RSS Feeds

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil,    but because of the people who don't do anything about it

Occupation magazine - Commentary Home page  back Print  Send To friend The US and Israel: a short quiz on `rogue nation` status Glenn Greenwald The Guardian 4.12.12 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/04/israel-nukes-palestine-un-vote-rogue A series of events just from this week makes clear who is actually violating the consensus of the international community The phrase `rogue nation` is one of the terms that get tossed around often in political discourse without much effort devoted to its actual meaning. Let`s try to apply this term to a series of events just from the last week, beginning with this one: `The 193-nation UN General Assembly on Thursday overwhelmingly approved the de facto recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state . . . . There were 138 votes in favor, nine against and 41 abstentions. . . . .The assembly approved the upgrade despite threats by the United States and Israel to punish the Palestinians by withholding funds for the West Bank government.. . . .The Czech Republic was unique in Europe, joining the United States, Israel, Canada, Panama and tiny Pacific Island states likes Nauru, Palau and Micronesia in voting against the move.` In response, Israel announced it would `punish` the Palestinians for the UN vote by approving more settlements (which virtually the entire world deems illegal) and withholding tax revenue that was to pay employees of the Palestinian Authority; that behavior by Israel resulted in this: `Australia and Brazil summoned their Israeli ambassadors on Tuesday to protest against Israel`s decision to expand Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem and the West Bank and withhold tax revenue from the Palestinian Authority. `The moves followed similar actions in Europe including Spain, France, Britain, Sweden and Denmark in the wake of the Palestinians winning de facto UN recognition of statehood.` Meanwhile, it was reported today that `Britain and other European countries will consider `further steps` if Israel refuses to reverse its plans for settlement expansion after a wave of diplomatic protests.` And then finally, we have this, from Monday [emphasis added]: `The UN general assembly has overwhelmingly approved a resolution calling on Israel to open its nuclear programme for inspection. `The resolution, approved by a vote of 174 to six with six abstentions, calls on Israel to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) `without further delay` and open its nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Those voting against were Israel, the US, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. . . . `The vote came as a sequel to the cancellation of a high-level conference aimed at banning nuclear weapons from the Middle East. All the Arab nations and Iran had planned to attend the summit in mid-December in Helsinki, Finland, but the US announced on 23 November that it would not take place, citing political turmoil in the region and Iran`s defiant stance on non-proliferation. Iran and some Arab nations countered that the real reason for the cancellation was Israel`s refusal to attend.` So essentially, it`s the entire planet on one side, versus the US, its new right-wing poodle to the north, Israel, and three tiny, bribed islands on the other side. If you`re a member in good standing of the Washington-based US foreign policy community, then the way you describe these matters is as follows: `the international community stands by Israel and supports its position` - because, in that warped, self-affirming world, `international community` is a synonym for `US dictates`. But for those fortunate enough to reside outside of that realm of intense imperial propaganda: who is actually opposed to the consensus of the international community here? In other words, who are the real `rogue nations`? Links to the latest articles in this section The US and nuclear programs in the Middle East How can Israel, Palestine return to a two-state solution? A matter of concrete debate