Now, this won’t be a post on the extreme bias in the American mainstream media which routinely dehumanizes Palestinians and their experience while unabashedly supporting Israeli lobby interests.  Instead, I would like to look at Netanyahu’s conditions for a Palestinian state in his speech today and explain how these conditions do nothing for a possibility of real justice in Palestine.  This is not a step forward, it a huge step backward.  Netanyahu’s conditions:

1.  A Palestinian state must be demilitarized.

This is a massive infringement upon Palestinian sovereignty.  Israel will still have control over Palestinian airspace, border, and in the case of Gaza, the sea.  But this doesn’t even make sense from an Israeli perspective.  One of the key concerns Israel has with regards to Palestine is that of national security.  Disallowing Palestine to have an army, air force,  navy, etc. is essentially giving what Israel classifies as militants even more of a reason to continue their operations, including rocket attacks and suicide bombers.

2. Palestinian refugees must be resettled outside of Israel.

Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state and (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. The right of return, or Al Awda, is not only guaranteed by international law but is also one of the cornerstones of Palestinian solidarity movements.  Denying Al Awda to the thousands of Palestinian refugees is, to say the least, a slap in the face.

3. Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel.

Palestinians have as much of an equal claim to Jerusalem as Israel.  Of course, the most hotly contested part of Jerusalem is the Old City, in which the majority population is Arab.  This further undermines Palestinian hopes for a capital in Jerusalem as well as laying claim to national, historic, and religious rights.  Netanyahu also fails to really address the settlement issue, saying “we have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements”. This fails to address the uprooting of settlements which have already been built illegally.  In addition, it fails to address the more furtive, and perhaps more dangerous, means of expansion: the now routine demolition of Arab homes in East Jerusalem and the Old City being done under the guise of permit violations.

4. Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

What will happen to the Arab population already living within Israel, comprising around 15% of the population?  The current Arab Israeli population already faces numerous inequalities compared to their Jewish counterparts, for example, with regards to education, marriage, and housing.  Being forced to recognize their country as one for primarily for Jews is racist and extreme.  This would be equivalent to forcing all Americans to recognize that while anyone can live in the US, the country is primarily for white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants.  This is ridiculous.  Israel claims to be a free and democratic country.  How can this be so when the very nature of the state delegitimizes 15% of its population?  The potential fate of Arab Israelis is worrying.

—

Netanyahu’s speech effectively squashes virtually all Palestinian aspirations for peace and justice.  His plan denies the right of return, the right to legitimate defense, Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital, and a freeze on expansion into Arab neighborhoods- which are all of the main points espoused by Palestinian aspirations.  Some have said that this speech, and Netanyahu’s willingness to negotiate a Palestinian state, is an important step forward.  I believe this is a huge step backwards if true peace and justice are the end goal.  Netanyahu’s conditions only further to dehumanize the Palestinian cause and make it a point to push the real issues, such as Al Awda, to the backburner.  This kind of state will merely be a puppet and another way for Israel to control Palestinians.  In other words, it will be merely be “a flag and a currency”.

I’m hoping that international pressure and resistance will reshape the future of the peace process.  But if this speech is any indicator, it’s not looking good.

You can read the full transcript of Netanyahu’s speech here.

While there is no doubt that the Iranian government has been guilty of some atrocious human rights violations, if we follow US foreign policy precedent this should not be grounds for complete refusal of cooperation with a country.  What about Egypt, Israel, and China?  Both have horrendous human rights records, yet all three receive either exorbitant amounts of aid from or deal regularly with the United States.

As far as nuclear proliferation goes, there is actually no real evidence that Iran is building anything.  Simple enough.  And while Israel denies having nuclear weapons, it is common knowledge that they do exist.  And the ultimate question, which still boggles my mind: why is it ok for some countries to have nuclear weapons, but not ok for others?

Iran is a country that hasn’t initiated a war in years.  The main commonality between Syria and Iran is mutual condemnation of Israel as a state denying Palestinians of fundamental rights.  What it comes down to is that the Western focus on Iran as a threat is a convenient detractor from the real issue at hand, which resides in Palestine.  In his visit to Washington a couple of weeks ago, Shimon Peres made the statement that talks can be made with the Palestinians if the United States works to neutralize the threat of Iran.

But the way I see it, this is completely and totally illogical foreign policy.  It makes sense for Israel to routinely demonize Iran.  The potential threat of an Iranian nuclear arsenal takes away from Israel’s monopoly on such weapons in the Middle East.  Iranian support for Hezbollah and Hamas clearly threatens Israel.  But in reality, all of this is detracting from the core of the conflict: Palestine.  The reason Israel is vehemently disliked in the region is because of Palestine.  Any warfare directed at Israel is probably in opposition to the situation in Palestine.  Neutralizing Iran does not negate the fact that what’s going on in Palestine is not ok and never will be.  Therefore, it is really in all parties’ best interest to address this issue instead of  Iran.  Go to the root of the problem.  Anything else will just be cosmetic.

Of course, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad stole the show with an impassioned speech largely criticizing Israeli Zionist policy (If you haven’t read or seen the entire speech, you can read it here).  With regards to Israel and Palestine, I agree with much of what Ahmedinejad had to say.  Most of the criticism against the speech labeled Ahmedinejad;s words as anti-Semitic and advocating for the destruction of Israel (For the record his statements on these issues are open to vast, vast interpretation.  When we’re reading something interpreted from another language, there is no way we can understand the intricacies of rhetoric) .  Read the speech: you’ll see that the words “Jew”, “Jewish”, or “Judaism” appear only once: ”

“Following World War II, they resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering and they sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in occupied Palestine.”

The argument that Zionism-equals-racism and Zionism-does-not-equal-Judaism is extremely well supported and impossible  to refute.  Simply put, how can a country rooted in laws and ideologies that give clear preferential treatment to one race and not others not be racist?  Those who walked out on Ahmedinejad’s speech simply fail to see the connection between Zionism and racism and cannot yet separate Judaism from Zionism.  Perhaps this is merely political, perhaps it is because of a perception on the part of previously anti-Semitic European countries that any criticism of Israeli policy will be equated as anti-Semitism.  Whatever it is, it is clear that any criticism of Israeli government and policies is simply not tolerated.  Current global hegemony dictates that Israel is inherently “good” and “with us” and countries like Iran are not.

What’s interesting to note is that while many European leaders walked out during Ahmedinejad’s speech, the majority stayed, and received the Iranian President’s speech with a standing ovation.  I don’t believe I’ve seen this fact mentioned in any major news outlet.  It’s clear that the world is starting to realize the truth about Israeli apartheid and what’s happening in Palestine.  But when will major world leaders realize it?

Ahmedinejad has a history of angering the West and I feel like he already had several strikes against him the minute he stepped onto the podium.  Had Barack Obama gone up and said the same exact thing, we’d be looking at a very different reaction.  In addition, what kind of example has Ahmedinejad set?  He runs a country that enjoys little to no press freedom and has persecuted minorities (including Jews) to the point of expulsion from Iran.  Ahmedinejad clearly took a stand against Israel.  He speaks the truth and it’s impossible to refute.  But how can we expect other global leaders to listen to man who can’t  practice what he preaches?  Of course, that’s not to say that the United States has a clean slate when it comes to human rights and racism by any means.  But again, current global hegemony dictates that’s somehow more acceptable and can be justified.

The United States, Israel, Italy, Germany, Canada and a few other major European nations did not even attend the conference in “protest”.  What kind of dialogue can possibly ensue if major players refuse to even listen?   To me, this is like a child giving the silent treatment because he’s angry he didn’t get what he wanted.  And in the wake of election of the first mixed-race American president, what kind of image does it send when the US fails to even attend the world’s leading conference on racism?  Do US leaders really believe that racism no longer is an issue in American society?

The Durban Review Conference definitely provided material for some great sensationalized stories.  But beyond this, what did it really accomplish besides some great PR for the Israeli cause?  Another step back for Palestine and another step back for the UN.

The saddest thing is that the voices of those actually affected by this ongoing conflict still have not been heard.

I have a very good friend I met in Jordan who is Palestinian but has lived in the UAE her whole life.  Despite her lifelong residency, she can never become a citizen of the UAE.  Virtually all rights and priviledges are reserved for Emiratis only: who comprise a small minority of the population.  I still cannot grasp the concept that a person can live in a country their whole life, live there, work there, pay taxes, create a family there, etc., but never really become “part” of it.  I also knew two boys in Jordan who are actual Emiratis; they sang their country nothing but praises.

I read a fascinating article today called “The Dark Side of Dubai”, which details the reality of the society and just how far removed actual Emiratis are from life in Dubai.  I highly recommend reading it.  My favorite line reads:

Perhaps Dubai disturbed me so much, I am thinking, because here, the entire global supply chain is condensed. Many of my goods are made by semi-enslaved populations desperate for a chance 2,000 miles away; is the only difference that here, they are merely two miles away, and you sometimes get to glimpse their faces? Dubai is Market Fundamentalist Globalisation in One City.

My one criticism is that while the article does a great job telling us about the lives of European, South Asian, and East Asian expats, it fails address the thousands of non-Emirati Arabs living in Dubai.  What about Jordanians, Palestinians, Lebanese, Egyptians, and more?

Just another example of how important it is to always try and dig deeper so as to hear as many perspectives as possible.

Read the full article here.

(Note: this is the actual paper that I turned in- in which could not internally cite sources.  See below for some of my sources )

The United States continues to spend more money on military operations, arms, and other defense-related items than any other country in the world, while also providing billions of dollars of foreign military aid to other countries.  While the United States has continued to prosper over the last several decades, the government must set a more stringent set of regulations for spending by the Department of Defense.  Indiscriminate spending on the part of the US has led to the support of undemocratic regimes, war crimes, and the perpetuation of violence, in addition to de-emphasizing the importance of funding social services.  Excessive military spending and aid-giving clouds American foreign policy and does not ultimately support a peaceful and democratic world.

Of all the money used on military expenditures in the entire world, the United States accounts for 48% of all spending, which totals to about $600 billion dollars (Global Security).  Many make the argument that the US is also the richest country in the world; therefore, we can “afford” this high figure.  But relating the amount spent on the military to the total amount of money the US has does not mean that the money being spent is necessary or just.  Furthermore, the current economic crisis and the vast expenses it has accrued has not resulted decreased military spending, and continues to drive the country deeper into debt.  The fact that more than one half of all discretionary spending requested by the major government departments was requested by the Department of Defense testifies that the ways in which the US government allocates funds is in need of reform. As a result of current allocations, billions will go to fund unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The two largest recipients of American foreign aid are Israel and Egypt, which account for one third of total American foreign aid.  But despite American support, both countries have recently had less than stellar reputations regarding the promotion of democracy and human rights.  Under President Hosni Mubarak, Egyptians have lived under religious persecution, twenty five years of Emergency Law, trials without due process, and severely limited press freedom.  In Israel’s case, US aid and weaponry have recently contributed to international law violations in the Gaza Strip.  By supporting such military operations, the United States has implicated itself in war crimes and has failed t pursue a just foreign policy.

I propose that the Department of Defense cuts discretionary spending from $600 billion annually to $200 billion. In addition, the government shall regulate the remaining funds for use only in self-defense and intelligence rather than pre-emptive war.  The Department of Defense shall also work to limit foreign aid and mass commercial production of weapons sold to other countries.   In addition to limiting foreign aid, the government shall set up a separate department whose goal is solely to enforce these prescribed limits and regulations.  After cutting defense and aid significantly, the $400 billion saved shall disperse among various social service departments, so that taxes will not decrease but go directly to citizens.  Departments such as the Social Security Administration, Health and Human Services Department, Department of Education, and the Department of Energy all are in dire need of additional funding.  Investing in people, rather than weapons, will give our country a much brighter future than any number of weapons can.

Here’s some more facts I uncovered during my research:

-In 2004, the United States Department of Defense spent a total of $600 billion.  By contrast, the rest of the world spent a total of $500 billion.  By comparison, the country that spent the next single largest amount of money on defense was China, which spent a total of $65 billion in 2004.

– The US spends a higher percentage of its GDP than any other country on health care, but health care performance in the US ranks 37^th out of 191 countries measured.  By comparison, the United Kingdom spends only six percent of its GDP on health care, but ranks 18^th in performance.  Amount spent is not an indicator of efficiency, performance, or productivity, or that money being spent is being spent appropriately.  Without regulations, this can become the case in with regards to defense as well.

– The total amount of all discretionary spending spent by major US government departments in 2008 was $941.4 billion.  $479.5 billion of this was spent by the Department of Defense.  $515.4 billion has been requested by the Department of Defense as their base budget for 2009.  This is almost a74% increase in military spending since 2001 and the beginning of the Global War on Terror.  There is also an additional $70 billion that has been allocated, in addition to the original $515.4 billion, designated as an “Emergency Allowance” to be used as needed “to support activities related to the Global War on Terror”.

All figures came directly from United States government’s budget.

– 56% of Americans polled most recently (2009) believe that sending troops into Iraq was a mistake.  In 2003 dissatisfaction was only 23%.  In addition, 52% believed that the surge (which was marketed to be hugely successful) and subsequent increase in spending either made the war worse, or had no effect at all on it.  79% of those polled believed that the surge in US troops in Baghdad has either worsened the situation or not made much of a difference. 

-The total amount of foreign aid, humanitarian and military aid, given out by the United States in 2001 was $14.9 billion.  Of this, Israel received $2.82 billion and Egyptreceived $2 billion, for a total of about $4.82 billion.  This comes out to approximately 33%, or one third, of all aid given by the United States going to either Israel or Egypt. 

-Under Hosni Mubarak’s rule, the country has functioned under Emergency Law for the past 25 years.  Basic rights like freedom of speech and assembly have been denied, and the Egyptian government has the authority to detain virtually anyone for no specified reasons and for indefinite periods of time.  All opposition parties have been outlawed.  American aid money supports this government which has been suppressing the rights of citizens for decades.  Reporters Without Borders reported that in 2008, Egypt fell to 146 out of 168 countries.

– Amnesty International found M825-A1 155 millimeter white phosphorus artillery carrier shells, which is an American-made product.   All three major human rights organizations which investigated in Gaza- B’Tselem, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch– all found Israeli use of white phosphorus in Gaza, purchased from the United States, to be illegal and  in violation of international law.