A monster beyond control
hal
27 December, 2009
Alanhart.net
On the first anniversary of the beginning of Israel's war on the Gaza
Strip - in my view it was a demonstration of Israeli state terrorism
at its most naked - it's not enough to say that the governments of the
Western powers (and others) are complicit in Israel's on-going
collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinians, 53% of whom are
children.
What is actually happening in the blockaded Gaza Strip, and less
obviously on the occupied West Bank, is the continuation by stealth of
Zionism's ethnic cleansing of Palestine. My friend Professor Ilan
Pappe, Israel's leading "revisionist" (meaning honest) historian and
author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, would and has put it
another way. What we are witnessing is, in his words, "genocide in
slow motion." And that, really, is what the governments of the Western
powers (and others) are complicit in.
The question that provokes in my mind is: Why, really, are the major
powers (and others) allowing it to happen?
The only answer that makes some sense to me is this. They have
concluded, but cannot say, that nuclear-armed Israel, with the
assistance of the Zionist lobby in all of its manifestations, is a
monster beyond control.
In my analysis it's possible to identify the moment in history when
the major powers abandoned any hope they might have had of containing
Zionism's colonial ambitions.
It came, the moment, in the immediate aftermarth of the 1967 war.
Contrary to Zionism's version of the story, it was a war of Israeli
aggression not self-defense. As I document in some detail in my book
Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Israel's military and political
leaders knew the Arabs were not intending to attack.
That being so, what the major powers ought to have said to Israel (in
the diplomatic language of a Security Council Resolution and more
explicitly behind closed doors) is something like: "Aggression cannot
be rewarded. Aggressors cannot keep territory conquered in war. You
are now required to get the hell out of it without laying down
conditions for your withdrawal."
To drive home the point, they could and should have reminded Israel of
what President Eisenhower said to the people of America when he
demanded Israel's unconditional withdrawal from Egyptian territory
after its collusion with Britain and France in 1956. Eisenhower, the
first and the last American president to contain Zionism, said this:
"If we agree that armed attack can properly achieve the purposes of
the assailant, then I fear we will have turned back the clock of
international order. We will have countenanced the use of force as a
means of settling international differences and gaining national
advantage=85 If the UN once admits that international disputes can be
settled using force, then we will have destroyed the very foundation
of the organisation and our best hope for establishing a real world
order."
As it happened, the major powers could not say that to Israel in 1967
because the Johnson administration had colluded with Israel to the
extent of giving it the greenlight to smash Eygpt's armed forces, in
the hope that a humiliating defeat for them would lead to the
overthrow of President Nasser.
But also true is that President Johnson sought and obtained an
assurance that Israel would not take advantage of the war situation to
grab Jordanian and Syrian territory. It was because some in the
Johnson administration (probably Defense Secretary McNamara and the
Joint Chiefs of Staff) didn't trust Israel to keep its word that the
U.S. spy ship, the Liberty, was stationed off the Israel/Gaza coast to
listen to IDF movement orders. And it was because Israeli Defense
Minister Dayan didn't want Johnson to know that he intended to take
the West Bank and the Golan Heights that he, Dayan, ordered the attack
on the Liberty. (The full story of that attack and Johnson's cover-up
of it is also in my book, in a chapter headed The Liberty Affair -
"Pure Murder" on a "Great Day").
Despite that, the major powers, including and led by America, could
still have acted firmly to contain Zionism's colonial ambitions. They
could have said to Israel something like: "We can just about live with
the fact that you will retain the newly occupied Arab territories as a
bargaining chip, to be exchanged for peace with your Arab neighbours,
but we will not allow you to settle those territories. Not one
building. If you defy us on this matter, the Security Council will
authorize enforcement action as necessary to oblige you to comply with
international law."
In what became Security Council Resolution 242, it was the failure of
the major powers to read the riot act to Israel on the matter of not
settling the newly occupied territories that marks the moment when
they, the major powers, became resigned to the fact that the Zionist
state, assisted by its awesomely powerful global lobby, was a monster
they could not control. (They could slap it on the wrist from time to
time but not control it).
The lesson of the cold-blooded attack on the Liberty was that there is
nothing the Zionist state might not do, to its friends as well as its
enemies, in order to get its own way. (In my book I explain, on the
basis of a conversation with Dayan, the real reason for Israel's
decision to acquire a nuclear arsenal. It was to have the deterrent
threat capability of saying to its friends, "Don't push us further
than we are prepared to go or we'll use these things.")
So in the full light of the truth of history as it relates to the
making and sustaining of conflict in and over Palestine that became
Israel, it's not surprising that the major powers (and others) are
today complicit, more by default than design I say, in Zionism's
crimes.
Article Source : http://www.countercurrents.org/hart271209.htm
trav...@aol.com
>
> Contrary to Zionism's version of the story, it was a war of Israeli
> aggression not self-defense. As I document in some detail in my book
> Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Israel's military and political
> leaders knew the Arabs were not intending to attack.
Um...when you mass tanks on the border then commit an Act of War,
which is what a naval blockade is, you have "attacked." The arabs
dropped shells from the Golan as well...that is another attack.
Trav
Herbert Cannon
> As I document in some detail in my book
> Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Israel's military and political
> leaders knew the Arabs were not intending to attack.
"Fuck em if they cant take a joke, " said Nasrallah.
Herbert Cannon
<> In what became Security Council Resolution 242, it was the failure of
> the major powers to read the riot act to Israel on the matter of not
> settling the newly occupied territories that marks the moment when
> they, the major powers, became resigned to the fact that the Zionist
> state, assisted by its awesomely powerful global lobby, was a monster
> they could not control. (They could slap it on the wrist from time to
> time but not control it).
Say what became of the two UN security resolutions that ordered Hezbollah
Lebanon to disarm?
Shuurai
> > the major powers to read the riot act to Israel on the matter of not
> > settling the newly occupied territories that marks the moment when
> > they, the major powers, became resigned to the fact that the Zionist
> > state, assisted by its awesomely powerful global lobby, was a monster
> > they could not control. (They could slap it on the wrist from time to
> > time but not control it).
>
> Say what became of the two UN security resolutions that ordered Hezbollah
> Lebanon to disarm?
They were taken just as seriously as any other UN security resolution.
Slim
Isreal leads the world in violating UN Security Resolutions.
Shlomo Shamir
Haaretz
October 11, 2002
NEW YORK - Israel holds the record for ignoring United Nations Security
Council resolutions, according to a study by San Francisco University
political science professor Steven Zunes.
On the eve of a possible U.S.-British assault on Iraq, Zunes decided to
examine in depth one of the main arguments used by the Bush
administration to justify changing the Baghdad regime - Iraq's
deliberate refusal to implement UN Security Council resolutions. He
systematically went through all the states given instructions by the
security council to find out how common a phenomenon it was. His
results were somewhat surprising: "Some of the countries are considered
and are known to be friendly to the U.S.," he told Ha'aretz yesterday.
"In the vast majority of cases I examined, the governments violating UN
Security Council resolutions are countries that receive significant
military, diplomatic and financial aid from the U.S."
Israel leads the list. Since 1968, Israel has violated 32 resolutions
that included condemnation or criticism of the governments' policies
and actions. Turkey is in second place, with 24 violations since 1974,
and Morocco is third with 17 resolutions it ignored.
Newsday newspaper published the ranking yesterday, but Zunes said that
he did not rank the states and claimed it was newspaper that came up
with the grades. According to Zunes, out of some 1,500 UN Security
Resolutions passed since 1947, 90 were openly, blatantly, and
continually violated without the governments being held accountable for
their actions.
Zunes specifically avoided counting resolutions that are vague or
unclear so that governments could claim different interpretations to
the meaning of the resolutions. Thus, the famous UN Security Council
resolutions 242 and 338 are not included in his study. He also did not
count resolutions that only included condemnations. Instead, he focused
on those that included specific calls for changes in the subject
governments' policies.
The resolutions Israel violated were either about its annexation of
East Jerusalem or settlements in the territories. Israel also ignored
UN Security Council resolutions that called for Israel to cease using
harsh measures against the Palestinian population and to cease
expelling Palestinians.
In response, Israel's deputy chief of mission at the UN, Aharon Yaakov,
said yesterday that there are big differences between the decisions
that refer to Israel and those that refer to Iraq. "Israel is the only
democracy in the region and is fighting for its existence, while Iraq
is a brutal dictatorship that attacked its neighbors and violates human
rights, including the use of chemical weapons against its own
citizens," he said.
--
"A nickel isn't worth a dime today." - Y. Berra
Slim
As seriously as Israel takes them?