Tweet
Hillary in the Holy LandClinton's toothless proclamations were not
backed with any concrete sanctions to punish Israel's misdeeds
Seth Freedman
guardian.co.uk,
Saturday 7 March 2009 13.30 GMT
Hillary Clinton's Middle East visit this week was hailed by many as the
latest manifestation of America's new get-tough stance towards Israel.
Still left in a starry-eyed daze by the effect of Obama's ascent to
power, pundits took the view that the world would never again be the
same since his victory, hence anything he or his entourage touched
would turn inevitably and immediately to gold.
The Middle East peace process, long stalled (if not furiously
backpedalling) under Bush's eight-year reign, was signalled by the
Obama camp as a top priority, therefore all eyes were on Clinton's
inaugural trip to the Holy Land in her role as secretary of state.
However, now that she's been and gone and the fanfares have died down
somewhat, it is clear that ` as far as the Israeli government are
concerned ` it's business as usual, regardless of who's calling the
shots in the halls of US power. One example of the new reality
mirroring the old was Clinton's feeble outburst against the demolition
of Palestinian homes, in which she described the actions as simply
"unhelpful", a charge which was immediately rejected out of hand by
Jerusalem's mayor, who scoffed at her pronouncement with all the
petulance of a child complaining that mum and dad "just don't get it".
"I totally reject the notion that we are kicking people out of their
homes," he said, blaming the furore on a campaign of Palestinian
"disinformation". According to Mayor Barkat, the Israeli officials were
merely applying the letter of the law, in an entirely even-handed
fashion: "If you build illegal houses you pay the consequence ... I
expect people to obey the law."
Ergo, Clinton is wrong, the Palestinians are wrong, and every other
critic of Israel's clearly discriminatory house-demolition policy is
wrong as well. By Barkat's token, the full weight of Israeli law will
come crashing down on anyone ` Jew or Arab ` building illegally;
except, of course, when it's settlers laying the foundations for
hilltop outposts, or even the government itself contravening domestic
and international law with every new approval it gives for construction
over the Green Line.
Clinton's toothless proclamations were not backed with any concrete
sanctions to punish Israel's misdeeds, instead falling back on the
standard American formula of expressing mild annoyance at the Israeli
government in public, while privately soothing Israeli politicians,
patting them on the head and sending them out to play with another
year's pocket money to spend on arms, roadblocks and concrete slabs of
separation wall.
Of course, if the US refuses to stand up to Israel's bullying behaviour
in the Middle East playground, then Britain and other interested
parties aren't likely to take firm action either. The much-trumpeted
cancellation of the British Embassy's tenancy agreement in
Africa-Israel's Tel Aviv skyscraper is the political equivalent of a
parent not giving their child a third helping of dessert as punishment
for stealing a classmate's bicycle. Africa-Israel's bottom line is
hardly likely to be affected in overall terms by such a paltry measure,
at least not while foreign governments refuse to come good on their
promises to rein in Israel's settlement expansions and land grabs in
the West Bank.
The chasm between political posturing and hard, meaningful measures
gets wider as the years go by, since by doing nothing while Israel
feverishly continues throwing up more and more obstacles in the path of
the peace process, foreign governments are complicit in perpetuating
the occupation. Thanks to its heavy reliance on overseas aid and trade
agreements, Israel could not continue to flout international law in a
vacuum ` providing a golden opportunity for intervention on the part of
America's Midas-man, should he be serious about following through on
his promises.
However, rumours of the demise of the old American approach to Israel
are somewhat premature, on the basis of the Obama team's first bland
foray into Israeli affairs. If the new US regime does live up to its
billing, it can only be good for the long-term security and prosperity
of both Israelis and Palestinians, but those looking on shouldn't be
holding their breath.
A book of Seth Freedman's columns, Can I bring my Own Gun? is now
available to Guardian readers at £6.99 (RRP £8.99).
backed with any concrete sanctions to punish Israel's misdeeds
Seth Freedman
guardian.co.uk,
Saturday 7 March 2009 13.30 GMT
Hillary Clinton's Middle East visit this week was hailed by many as the
latest manifestation of America's new get-tough stance towards Israel.
Still left in a starry-eyed daze by the effect of Obama's ascent to
power, pundits took the view that the world would never again be the
same since his victory, hence anything he or his entourage touched
would turn inevitably and immediately to gold.
The Middle East peace process, long stalled (if not furiously
backpedalling) under Bush's eight-year reign, was signalled by the
Obama camp as a top priority, therefore all eyes were on Clinton's
inaugural trip to the Holy Land in her role as secretary of state.
However, now that she's been and gone and the fanfares have died down
somewhat, it is clear that ` as far as the Israeli government are
concerned ` it's business as usual, regardless of who's calling the
shots in the halls of US power. One example of the new reality
mirroring the old was Clinton's feeble outburst against the demolition
of Palestinian homes, in which she described the actions as simply
"unhelpful", a charge which was immediately rejected out of hand by
Jerusalem's mayor, who scoffed at her pronouncement with all the
petulance of a child complaining that mum and dad "just don't get it".
"I totally reject the notion that we are kicking people out of their
homes," he said, blaming the furore on a campaign of Palestinian
"disinformation". According to Mayor Barkat, the Israeli officials were
merely applying the letter of the law, in an entirely even-handed
fashion: "If you build illegal houses you pay the consequence ... I
expect people to obey the law."
Ergo, Clinton is wrong, the Palestinians are wrong, and every other
critic of Israel's clearly discriminatory house-demolition policy is
wrong as well. By Barkat's token, the full weight of Israeli law will
come crashing down on anyone ` Jew or Arab ` building illegally;
except, of course, when it's settlers laying the foundations for
hilltop outposts, or even the government itself contravening domestic
and international law with every new approval it gives for construction
over the Green Line.
Clinton's toothless proclamations were not backed with any concrete
sanctions to punish Israel's misdeeds, instead falling back on the
standard American formula of expressing mild annoyance at the Israeli
government in public, while privately soothing Israeli politicians,
patting them on the head and sending them out to play with another
year's pocket money to spend on arms, roadblocks and concrete slabs of
separation wall.
Of course, if the US refuses to stand up to Israel's bullying behaviour
in the Middle East playground, then Britain and other interested
parties aren't likely to take firm action either. The much-trumpeted
cancellation of the British Embassy's tenancy agreement in
Africa-Israel's Tel Aviv skyscraper is the political equivalent of a
parent not giving their child a third helping of dessert as punishment
for stealing a classmate's bicycle. Africa-Israel's bottom line is
hardly likely to be affected in overall terms by such a paltry measure,
at least not while foreign governments refuse to come good on their
promises to rein in Israel's settlement expansions and land grabs in
the West Bank.
The chasm between political posturing and hard, meaningful measures
gets wider as the years go by, since by doing nothing while Israel
feverishly continues throwing up more and more obstacles in the path of
the peace process, foreign governments are complicit in perpetuating
the occupation. Thanks to its heavy reliance on overseas aid and trade
agreements, Israel could not continue to flout international law in a
vacuum ` providing a golden opportunity for intervention on the part of
America's Midas-man, should he be serious about following through on
his promises.
However, rumours of the demise of the old American approach to Israel
are somewhat premature, on the basis of the Obama team's first bland
foray into Israeli affairs. If the new US regime does live up to its
billing, it can only be good for the long-term security and prosperity
of both Israelis and Palestinians, but those looking on shouldn't be
holding their breath.
A book of Seth Freedman's columns, Can I bring my Own Gun? is now
available to Guardian readers at £6.99 (RRP £8.99).