With the September 23rd Palestinian statehood application coming up in just a few days, it’s worth taking a look at US-Israeli condemnation of the move in a broader historical context. It will come as no surprise to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the relevant history that the US has come out condemning the move by Palestine, with the Obama administration now formally announcing its intention to use veto power, rather than simply abstain at the UN vote.
Since the mid-sixties the US has, by some significant margin, the highest record of veto use out of all the Security Council members (including the former USSR) and has a shockingly extensive record – which goes largely unreported – of lone (or almost lone) “no” votes in the UN General Assembly. [1]
Not only is it entirely predictable that the US would veto the Palestinian application based on past policy and its record of vetoes and tactical abstentions, but also because of an offer made by the United States to Israel back in 2010. When Israel resumed its (formal) settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem last September, the US offered billions of dollars’ worth of jet fighters and a pledge of unconditional support in the UN for any resolutions deemed critical of Israel , including the use of veto power [2]. All this in exchange for a paltry 90 day freeze, which would be retroactive anyway. Ultimately the deal fell through, as the US dropped its demands for a settlement freeze. Nonetheless the farcical nature of the offer represents an even more lenient stance towards Israeli crimes than has been the case with previous administrations, and a hardening of attitudes towards Palestine.
A few little ironies
There is something distinctly Orwellian about US-Israeli policy towards Palestine and the region as a whole. Were its consequences not so dire for so many millions, it would be comical.
The line that’s been used by both countries to condemn the Palestinian bid for statehood is that it constitutes a reckless move that is unilateral in nature and will only serve to isolate Israel from the world community (heaven forbid!). This is shockingly ironic when one actually takes the time to think about it. The UN Security Council – who will vote on the proposal – is made up of 15 member states. The General Assembly, which can vote to give Palestine “enhanced observer” status, is comprised of…well…basically every country in the world. So in the doublespeak of US-Israeli propaganda, literally the most multilateral action possible becomes literally the most unilateral one. What’s more, the accusation that such a move will isolate Israel is spectacularly ironic given that it is official and stated Israeli policy to isolate Palestine (and particularly Gaza) from the rest of the world physically, economically and politically.
Further, the continued US-Israeli oppression of the Palestinian non-state, including the now over forty year occupation, has been justified partly on the grounds that Palestinian leaders will not recognise Israel as a state, and that that the two cannot co-exist peacefully until such recognition were to come about. The irony here is that such Palestinian refusal is currently no more than rhetoric – rhetoric that even Hamas has offered to put aside if an agreement were reached in accord with the 1967 boarders (as is the international consensus outside of the United States) – yet Israel has physically denied Palestinians the right to a state through actions, which are of course, far more significant than words. And it has been doing so since 1967, and continues to systemically make it harder for a viable Palestinian state to ever exist. Once again our perspective is skewed by the overwhelming dominance one side has over our discourse.
And lastly, with the recent ten year anniversary of 9-11 just past, let us remind ourselves of something the Bush administration (and a few demagogues in the media) used to be fond of saying. When asked why the Jihadis attacked America on that day, and why there is such burning hatred for us in Muslim world, the most unenlightened response one would get is that they simply “hate our freedoms”. This was of course a comical answer to many observers, particularly those outside of America. The idea that a group of Islamic extremists would launch a holy crusade killing thousands of innocent civilians from a far away country simply because it couldn’t stand the idea that they could vote, drink alcohol and wear bikinis is of course, absurd in the highest order. Right? Right. But while they may not be motivated by a hatred of our freedoms, we are motivated by a hatred of theirs. It’s no secret by now that we (the West) have consistently moved to block democracy in the Middle East and have enacted policies to install and support tyrannical dictatorships across the region. There is a reason for this. Why? Because the policies of such dictators are usually favourable to our own, whereas the views of the general population overwhelmingly are not. We hate and fear their freedom, because allowing a truly democratic Middle East would undermine our hegemony in the region and get in the way of our policy goals. Such is the nature of Western foreign policy throughout modern history.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power#Analysis_by_country
