<div dir="ltr">
<div id="gmail-toolbar" class="gmail-toolbar-container">
</div><div class="gmail-container" dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail-header gmail-reader-header gmail-reader-show-element">
<font size="1"><a href="https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/02/19/leaving-aside-international-law-why-democrats-are-as-dangerous-as-republicans-to-a-just-peace-in-palestine/">https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/02/19/leaving-aside-international-law-why-democrats-are-as-dangerous-as-republicans-to-a-just-peace-in-palestine/</a>
</font><h1 class="gmail-reader-title">‘Leaving Aside’ International Law: Why Democrats are as Dangerous as Republicans to a Just Peace in Palestine<br></h1>
<span class="gmail-post_author_intro">by</span> <span class="gmail-post_author"><a href="https://www.counterpunch.org/author/ramzy-baroud/" rel="nofollow">Ramzy Baroud</a></span> - February 19, 2021<br></div>
<hr>
<div class="gmail-content">
<div class="gmail-moz-reader-content gmail-reader-show-element"><div id="gmail-readability-page-1" class="gmail-page"><div>
<div id="gmail-attachment_126406" class="gmail-wp-caption"><p><img src="https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2020/08/IMG_2609-scaled.jpeg" alt="" style="margin-right: 0px;" width="426" height="320"></p><p id="gmail-caption-attachment-126406" class="gmail-wp-caption-text">Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair</p></div>
<p>Motivated by their justifiable aversion to former US President Donald
Trump, many analysts have rashly painted a rosy picture of how
Democrats could quickly erase the bleak trajectory of the previous
Republican administration. This naivety is particularly pronounced in
the current spin on the Palestinian-Israeli discourse, which is
promoting, again, the illusion that Democrats will succeed where their
political rivals have failed.</p>
<p>There are obvious differences in the Democrats’ approach to the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but only in semantics and political
jingoism, not policy. This assertion can be justified if the Democratic
administration’s official language on Palestine and Israel is examined,
and such language considered within the context of practical policies on
the ground.</p>
<p>Take recent remarks, made by the new US Secretary of State, Antony
Blinken, during a CNN interview on February 8. Blinken’s comments<a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/blinken-supports-israel-holding-golan-but-backs-off-recognizing-sovereignty/"> reminded</a>
us of the clever – albeit disingenuous – US foreign policy under
previous Democratic administrations. His select words may seem as a
complete departure from the belligerent, yet direct, approach of former
US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.</p>
<p>“Look, leaving aside the legalities of that question (meaning the
illegal Israeli occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights), as a practical
matter, the Golan is very important to Israel’s security,” Blinken said.
Later in the interview, he went on to, once again, acknowledge, yet, at
the same time, sideline the question of ‘legalities’. “Legal questions
are something else,” he said, before continuing to speak vaguely and
non-committedly about the future of Syria.</p>
<p>Juxtapose Blinken’s position on the illegal Israeli occupation of the
Golan Heights with statements made by Pompeo in November, just before
the end of Trump’s Presidency. “This is a part of Israel and central
part of Israel,” Pompeo said, as he was<a href="https://thearabweekly.com/pompeo-makes-unprecedented-visits-golan-west-bank-settlement"> accompanied</a> by Israeli Foreign Minister, Gabi Ashkenazi, and speaking from the occupied Golan Heights.</p>
<p>Pompeo’s position, which is a stark violation of international law, was duly<a href="https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/diplomacy/turkish-foreign-ministry-condemns-pompeos-visit-to-israeli-occupied-west-bank"> condemned</a>
by Palestinians and Arabs and criticized by various governments and
international bodies. Blinken’s position, however, generated little
media attention and negligible, if any, serious reprimand regionally or
internationally. This should not have been the case.</p>
<p>By acknowledging the relevance of the issue of legality, then
“leaving it aside”, in favor of the seemingly more pressing question of
Israeli security, Blinken simply defended the status quo, that of
perpetual Israeli military occupation, which is also championed
enthusiastically by Republicans.</p>
<p>Succinctly, this is the Democratic doctrine on Palestine and Israel, in effect largely since the<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/bill-clinton-palestinians-israel-223176"> Bill Clinton</a>
era. The current Administration of Joe Biden is, undoubtedly, following
the same blueprint, which allows Washington to offer itself as a
neutral party – an ‘<a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/13/for-palestinians-america-was-never-an-honest-broker-israel-abbas-netanyahu-middle-east-peace-process/">honest peace-broker</a>’ – while helping Israel achieve its strategic goals at the expense of the Palestinian and Arab peoples.</p>
<p>The clear distinction between the Democratic and Republican
discourses on Palestine and Israel is a relatively new phenomenon.
Interestingly, it was the Republican George H. W. Bush Administration
that, in 1991, established the current Democratic narrative on
Palestine. At the end of the First Gulf War, Bush<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/19/world/arabs-and-israelis-invited-to-begin-peace-talks-oct-30-with-bush-and-gorbachev.html"> championed</a>
the multilateral talks between Israel and Arab States in Madrid, Spain.
Within a few years, a whole new American discourse was formulated.</p>
<p>The September 11, 2001<a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/27/us/september-11-anniversary-fast-facts/index.html"> attacks</a>
on the US supplanted the peace process discourse in Republican foreign
policy literature with a new one, which is avowedly dedicated to
fighting ‘Islamic terror’. Israel cleverly used the new American
language and conduct in the Middle East to present itself as a direct
partner in the US-led global ‘war on terror’.</p>
<p>To stave off the collapse of US global political leadership as a
result of the Iraq invasion of 2003, the Barack Obama Administration
quickly<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-21885613"> restored</a>
the traditional American position, once again offering US services as a
benefactor of peace in the Middle East. True, Obama labored to restore
America’s relevance as a ‘peacemaker’. His administration still utilized
the disingenuous language of the past, one which constantly put the
onus on the Palestinians, while gently reminding Israel of its
responsibilities towards Palestine’s<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-palestinians-israel-violence-usa-sb/u-s-urges-israel-avoid-civilian-casualties-in-gaza-idUSTRE4BQ1AC20081227"> civilian population</a>.</p>
<p>Obama’s Cairo<a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-cairo-university-6-04-09"> speech</a>
in April 2009 remains the most powerful, yet indicting document on the
numerous moral lapses and legal blind spots of US foreign policy,
particularly under Democratic administrations. The speech, which was
meant to serve as a watershed moment in the US’ approach to the Middle
East region, fully exposed the caveats of US bias towards Israel,
predicated mostly on emotional manipulation and historical
misrepresentations.</p>
<p>Obama deliberately fluctuated between the persecution of Jewish
communities throughout history and Israel’s ‘right’ to ensure its
security at the expense of oppressed Palestinians, as if the systematic
Israeli violence was carried out as genuine attempts to prevent further
persecution of world’s Jewry.</p>
<p>Contrastingly, Obama insisted, with little sympathy or context, that
“Palestinians must abandon violence”, thus painting the Palestinians and
their rightful resistance as the true obstacle to any just peace in
Palestine. Concerning Palestine and Israel, blaming the victim has been a
central pillar of US foreign policy, shared by Democrats and
Republicans alike.</p>
<p>Yet, while Republicans increasingly<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/10/palestinians-invented-people-newt-gingrich"> ignore</a>
the rights and, sometimes, the very existence of the Palestinians,
Democrats, who continue to support Israel with equal passion, use more
moderate – although inconsequential – language.</p>
<p>For Democrats, Palestinians are the instigators of violence, although
Israel may have, at times, used ‘disproportionate force’ in its
response to Palestinian violence; for them, international law exists,
but can easily be ‘left aside’ to accommodate Israeli security; for
them, there is such a thing as internationally recognized borders, but
these borders are flexible in order to accommodate Israel’s demographic
fears, strategic interests and ‘<a href="https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/pm/rls/rm/176684.htm">military edge</a>’.</p>
<p>Hence, it is easier to discredit the foreign policy agenda of Trump,
Pompeo and other Republicans as their aggressive, dismissive language
and action are unmistakably objectionable. The Democratic discourse,
however, cannot be as easily censured, as it utilizes a mix of
superficial language, political platitudes and historical clichés,
worded meticulously with the aim of placing the US back at the driving
seat of whatever political process is underway.</p>
<p>While the Democratic discourse remains committed to<a href="https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/kamala-harris-pledges-unconditional-support-israel"> arming</a>
and defending Israel, it provides Palestinians and Arabs with no
meaningful change, because substantive change can only occur when
international law is respected. Unfortunately, according to Blinken’s
logic, such seemingly trivial matters should, for now, be ‘left aside’.</p>
</div><p>
<em>Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five books. His latest is “</em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/These-Chains-Will-Broken-Palestinian/dp/1949762092"><em>These Chains Will Be Broken</em></a><em>:
Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons”
(Clarity Press, Atlanta). Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research
Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul Zaim
University (IZU). His website is </em><a href="http://www.ramzybaroud.net/"><em>www.ramzybaroud.net</em></a>
</p></div></div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
</div>