If one views the Israel-Palestine situation through the lens of occupation, then Israel is in extreme violation of international law for transferring its own population into occupied territory and for extreme human rights abuses against civilians. In this scenario, the US should not grant Israel impunity and should not restrict efforts by the UN and international community to punish Israel for its actions.
If one views the Israel-Palestine situation through the lens of annexation, then Palestinians have as much right to use self-defence as Kuwait during Iraq’s attempted annexation of the region. Like Kuwait, Palestine does not have sufficient means to defend itself. In the situation of annexation, the international community should be giving Palestinians the same level of (ostensible) moral support they afforded to Kuwait.
If one views the Israel-Palestine situation through the lens of apartheid, then the international community should apply the same pressures to Israel that they applied to South Africa.
In all three situations, the US should (minimally) withdraw the impunity it affords Israel, stop restricting efforts by the UN and international community to hold Israel responsible for its actions, and stop funding Israel.
Noam Chomsky on specific short-term objectives to focus on in a scenario that popular support for Palestinians finally forces a shift in US foreign policy on the issue:
In these and other areas there are important tasks of education and organization that have to be addressed seriously if US policies are to be shifted. They should lead to actions focusing on specific short-term objectives: ending the savage and criminal siege of Gaza; dismantling the illegal “Separation Wall,” by now a de facto annexation wall; withdrawing the IDF from the illegally annexed Golan Heights and from the West Bank (including illegally annexed “Greater Jerusalem”), which would, presumably, be followed by departure of most of settlers, all of whom, including those in East and expanded Jerusalem, have been transferred (and heavily subsidized) illegally, as Israel recognized as far back as 1967; and of course ending all Israeli construction and other actions in the occupied territories. Popular movements in the US should work to end any US participation in these criminal activities, which would, effectively, end them. That can be done, but only if a level of general understanding is reached that far surpasses what exists today.
UN Security Council Resolution 446 (1979) and 465 (1980) both condemned the settlements. Rex. 446 stated “that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” Likewise, in 465, the Security Council called upon Israel to “dismantle the existing settlements.” Most recently, in February 2010, a resolution was introduced and supported by 14 members of the Security Council, “reaffirming that Israeli settlements (including East Jerusalem) are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace. It also demanded once again that Israel immediately and cease all settlement activities. The U.S. was the sole dissenter, thus vetoing the resolution.
Though it might be stating the obvious, I want to clarify my stance on Zionism vs. compensation for Aboriginals:
I disagree with Zionism, but support heavy compensation in land and resources for the Aboriginal people. Obviously, it would have made more sense had America and Western powers funneled everything they had into creating a Jewish state into creating a high-quality living environment for the Aboriginal people.
The reason I disagree with Zionism is the same reason I don’t agree with the Hakka diaspora annexing a plot of land near the Yellow River to create a state for themselves at the expense of the people currently living there: roughly 2000 years is just too long a period of time, in my opinion. The people settled there likely having nothing to do with those who were responsible for the original loss of land. It’s too psychotic to commit slow genocide against an innocent population for crimes they are not connected to.
However, the Aboriginal people are still being victimized by the same overall energy (ie. general diaspora of people, general cultural mentality, etc.) that caused untold destruction and suffering to their populations upon its arrival to the Americas not that long ago. It’s a circumstance where one group of people seriously damaged the lifestyle of another group of people, are able to provide compensation, and probably should.
The Netanyahu government lied about the three teens they knew were murdered by a different clan and used this as an excuse to go on a violent rampage before Hamas decided to fight back with its first rocket.
The Netanyahu government repeated this tactic a second time and accused Hamas of breaking the ceasefire because they claimed Hamas captured an Israeli soldier, who again turned out to have already been dead. This resulted in massive destruction and death of countless civilians.
What a miserable secretary of state, up to his neck in denial. And how unfriendly to Israel he is to retract his frank, genuine and friendly warning merely for fear of the lobby. Now millions of ignorant Americans, viewers of Fox News and its ilk, know that Israel is in no risk of becoming an apartheid state. They believe the power of Hamas and the sophistication of Qassam rocket pose an existential danger to Israel .
The naysayers can find countless differences between the apartheid of Pretoria and that of Jerusalem. Pretoria’s was openly racist and anchored in law; Jerusalem’s is denied and repressed, hidden beneath a heavy cloak of propaganda and messianic religious faith. But the result is the same. Some South Africans who lived under the system of segregation say that their apartheid was worse. I know South Africans who say that the version in…