News

Rachel Corrie ruling 'deeply troubling', says her family

Details: Written by Harriet Sherwood in Haifa Harriet Sherwood in Haifa; Published: 28 August 2012 28 August 2012; Hits: 4643 4643

American activist's family vows to appeal against Israeli court's ruling that her death was a 'regrettable accident'

Harriet Sherwood in Haifa

[For links, see original article . . .]

Cindy and Craig, the parents of Rachel Corrie, said it was a 'bad day for human rights' Link to this video

The death of pro-Palestinian activist Rachel Corrie was a "regrettable accident" for which the state of Israel was not responsible, a judge has ruled, dismissing a civil lawsuit brought by the family.

The young American had "put herself in a dangerous situation" and her death was not caused by the negligence of the Israeli state or army, said Judge Oded Gershon at Haifa district court.

The 62-page ruling found no fault in the internal Israeli military investigation which cleared the driver of the bulldozer which crushed Corrie to death in March 2003. The judge said the driver could not have seen the activist from the cab of the bulldozer.

Corrie could have saved herself by moving out of the zone of danger "as any reasonable person would have done", he said. The area was a combat zone, and the US government had warned its citizens not to go there.

International activists were intent on obstructing the actions of the Israeli military and acting as human shields "to protect terrorists".

Corrie was killed on 16 March 2003, crushed under an Israeli military bulldozer while trying to obstruct the demolition of a Palestinian home in Rafah, on the Gaza-Egypt border.

The lawsuit, filed by Corrie's parents, Cindy and Craig, of Olympia, Washington state, accused the Israeli military of either unlawfully or intentionally killing Rachel or of gross negligence. The family had claimed a symbolic $1 (63p) in damages and legal expenses.

The judge said no damages were liable, but the family's court costs would be waived.

The family was "deeply saddened and deeply troubled" by the ruling, Cindy Corrie said at a press conference after the ruling. "I believe this was a bad day, not only for our family, but for human rights, humanity, the rule of law and also for the country of Israel."

The state had, she said, employed a "well-heeled system" to protect its soldiers and provide them with immunity. "As a family, we've had to push for answers, accountability and justice."

Rachel's sister, Sarah Corrie Simpson, said: "I believe without doubt that my sister was seen as the driver approached her." She hoped that the driver would one day "have the courage" to tell the truth.
Rachel Corrie's parents attended Haifa district court, where a judge ruled that Israel did not intentionally kill the pro-Palestinian activist in 2003 Link to this video

The US government believed the military investigation was flawed, she added. Last week, the US ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, told the Corrie family that Washington remained dissatisfied with the the inquiry. Hussein Abu Hussein, the family's lawyer, said: "This verdict is yet another example of where impunity has prevailed over accountability and fairness. Rachel Corrie was killed while non-violently protesting home demolitions and injustice in Gaza, and today, this court has given its stamp of approval to flawed and illegal practices that failed to protect civilian life.

"We knew from the beginning that we had an uphill battle to get truthful answers and justice, but we are convinced that this verdict distorts the strong evidence presented in court, and contradicts fundamental principles of international law with regard to protection of human rights defenders. In denying justice in Rachel Corrie's killing, this verdict speaks to the systemic failure to hold the Israeli military accountable for continuing violations of basic human rights."

The family would appeal against the ruling to Israel's supreme court, he added.

Also speaking after the ruling, the state's attorney said the Israeli soldiers at the scene of Corrie's death did "everything they could" to prevent harm being caused to any person.

In a statement, the Israeli justice ministry said: "The death of Rachel Corrie is without a doubt a tragic accident. As the verdict states, the driver of the bulldozer and his commander had a very limited field of vision, such that they had no possibility of seeing Ms Corrie and thus are exonerated of any blame for negligence …

"The security forces … were compelled to carry out 'levelling' work against explosive devices that posed a tangible danger to life and limb, and were not in any form posing a threat to Palestinian homes. The work was done while exercising maximum caution and prudence, and without the ability to foresee harming anyone."

According to Bill Van Esveld of Human Rights Watch, the verdict "sets a dangerous precedent in its claim that there was no liability for Corrie's death because the Israeli forces involved were conducting a 'combat operation' … The idea that there can be no fault for killing civilians in a combat operation flatly contradicts Israel's international legal obligations to spare civilians from harm during armed conflict, and to credibly investigate and punish violations by its forces."

The judge's statement that the military inquiry into Corrie's death had been without fault was "hard to reconcile with the facts", he said. "Military investigators repeatedly failed to take statements from witnesses, to follow up with the witness's lawyer, and to re-interview witnesses to clarify discrepancies."

Huwaida Arraf, a co-founder of the International Solidarity Movement, the activist organisation for which Corrie volunteered, said after the ruling: "The judge's ruling today is outrageous in so many ways, not least of which is the criticising of Rachel and the maligning of the International Solidarity Movement in an effort to place blame on all but those who killed Rachel and worked to cover it up. These are the same institutions that continue to injure and kill thousands of innocent Palestinians with no accountability. Not only does today's verdict mean that there is no justice for Rachel Corrie, but it also means that no human rights defender is safe from Israeli state violence."

At the time of Corrie's death at the height of the second intifada, or Palestinian uprising, house demolitions were common, part of an increasing cycle of violence from both sides. Palestinian suicide bombers were causing death and destruction with terrifying frequency; the Israeli military was using its mighty force and weaponry to crush the uprising.

The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) said the houses it targeted with bulldozers and shells harboured militants or weapons, or were being used to conceal arms smuggling tunnels under the border. Human rights groups said the demolitions were collective punishment. Between 2000 and 2004, the Israeli military demolished around 1,700 homes in Rafah, leaving about 17,000 people homeless, according to the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem.

Corrie was one of a group of around eight international activists acting as human shields against the demolitions. According to witness statements made at the time and evidence given in court, she clambered atop a pile of earth in the path of an advancing Caterpillar bulldozer. Fellow activists said she was clearly within the line of sight of the bulldozer driver.

The day after Corrie's death, Israel's then prime minister, Ariel Sharon, promised US president George W Bush that Israel would conduct a "thorough, credible and transparent" investigation into the incident.

Within a month, the IDF had completed an internal inquiry, led by its chief of staff. It concluded that its forces were not to blame, that the driver of the bulldozer had not seen the activist, that no charges would be brought and the case was closed.

The Corries launched their civil lawsuit against the state of Israel as an "absolutely last resort". The case opened at Haifa district court in March 2010.

Among those giving evidence was the driver of the bulldozer, who testified anonymously from behind a screen for "security reasons". He repeatedly insisted that the first time he saw the activist was when she was already dying. He said: "I didn't see her before the incident. I saw people pulling the body out from under the earth."

The hearings ended in July last year.

Netanyahu, Romney, and the Imminent “October Surprise”

Details: Written by Gilbert Schramm Gilbert Schramm; Published: 28 August 2012 28 August 2012; Hits: 5774 5774

On August 20th, the Israel Times reported that Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu “is determined to attack Iran before the US elections.” The report also said that Netanyahu was not waiting for a meeting with President Obama next month and that Obama could say little to convince him to delay a possible attack. Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak both believe Obama would have no choice but to support an Israeli attack before the US presidential elections in November.

So our supposed “ally” (we give them 7 million dollars a day) will try to give Americans “no choice” about going to war on the eve of an election. I hope Americans understand the gravity of this situation—and the cynicism behind it. As reported in “The Blaze” of August 20th, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey “had reiterated Sunday night his previously-stated position that an Israeli military strike will only delay Iran’s nuclear program, not totally destroy it…This also appears to be the opinion of Israeli officials…” The Israel Times report also noted that in Israel there is considerable opposition to an Israeli strike on Iran. President Shimon Peres, the army’s chief and top generals, the intelligence community, the opposition leader, and the Americans, are all lined up against Israeli action at this stage. Unfortunately, Netanyahu will make the final call. Apparently he is already making the case for war to his coalition allies.

Israeli inquiry into Rachel Corrie death insufficient, US ambassador tells family

Details: Written by Matthew Kalman in Jerusalem Matthew Kalman in Jerusalem; Published: 24 August 2012 24 August 2012; Hits: 4410 4410

US government does not believe military inquiry was 'thorough, credible and transparent', as family await verdict in civil suit

Rachel Corrie died trying to stop an Israeli army bulldozer from destroying Palestinian houses in Rafah in 2003. Photograph: Denny Sternstein/AP

The US ambassador to Israel has told the family of an American pro-Palestinian activist who was killed in Gaza in 2003 that the US government remains dissatisfied with the Israeli army's decision to close its official investigation into the incident.

Rachel Corrie, 23, an activist with the International Solidarity Movement, was crushed to death as she tried to stop an Israeli army bulldozer from destroying Palestinian houses in Rafah, on the Egypt-Gaza border.

In 2005 Corrie's family filed a civil suit in the Haifa district court against the Israeli government over the incident. A verdict is expected on Tuesday.
At a meeting at the US embassy in Tel Aviv last week, the ambassador, Dan Shapiro, told Corrie's parents and her sister that the government did not believe the Israeli military investigation had been "thorough, credible and transparent", as had been promised by Israel. The investigation concluded that Corrie's death was an accident and that she had endangered herself by entering a combat zone.

"The lawsuit is just a small step in our family's nearly decade-long search for truth and justice," said Craig Corrie, Rachel's father. "The mounting evidence presented before the court underscores a broken system of accountability.

"We're responsible as a family to do whatever we can to get at the truth of what happened to Rachel and to try to get some accountability. It's been a very difficult process for us. The testimony by the defence witnesses has been erratic. Their stories never agreed with each other. We hope the judge will reach a reasonable conclusion."

Jewish settler attacks on Palestinians listed as 'terrorist incidents' by US

Details: Written by Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem; Published: 22 August 2012 22 August 2012; Hits: 4364 4364

Israeli leaders condemn recent extremist violence, the growth of which human rights groups blame on lack of law enforcement

Palestinians tackle a fire in a West Bank field they say was started by Jewish settlers. According to UN, violent attacks by settlers on Palestinians and their property has increased by almost 150% since 2009. Photograph: Abed Omar Qusini/Reuters

Violence by Jewish settlers has been cited for the first time in a US state department list of "terrorist incidents", as Israeli political leaders condemned a string of recent attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

The inclusion of assaults on Palestinian targets in the annual report on terrorism reflects growing concern in Israel and internationally that violence by a minority of Jewish extremists could trigger a new cycle of conflict and further damage the prospects of a peace agreement between the two sides.
"Attacks by extremist Israeli settlers against Palestinian residents, property and places of worship in the West Bank continued," said the Country Reports on Terrorism 2011. It referred to "price tag" operations, meaning violence committed by radical settlers against Palestinians in retribution for actions by the Israeli government or army deemed to be "anti-settler".

US and European officials have become more vocal in criticising settler violence amid fears that the actions of a minority of Jewish extremists could provoke a militant response from Palestinians. According to the UN, violent attacks by settlers on Palestinians and their property, mosques and farmland has increased by almost 150% since 2009.

On Friday, the US state department condemned "in the strongest possible terms" the firebombing of a Palestinian taxi near Bethlehem, in which six people – including four-year-old twins – were injured. It urged expeditious action by Israel to bring the perpetrators to justice and for "all parties to avoid any actions that could lead to an escalation of violence".

The attack was widely blamed on settlers, with military sources suggesting "Israeli civilians were responsible". A second firebomb was found near the scene. No arrests had been made by Sunday afternoon.

Israeli politicians were also swift in their condemnation. The prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, said it was a "very serious incident", and on Sunday, Moshe Ya'alon, minister for strategic affairs, described it as "a terrorist attack".

He linked the firebombing to a separate incident in Jerusalem at the weekend, in which a Palestinian youth was severely beaten by dozens of Jewish teenagers, who witnesses said were searching for Arabs to attack.

"The hate crimes committed over the weekend against Arabs in Judea and Samaria [the biblical terms for the West Bank] and Jerusalem are intolerable, outrageous and must be firmly dealt with," Ya'alon said. "These are terrorist attacks. They run contrary to Jewish morality and values, and constitute first and foremost an educational and moral failure."

Jamal Julani, 17, from East Jerusalem, was admitted to hospital in a critical condition and placed on a respirator in the intensive care unit. A 19-year-old Jewish man was arrested, and further arrests were expected. A police spokesman described the incident as a brawl, and said it had no connection to settlers.

The Country Reports on Terrorism cited several incidents of settler violence during 2011, including attacks on Israeli military personnel and a base. Over the year 10 mosques in the West Bank and one in an Israeli-Arab town were attacked, it said.

Human rights groups which monitor settler violence say it routinely includes assaults against individuals and groups of Palestinians, harassment, uprooting trees, burning fields, attacks on livestock and damage to cars and houses. It usually peaks during the autumn olive harvesting season.

According to the UN office for humanitarian affairs, the number of settler attacks causing casualties or damage to Palestinian property has increased by 144% between 2009 and 2011(pdf). Three Palestinians were killed and 183 injured by settlers last year; about 10,000 trees were damaged or destroyed; and more than 90% of complaints filed with Israeli police were closed without charges being brought.

"One of the key factors in the growth of settler violence is the lack of effective law enforcement," said Sarit Michaeli of human rights group B'Tselem. "The Israelis have been calling settler violence 'terrorism' for a while now, but that in itself is not a guarantee that they will fulfil their obligations to protect Palestinians."

According to B'Tselem, Israeli security forces often fail to intervene to stop settler violence when alerted to it or already present at the scene. In May, a video posted by B'Tselem on Youtube showed settlers shooting at a group of Palestinian protesters while soldiers and police officers stood by.

A recent article published by Foreign Affairs last week, The Rise of Settler Terrorism, attributed the increase in attacks to "the growth of a small but significant fringe of young extremists, known as the 'hilltop youth', who show little, if any, deference to the Israeli government or even to the settler leadership … These settlers – likely no more than a couple of thousand, a small but dangerous minority within the broader community – are the ones leading the 'price tag' attacks against Palestinian civilians and Israeli soldiers."

The US state department report also said that in 2011: "Israel faced terrorist threats from Hamas, the Popular Resistance Committees, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, particularly from Gaza but also from the West Bank, and from Hezbollah in Lebanon."

Among the terrorist incidents it listed for 2011 were the murder of five members of the Fogel family at their home in a West Bank settlement, the death of a British national and the injury of 50 other people in a bomb explosion at Jerusalem's central bus station, and the killing of a resident of the Israeli city of Ashkelon by a rocket fired from Gaza.

Romney, Israel, and Iran: Why Peace in Palestine Matters More Than Ever

Details: Written by Gilbert Schramm Gilbert Schramm; Published: 22 August 2012 22 August 2012; Hits: 4435 4435

The common wisdom is that domestic economic issues will be the deciding factor in the approaching US Presidential election. In light of Mitt Romney’s revealing comments on his recent trip to Israel, American voters should start to consider the serious dangers posed by his emerging foreign policy. First, Romney’s focus on becoming “Businessman in Chief” reveals a dangerously misguided notion of what being the president is all about. This danger is compounded by the fact that his advisors include the old neo-con Bush crowd: Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Joshua Bolton. Don Rumsfeld may have to attend meetings via the backdoor, but he’ll surely have a voice too. Even at lower staff levels, the Romney foreign policy clique is dominated by former Bush advisors who have almost always been wrong, but who have never been apologetic. Romney’s recent trip to Israel highlights these looming dangers.

There is nothing in Romney’s stated policies to date that suggests that he has any real notion of how to revitalize the US economy, but even if he did, he is apparently blind to how a misguided foreign war could completely destroy our fragile economic recovery. The expanding European debt crisis is one obvious threat, but an Israeli military strike on Iran poses even greater dangers. In the last year, the possibility of such an attack has been floated regularly by the current Israeli administration of PM Benjamin Netanyahu. Time and again Romney has signaled a willingness to follow Israel down Netanyahu’s dead-end road. In Israel recently a Romney advisor stated that Romney would “respect” an Israeli attack on Iran. That is a very dangerous “green light” for an Israeli attack that stands to seriously damage the interests of everyone involved—Israel not excluded.

The catastrophic consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran have been noted by our better foreign policy experts, by US military and intelligence officials, and by the more responsible members of the media. Unfortunately, they get little attention compared to the hysterical stream of anti-Iranian rhetoric that emanates from Israel’s PM and his rightwing US allies like FOX news, and which tend to dominate most US coverage of the Middle East. To fully understand what a truly bad idea an Israeli strike on Iran is, you must first separate certain tactical assessments from broader strategic realities. There are four important points here.

1. Few experts believe that Israel can destroy the Iranian program outright.

2. There is very serious doubt that Israel can even effectively delay the program.

3. US involvement does not guarantee any higher level of success.

4. Since Israel is distant and well defended, Iranian retaliation will focus on US interests.

The Iranian response will be based on the reasonable belief that the US supports the attack. Therefore, they will feel justified in striking at US interests. But this point reveals the fallacy that Iran is really a serious threat to Israel. Iran will retaliate against the US targets and its Arab allies in the region because it simply cannot reliably threaten Israeli targets in any significant way. In other words, Israel is not currently facing a real Iranian threat. So if Israel attacks Iran, US personnel and interests and the interests of our numerous allies in the Middle East and Europe will bear the brunt of Iran’s legitimate response to Israeli aggression.

Why do I say “legitimate” response?

Because in fact, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear power for peaceful purposes does not violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Like the idea that Saddam Hussein might actually NOT have WMD’s, all of the overheated Israeli and rightwing US rhetoric glosses over this simple fact. All the rest is unproven supposition and assumption. In these circumstances, any country has a legitimate right to self defense.

Israel’s repeated accusations and threats aimed at Iran, amplified by a gullible US media are just the same kind of fear-mongering we lived through in the run up to the Iraq debacle. In key assessments US and Israeli intelligence sources have repeatedly reported that they have no evidence that Iran made the decision to weaponize its peaceful nuclear program. That being the case, any attack by Israel (and /or the US) would be in total violation of international law.

Israel plays this dangerous game for several reasons. As just noted, in an Israeli strike against Iran, the US would pay the price (in lost jobs, higher oil prices and all the economic damage they would entail) while Israel would basically risk nothing. Israel is in no position to help the US keep the straits of Hormuz open—the US navy would be on its own there. And though Iran can’t really close the straits, that is not really the point. The Persian Gulf would be a war-zone and oil prices would skyrocket. This a losing scenario for the American people (and for almost everyone except Russia and China).

But what about the bigger strategic picture? What if Iran really did manage to go nuclear? Would such a development truly ‘transform the regional security environment’ of the Middle East as so many fear-mongering pundits claim? Would it really be the ‘end of the world as we know it as so much rhetoric suggests?

Not really. First, we’ll get plenty of warning before Iran gets a viable nuke. Even if they do get the uranium needed for a warhead (that still seems years away) they still need to test that technology. Then they need to miniaturize the warhead. Then they need a truly reliable delivery system. By most assessments, this combination of achievements is still years away—if the Iranians even decide to go in that direction. So far, US and Israeli intelligence sources largely agree that Iran hasn’t yet made that decision.

But imagine Iran finally does obtain 3 or 4 warheads. Given the struggle they will have gone through to obtain them, they will certainly not hand them out to terrorists: that is just comic book fantasy of the kind that helped mislead us into attacking Iraq. Even then Iran will still have no way to get those warheads to the US. Would they risk them on a first strike against Israel? Not very likely. Iran could be sure that they would get 200-300 reliably and accurately targeted Israeli nuclear warheads heading their way within minutes. So even if it obtained ten or more nuclear warheads, an Iranian strike on Israel, using substandard missiles and facing an impressive Israeli anti-missile and air defense system, would amount to Iranian national suicide. Israel aside, they know a US response would soon follow.

There is a final, and perhaps more telling point. Israel has “human shields.” Any Iranian attack that actually came close to “destroying” Israel would also probably kill about a million Palestinian Arabs, mostly Sunni Muslims. Since Iran’s main interest in Palestine is to win support in the Sunni world, this would be the worst possible move they could make.

And this brings us to the key point: Iranian motives. For the Iranian threat to Israel (or the US) to be credible, you have to believe that Iranians are suicidal or crazy. That is why so much overblown rhetoric is focused on trying to convince us that they really are crazy and suicidal. They are not: and over time, assessments by both US and Israeli intelligence experts make clear that at the highest levels, neither US or Israel truly believes that they are. In US intelligence estimates, the current Iranian regime is considered a ‘rational decision-maker.’ So all of Israel’s dire warnings about Iran are just posturing.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t make Israel’s current course any less dangerous. Once created, hysterical fear creates its own dynamics. In “Six Days,” Jeremy Bowen describes how the fear peddled to its own people by Israeli leaders prior to the Six Day War in 1967 actually contributed to the decision by those same leaders to launch a first strike against Egypt, even though they knew full well that Egypt’s Nasser had no real plans to attack them.

A rational analysis of Iranian behavior leads to the conclusion that an Iranian bomb wouldn’t change the Middle East security equation very much. If Iran really wants a nuclear weapon, it wants it for purely defensive purposes. A primitive Iranian nuke would be enough to guarantee some local security for Iran, but not enough power for them to truly threaten their neighbors. As such, an Iranian nuke might actually be good for regional stability in the Middle East. And after all, they are neighbors of unstable and/or mostly hostile countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, various former Soviet republics, nuclear armed China, the Sunni Gulf Arab states, and a volatile, unstable, and nuclear armed Pakistan. In other words, they actually have legitimate reasons to try to obtain a bomb if they should choose to. Realistically, it is what almost any set of policy makers would do to protect their people. Still, there is no hard evidence they have made that decision.

So why all the Israeli fuss about Iran? The main reason is simple and fairly well documented. When President Obama was elected in 2008, the pro-Israel AIPAC lobby made a strategic decision to avoid any talk of Middle East peace in Palestine by talking incessantly about the alleged nuclear danger from Iran. It has been a remarkably successful strategy—if you mark success by avoiding peace. And here we finally get to the main point.

Iran has no real or lasting interest in Israel or Palestine. Iran doesn’t share a border or a body of water with Israel. They are separated at every point by at least two other countries. They are over a 1,000 miles apart. Palestinians are Christians and Sunni Muslims. Iranians are Shiite Muslims. Palestinians are Arabs, Iranians are Persians. In short, Iranians don’t share a language, ethnicity or even religious sect with Palestinians. If tomorrow the Palestinians were given the state that was promised to them in 1948, Iranian influence in Palestine would rapidly evaporate. It is only the absence of a fair peace settlement for the Palestinians that allows Iran to make noise about the current situation in Palestine. In the absence of a peace and a Palestinian state, Iran can make the Sunni Arab countries who have failed to help Palestine win their state (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, etc, etc,) look bad. This gives Iran a leg up in the broader Shia-Sunni competition for leadership in the Muslim world. A viable Palestinian state would be the end of significant Iranian influence on Israel’s borders.

But using Iran as an excuse not to make peace with Palestine, is very convenient for hardcore Zionists like Benjamin Netanyahu . Evading a just and comprehensive peace settlement and the creation of a Palestinian state is what Netanyahu and his allies are really all about. Those are his main objectives, and as far as he is concerned, if his political strategy drags the US into a disastrous war, well, that’s alright with him. After all, Israeli right-wingers had no misgivings about encouraging the US to attack Iraq over their alleged possession of WMD’s… they even gave us some of the bogus “intelligence” that provided the pretext for that attack.

This is why Romney’s stated policy of “no daylight” between the US and Israel is so dangerous. That statement, together with his advisor’s recent statement that he would “respect” an Israeli attack on Iran, suggest that Romney is quite willing to commit the US to another disastrous war at Israel’s behest. Among other things, this attitude shows Romney’s remarkable ignorance and dangerously bad judgment.

Romney has tried to make much of Obama’s supposedly “bad relationship” with Netanyahu, but Obama’s record of strong support for Israel is pretty clear. In fact, Israel’s defense secretary Ehud Barak said this week that he considers security cooperation between the US and Israel under President Obama to be the best in history. The real problem is that Romney has confused his “close personal relationship” with Netanyahu for a policy that is truly supportive of Israel’s real long-term interests. As most Israeli’s could probably explain, Israel and Netanyahu are not at all the same thing. Obama’s call for an Israeli settlement freeze in the occupied territories actually served Israel’s real security needs better than all of Netanyahu’s hysterical ranting about Iran. Too bad Netanyahu stonewalled the effort. It’s not really Obama’s fault; almost the entire US congress applauded Netanyahu when he spoke in the US and basically reneged on all his country’s previous commitments to real peace. That just shows how much work we have left to do.

Part of the problem of course is that Americans don’t really know much about PM Netanyahu. A poignant reminder can be found in Baruch Kimmerling’s book “Politicide.” Kimmerling is a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the University of Toronto. His book takes us back to the collapse of the Oslo Peace process, which spiraled out of control with the assassination of PM Yitzhak Rabin by a religious, nationalist, Israeli terrorist in 1995. Kimmerling notes that the murder “was the culmination of months of unprecedented incitement and violent demonstrations” of Jews against both the Oslo accords in general, and of Rabin personally. He goes on to say that “the new political star Benjamin Netanyahu played a major role in these incitements by using an unrestrained rhetoric of blood, land and treason” and that “at this point the settlers and rightwingers regained their political vitality. They invested all their efforts in electing Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister” (p.124-125).

In other words, Benjamin Netanyahu is no stranger to using the politics of hatred and fear. He doesn’t care if his rhetoric ends in tragedy and war as long as he can further his personal career. Netanyahu caters to a few tens of thousands of hardcore, rightwing Zionist settlers who steal land in the occupied territories by evading real negotiations with the Palestinians and trying to brew up a war with Iran instead.

This is one reason the current GOP rhetoric that we should have “no daylight” between us and Netanyahu is so misguided. When we see Mitt Romney embracing Netanyahu, and see that Mitt Romney and his advisors will defer to Israel to the point of letting them drag our nation into a war, we must react as strongly as possible. Such a war can only hurt us, our allies (including Israel), and a lot of innocent Iranian civilians.

If he wants to excel at foreign policy, Romney might reconsider the wisdom of the founding fathers in counseling against the dangers of ‘entangling foreign alliances.’ What is good for the US should never come second to personal allegiances to questionable foreign leaders. The highly personalized and misguided Romney notion that what is good for Netanyahu is also good for Israel is like the fabled golden calf. It is a false idol that would best be done away with. Last year while speaking to the US congress, Netanyahu basically backed out of every previous commitment to peace Israel had ever made. His performance made a mockery of years of US support for Israel, but sadly, few Americans really seemed to notice. Let’s be real. It is well known that Israel has a nuclear stockpile of 200-300 warheads. They never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They don’t allow international inspectors into their country. They show no respect for the UN or international law. They have a policy of assassinating people they unilaterally decide are enemies. All this raving about Iran’s behavior is sheer hypocrisy. They are the chief rogue nation in the region. And all this has never made them safe.

What we need in a president is someone who will stand up to Netanyahu and his kind, not embrace them as Romney is clearly inclined to do. Strong backing for Israel’s previous commitments to peace—the old covenants they made with the world in UN resolutions 194 and 242 and the renewal of those pacts at Camp David in 1978—would be a far wiser path for Romney to urge on Israel, and for Netanyahu to follow, than the course towards war that they both currently seem to favor. Given their mutual tendencies to pander to their bases, there is almost no chance that Romney or Netanyahu will do the right thing in the Middle East.

We cannot afford a Romney presidency—it would almost guarantee a pointless and immoral war against Iran…all to appease that small minority of Zionist fanatics who can’t give up on the dream of taking all of Palestine from its rightful owners. Although he is weakened by his own party’s timidity in taking on Israel, President Obama is still a much better bet than Mitt Romney to get America through the next four years without another major—and pointless—Middle East war. In the next few months, we should all focus our efforts on exposing the Netanyahu strategy, educating Americans about the dangers and ineffectiveness of a war against Iran, and re-electing the president. A Romney victory portends no good for Americans, Palestinians, Israelis, or anyone else in the world.

Americans United for Palestinian Human Rights

Rachel Corrie ruling 'deeply troubling', says her family

Netanyahu, Romney, and the Imminent “October Surprise”

Israeli inquiry into Rachel Corrie death insufficient, US ambassador tells family

Jewish settler attacks on Palestinians listed as 'terrorist incidents' by US

Romney, Israel, and Iran: Why Peace in Palestine Matters More Than Ever

More Articles ...