have been moves in the UN General Assembly to discourage UN
human rights bodies from adopting resolutions condemning the human rights
situation in any country.

Israel is the only country criticized by the council since it replaced the widely discredited Human Rights Commission last June. The new body has passed resolutions in regular session and in three emergency sessions, blasting the Israelis for the invasion of Lebanon and treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/793291.html