Will ‘Nipper’ Cameron obey Tel Aviv’s trumpet call or vote for Palestinian freedom?


The little white dog listened intently to his master’s voice from the gramophone trumpet…



Britain and NATO were keen as mustard to establish a no-fly zone over Libya to “protect civilians” but too cowardly to do the same for the Palestinians, who are constantly on the receiving end of Israel’s air strikes and armed incursions. Muslims and Christians alike have been slaughtered or maimed in their thousands and had their homes, farms and water resources stolen while waiting 63 years for the international community to deliver them from Israel’s brutal occupation.

And Israel now plans to steal Palestine’s offshore gas.

Not surprisingly, after decades of fruitless peace talks with a gun to their heads the Palestinians are about to apply to the United Nations for recognition of their own state based on the 1949 armistice lines that are universally regarded as the border with Israel.

The bid is due to be made on 20 September or soon afterwards, under Lebanon’s UN presidency. Meanwhile, the US and Israel have been conducting a huge diplomatic campaign to sabotage the Palestinian move.  

Most of the world already supports the Palestinian cause. The trouble is, the will of the people in theUS, Britain and most of Europe is ignored by political leaders who have allowed themselves to be suckered into the Zionist cause. That’s Western-style democracy for you. Freedom fighters, beware.

It remains to be seen whether Britain, whose prime minister is a self-proclaimed Zionist and, some are now claiming, a direct descendent of Moses and has pledged “indestructible” support for the Israeli regime, and whose foreign secretary has been an adoring Friend of Israel since he was in short trousers, will join in blocking the bid for freedom.

The other day David Cameron said of the successful Libyan uprising: “Our task now is to do all we can to support the will of the Libyan people which is for an effective transition to a free, democratic and inclusive Libya. This will be and must be and should be Libyan-led and a Libyan-owned process with broad international support co-ordinated by the United Nations.” He’s keen as mustard – again – to do all this for the Libyans, but will he do the same for the Palestinians? When they held free and fair elections in 2006, remember, democracy-preaching Britain didn’t like the result and joined the US and Israel in trashing the Palestinians’ fledgling democracy and strangling their economy.

It’s not difficult to imagine Cameron and Hague snapping to attention when Tel Aviv speaks, the mantra-like instructions amplified as usual by Washington… “Let there be no doubt… blah, blah…symbolic action to isolate Israel will not create an independent Palestinian state… blah, blah…there’s no shortcut to statehood… blah, blah…must return to the negotiating table…”.

The famous trade-mark white dog ‘Nipper’, listening intently to his master’s voice from the gramophone trumpet, comes instantly to mind. And fluffy American bitches have had their coiffed heads wedged so firmly up Tel Aviv’s trumpet for such a long time that it’s worn like a permanent fashion statement over there.

The question is, can ‘Nipper’ Cameron extract his head from that trumpet long enough to do the decent thing with regard to democracy and freedom in the Middle East, in tune with the British people’s wishes?

International support is one thing. The Palestinian leadership is something else. I read with alarm that Saeb Erekat, President Abbass’s sidekick, heads the team responsible for preparing the Palestinian submission to the UN. I thought Erekat resigned as chief negotiator following revelations by al-Jazeera that his team, during peace talks with the Israelis, was willing to make foolish concessions and couldn’t negotiate its way out of a paper bag. A few months ago he was reported to be in Washington talking with US officials about reviving the discredited peace process. How counter-productive can he get?

And such is the legal and constitutional tangle surrounding the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation), the PNC (Palestinian National Council), the PA (Palestinian Authority) and their relationship to each other, that legal advisers now warn that a move towards statehood might adversely affect the rights of the refugees, who account for more than half of all Palestinians. If the PLO, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, is replaced by a state the change in legal status could mean that core rights, such as the right of return, are lost forever, it is claimed. Other say that is nonsense and just scare tactics.

Nevertheless, if the whole deal is not very cleverly handled it could have unwelcome consequences. On the other hand, even partial success can change the dynamics of this very miserable situation.

All the same, are these really the right people to be in charge of  Palestine’s fate?

25 August 2011

Statehood: Palestinians must show they mean business


Two-prong approach needed

What a thought-provoking piece Prof Lawrence Davidson’s latest article is, whether you agree with every word or not.

Titled ‘The Palestinian Bid for UN Statehood Recognition’, it makes the point that the Palestinians’ move, which Tweedle-dum Obama and Tweedle-dee Netanyahu (they never contradict each other, you’ll remember) are desperate to discourage, merely replicates the process by which Israel itself gained recognition as a state. The world will recall thatAmerica recognized the Jews’ declaration of an Israeli state with almost indecent haste… like immediately.

The bid also echoes the UN’s original intention to divide Palestine between Jews and Arabs. So there’s no attempt by the Palestinians to break new ground here. What they propose chimes nicely with what went before. How can there possibly be a valid objection? Recognition should be accordedPalestinejust as easily as it was accordedIsrael.

However, Prof Davidson seems keen to airbrush Hamas out of the proceedings, saying the resistance movement “refuses to recognize Israel and would destroy the Zionist state if it could”. He admits that refusing recognition is mutual andIsraelis busy trying to destroy Hamas. In the end, he reasons, Hamas cannot prevail so is dismissed as a key player.

Hamas, however, won the free and fair election in 2006 and clearly has a vital role, though will only be allowed to play if it re-markets itself with a friendlier face. The people’s choice should not be sidelined before it has a proper chance to make good. Besides, there is considerable talent among Hamas’s senior ranks.

Foreign minister Muhammad Awad has been calling for a united government to be formed urgently, ahead of the Palestinian bid in September, as agreed between the factions inCairomonths ago. Attempts to form a unity government have so far come to nought largely because Hamas rejects Fatah’s insistence that Palestinian Authority prime minister Salam Fayaad leads the new government. Fayaad is a stranger to Palestinian elections and has no democratic legitimacy.

Nevertheless he is liked in the West. For the purpose of the bid there probably needs to be a team of 3 or 4 all singing the same tune, Fayaad and Hamas’s Ismail Haniyeh included… Haniyeh because he is proven to be gritty and steadfast for Palestinian freedom, and as prime minister in Gaza has survived the worst that Israel and the conniving PA can do to dislodge him.

Prof Davidson is not so keen on the bid. He argues thatIsraelhas no intention of allowing a meaningful two-state solution and that “UN recognition of Palestine as a pseudo state on theWest Bankand Gaza Strip will solve nothing and may well cause more problems for the Palestinians on the ground.” The alternative, he says, is Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions within the context of increasing worldwide awareness ofIsrael’s essential racist nature.

He pins great hopes on theBDSmovement, noting Ilan Pappe’s remark thatBDS, as part and parcel of a civil society struggle in support of Palestinian rights, has been successful in key European countries. He suggests there is a good chance that a worldwideBDSmovement, growing steadily for the next quarter century, could achieve the de-Zionization ofIsrael.

That’s all very well, but dismissing the UN bid and relying instead on BDS, doesn’t take into account the further damage by Israel’s continued poaching of Palestinian territory while we wait 25 years for BDS to work. During that time the occupation will have a much too permanent flavour. Israel, of course, does not want a viable Palestinian state nextdoor. But the world cares less and less about what Israel wants. The creation of even a pseudo state, in the meantime, should provide Palestinians with sufficient status to demand UN protection against further encroachment.

And America gets weaker by the day. For how much longer will Zionist Washington rule the UN roost?

There is a general expectation that BDS will bring apartheid Israel to its knees just like it put paid to apartheid South Africa. But what gives Israel its criminal licence is the subjugation of gullible Western politicians to Israel’s agenda. An essential part of BDS strategy, therefore, must be to break that parliamentary support.

BDS certainly has the makings of an international movement that could eventually bring about the downfall of Israel’s global life support system. Civil disobedience and direct action are the way to go, because you cannot rely on lobbying elected representatives – most are corrupted by Zionist influence. They are the real enemy, and they are fouling our democratic way of life. Savour these wise words…

“Civil disobedience, that is not our problem…. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is the numbers of people all over the world who have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. And our problem is that scene in All Quiet on the Western Front where the schoolboys march off dutifully in a line to war. Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world, in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem…” – Howard Zinn, 1970

Doing nothing means being forced back to the ‘negotiating’ table and we know how pointless that is. Palestinians and their allies around the world need to show they mean business. It seems to me the situation calls for a two-prong attack. The bid for statehood is essential if only to put down a marker and change the dynamic. There must be no negotiations until Palestinians have equal rank to Israelis within the international community and a level playing field. Pushing for negotiations before then is utterly immoral.

The second prong is to develop and expand BDS to neutralize the ‘enemy within’ our Western parliamentary structures and media.

If Palestinian leaders mess up in September I suspect they’ll lose a lot of friends. By messing up I mean going about it in a half-baked, disunited way. They’ve got one month left to straighten themselves out.


4 August 2011