An Arab Spring in Palestine?

The inspiringly-named "Arab Spring" is not a monolithic liberatory event.
Each sovereign post-colonial nation-state, still grasped in the right claw of neo-imperialism, often colluding with domestic post-colonial feudal landed elites, has its own trajectory, whether it's Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen or even Libya (was this last 'revolution' fabricated in London and armed by the USCIA/Saudia, and now bombed by France/USNATO?)

Has Palestine had an Arab Spring yet? Did I miss it?
Falasteen Gandhians, where are you?
Israeli Gandhians, where are you?

The recent rapprochement between Hamas and Fatah, provide some hope that that the Arab Spring may be contagious in Gaza.

Civil society nonviolent street protest, as in Cairo's Tahrir Square, highly motivated, persistent, actively, dynamically peaceful, ethically-driven, is so far absent in Gaza.

Going back six decades, Is it possible or feasible to reverse the massive mis-step, by the UNSC (1946), an entity made up of erstwhile colonizers, neo-imperialists and totalitarian nations, that resulted in the creation of the "State of Israel" in 1948?
The UNSC is not the UNGA.
The UNGA would likey have vetoed that mis-step, if that had ever been brought to UNGA's attention. It was not.

Israel, the dominant client-state (contrast Pakistan the dependent client-state) of the US cannot be dismantled, except voluntarily through grassroots action by the Israelis themselves).

Hardly likely under Zionist expansion, acting with the support of a 60-year US policy driven by dominant militarist, political and economic power, interests and influence here in the US. Thanks AIPAC.

Q. Can Israelis, I mean the Israeli PEOPLE, continue to enjoy the right to exist, but not Israel the State? That would be an argument on behalf of PEOPLE, the Israeli people, but not the state.

If that were acceptable then there could come into being a great diverse secular unified State of Palestine. For ALL Philistines. For ALL Falasteen. A PEOPLE-Centered, not a territory-centered, solution would result in a unified secular diverse multireligious, multiethnic, multilingual Palestine. That's what all modern democratic nation-states look like.

Sometimes, in order to move and progress beyond the painful dislocating past, we may need to acknowledge and accept the unfair, even grievously unfair, mis-steps of history.

And then move forward unified, perhaps in yet another an upcoming Spring, to correct these mis-steps.

That is pragmatic idealism.

For the sake of the Greater Collective Good (GCG). of a Unified Palestine.
-----------------------
AP & Yahoo! copyright

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110505/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_palestinians_reconciliation

Palestinian deal ends rift, hurts peace prospects
AP

Mahmoud Abbas, Khaled Mashaal AP – In this photo released by the Hamas Media Office, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, center-left, and …

Palestinian leaders hail end to four-year rift Play Video Mideast Video:Palestinian leaders hail end to four-year rift AFP
Mideast Video:Unity deal in Middle East Australia 7 News
Palestinians hail landmark reconciliation pact Play Video Mideast Video:Palestinians hail landmark reconciliation pact AP

By MAGGIE MICHAEL, Associated Press – Wed May 4, 9:19 pm ET

CAIRO – Rival Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas signed a landmark reconciliation pact on Wednesday, ending a four-year rift that had divided the territory envisioned for a future Palestinian state. The deal plunged Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking deeper into uncertainty as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it a "mortal blow to peace."

The agreement, which followed years of bitter acrimony between the two Palestinian movements, was made possible in large measure by the political changes sweeping the Arab world and the deadlock in U.S.-brokered peace talks with Israel.

A unity government foreseen by the accord would also allow the Palestinians to speak with a single voice if they go ahead with plans to ask the United Nations to recognize Palestine as a state during the annual General Assembly session in September.

With Wednesday's signing, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whose Palestinian Authority governs the West Bank, joined forces with Khaled Mashaal, the Syrian-based head of Hamas, which rejects Israel's existence and is backed by Iran.

The alliance set off ecstatic celebrations in the Palestinian territories — and warnings from both the Obama administration and international mediator Tony Blair that the new Palestinian government must recognize Israel or risk international isolation.

Abbas brushed off the criticism and instead used the occasion to deliver a scathing attack on Israel, saying "We reject blackmail and it is no longer possible for us to accept the (Israeli) occupation of Palestinian land."

Both Palestinian leaders emphasized a united Palestinian direction, with Mashaal declaring the pact means the Palestinians will have "one leadership, ... one decision."

"The common national goal is to establish a Palestinian state, independent with sovereignty on the West Bank and Gaza Strip with Jerusalem as the capital, without settlements, without giving up a single inch of it and with the right of return" of Palestinian refugees, the Hamas leader said.

Netanyahu denounced the new Palestinian alliance as "a mortal blow to peace and a big prize for terrorism."

"Israel continues to want peace and seek peace but we can only achieve that with our neighbors that want peace," the Israeli leader said. "Those of our neighbors that seek the destruction of Israel and use terrorism are not partners to peace."

The Palestinians have been torn between rival governments since a previous unity arrangement collapsed into civil war in June 2007. In five days of fighting, Hamas overran the Gaza Strip, leaving Abbas' Palestinian Authority in charge of the West Bank. Reconciliation is essential for Palestinian dreams to establish a state in the two areas.

Wednesday's pact provides for the creation of a joint Palestinian caretaker government ahead of national elections next year. But it leaves key issues unresolved, such as who will lead the government or control the competing Palestinian security forces, and makes no mention of relations with Israel.

In his speech, Abbas rejected Israel's opposition to the pact, saying the reconciliation with Hamas was an internal Palestinian affair.

"They are our brothers and family. We may differ, and we often do, but we still arrive at a minimum level of understanding," he said.

Abbas said Israel cannot continue to act as "a state above the law" and called for an end to construction in Jewish settlements on lands the Palestinians want for a future state.

"Mr. Netanyahu, you must choose between settlements and peace," he said.

It's not clear whether Western powers would deal with the new government that is to emerge from the unity deal. So far, they've said they are waiting to see its composition.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said it was important that Palestinians ensure that their agreement is implemented "in a way that advances the prospects of peace rather than undermines them."

He said the U.S. was still waiting to see what the agreement actually means in practical terms, but stressed Hamas' inclusion in the government must be accompanied by recognition of the state of Israel, a commitment to nonviolence and acceptance of previous agreements.

"If Hamas wants to play a meaningful role in the political process there, and indeed in the peace process, they need to adhere to these principles," Toner said.

Blair agreed. "I think the central question people ask is, 'Does this mean a change of heart on behalf of Hamas or not?'" he told The Associated Press.

Unlike Fatah, which has negotiated several partial peace accords with Israel, Hamas does not accept a place for a Jewish state in an Islamic Mideast, though leaders like Mashaal say they would accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza as an interim step.

Hamas, which is considered a terror group by Israel, the U.S. and European Union, has sent dozens of suicide bombers into Israel, killing hundreds, and thousands of rockets have been fired from Gaza at Israel, many by Hamas. Israel has retaliated with strikes into Gaza that have killed dozens of Palestinian civilians.

The Quartet of Mideast mediators — the U.S., the EU, the United Nations and Russia — has long demanded that Hamas renounce violence and recognize the principle of Israel's right to exist. Hamas' continued refusal to accept these conditions could jeopardize hundreds of millions of dollars in international aid.

Palestinian political activist Mustafa Barghouti said Hamas, by signing the accord, "showed a sign of moderation."

"I hope the United States starts seeing the situation not through Israeli eyes. I hope the United States can have its own independent policy," he said.

Reservations over key differences between the two sides linger, and Palestinian leaders had a brief dispute ahead of Wednesday's signing ceremony when Mashaal objected to being seated in the front row rather than on the podium along with Abbas, the Egyptian foreign minister and intelligence chief.

He grudgingly accepted his seat and the atmosphere remained generally upbeat, with many among those present saying they saw the deal as a byproduct of the political changes sweeping the Arab world.

Uprisings toppled or weakened some of the leaders who had patronized Hamas and Fatah, and angry Palestinians, inspired by Arab youth movements in Egypt, Syria and elsewhere, had begun to take to the streets to demand an end to the Fatah-Hamas rift.

"The general atmosphere in the region imposed a different reality," said Cairo-based Mohammed Sobeih, the Arab League official handling Palestinian affairs. "Everybody believed that the continuation of the division is dangerous, destructive and none will be able to bear it any longer."

Syria, long Hamas' traditional Arab backer and home to several of its top leaders, has been rocked in recent weeks by a wave of protests demanding the ouster of President Bashar Assad. Similarly, the regime of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, Fatah's main backer, collapsed in February after an 18-day uprising.

Ahmed Abdel-Rahman, a spokesman for Abbas, said Syria had always been the decision-maker for Hamas. "There was a Syrian veto, but now it doesn't exist," he said.

Samir Ghattas, head of the Cairo-based Maqdus Center for Strategic Studies, suggested that Syria's weakened leadership may no longer feel it prudent to doggedly maintain its close ties with Hamas.

Palestinian businessman Munib al-Masri, head of an independent political bloc, said Mubarak's personal enmity toward Hamas was a major barrier to unifying the Palestinian rivals.

After Mubarak's ouster, al-Masri helped arrange for Fatah and Hamas delegations to meet with new Egyptian officials in the foreign ministry and intelligence service, leading to Wednesday's accord.

"The youth in the streets brought awakening, a spring and a revival," al-Masri said.

___

Associated Press writers Amy Teibel in Jerusalem and Ibrahim Barzak in Gaza City, Gaza Strip, contributed to this report.

Obama's New Cold War

Obama Offered Deal to Russia in Secret Letter
By PETER BAKER
Published: March 2, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/washington/03prexy.html?hp
New York Times copyright
http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/03/03/washington/03prexy.html#postComment
New York Times copyright
----------------------
The core problem with US foreign policy for the past 60 years is its exceptionalist, triumphalist,supremacist, dictatorial and interfering posture, matched by a 60-year accumulation of actions of unparalleled state-sponsored violence marked by invasion, occupation, militarization, nuclearization, destabilization, satellization.

That foreign policy posture and actions in the West Asia and Central Asia regions has a counterproductive Israel subtext, as well as affirms that the US continues to maintain its confrontational Cold War stance in a post-Cold War, multipolar era of sovereign-state intra andinter-regional alliances that do not necessarily include the US, or Russia for that matter.

Obama's "secret" (what happened to transparency?) reportedly hand-delivered letter to Russia's President Medvedev, three weeks ago, attempts to dictate and micromanage geopolitics in West Asia and Central Asia, which the last time I looked is not where the US is located. The sovereign nation-state stakeholders in these regions have every right to safeguard their perceived local interests without the US menacing nation-states that are located there.

Q. Why shouldn't Russia help Iran nuclearize? Iran and Russia are strategic neighbors, the US is not. Did the US nuclearize Israel?

Q. Why shouldn't Iran develop nuclear power for both military and civilian purposes? The US, Israel and Russia are all nuclear. The last two are regional neighbors, the US is not.
In the adjoining South Asia region, Pakistan and India are nuclear. What would motivate Iran NOT to nuclearize and Russia NOT to help Iran do so?

Obama's shopworn Star Wars bargaining chip of a National Missile Defense Shield (NMD) suspension wont wash with Iran, especially since the US helped Israel develop its Arrow missile system which has been successfully tested repeatedly by the US and Israel acting in combination. Is it possible, therefore, both Iran and Russia might feel their respective national security interests are threatened by such unilateral and unprovoked militarization in their backyard?

Obama's foreign policy in Central Asia, West Asia and South Asia is likely to be no different than that of his white male predecessors.

Superpower foreign policy ideology trumps race.

At the same time, supremacist ideology in U.S. foreign policy has its roots in white male dominance (developed and enforced during three centuries of slavery and genocide of indigenous people in the US, by white males), in which all 'others' are racialized and rendered inferior. Obama is embedded in that Whiteness system and rewarded by it.

Change We Can Believe In? A new and ethical direction for US foreign policy where strategic interests are sincerely attempted to be aligned with ethical concerns ?

Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
See Theory of Systemic Whiteness and related articles
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
=====================================================================================

Multipolar Iran vs. Unipolar US

http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/02/19/opinion/19cohen.html
Reading Khamenei in Iran by Roger Cohen
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/opinion/19cohen.html
New York Times copyright
--------------
Comment # 48.
February 19, 2009 10:34 am

Link
The Zionists on the staff of The New York Times (of which Cohen is one) are at it again! Seriously, why don't you at the NYT (even if only occasionally) 'deploy' a Global South or Scandinavian journalist to cover the so-called Middle East (Middle of what? East of where?). That area is both West Asia and North East Africa. You cannot truncate either of these huge continents by taking a chunk out of each of them and call that area the Middle East, a Brit colonial-imperial fiction, continued by the US, the prevailing neo-imperial power. Though Cohen does not specifically use the term "Middle East" it is the suspect terrain of his analyses.

Does IRAN's Right to Exist (yes I mean Iran, I am not talking about Israel) depend on Iran's relationship to Israel and the US? Iran has never threatened the US, whereas the US has deposed its popularly elected leaders (Mossadegh), propped up straw monarchs (Reza Shah Pehlavi), stoked the Iran-Iraq war, and sanctioned Iran for attempting to become a nuclear power (which Israel already is, and the US is the only user of nuclear weapons).

Finally, let me inform Cohen Iran is well on the way to strategic multipolarity like many sovereign nation-states struggling out of the colonial era, with dialogue and economic arrangements with South America, Africa and South Asia. Therefore, "only engagement with the West" as Cohen mistakenly asserts is not Iran's only or preferred option.

Iran is undoubtedly a deeply flawed sovereign nation-state with an abysmal human rights record. This human rights record is correctly a terrain for engagement by the US and all UN member states, with Iran, no less than with Saudi Arabia, whose human rights record the US conveniently winks at, while guzzling Saudi oil.
Let it also be noted that Iran is an emerging regional power despite severe geo-political provocation from the US and its satellite, Israel.
My sense is Iran will prevail, despite Cohen's "pious" prescriptions to deal with Iran's alleged "independence obsession."

My comments do not in any way mean I do not read Cohen and others on the op-ed staff of the NYT with the greatest critical interest. I thank the NYT for that opportunity, because it is most instructive.
Such discussion is the stuff of US democracy on its way to developing an ethical spine.
Chithra KarunaKaran
Ethical Democracy As Lived Practice
http://EthicalDemocracy.blogspot.com
====================================================================================

Can Israel Exist?

In the long term the ethical question is Can Israel continue to exist in its present form as a Jewish state? Can it exist on occupied land that once belonged to persons who have become displaced for generations? This is an unending ethical dilemma for the Jewish state. Will the ethically indefensible state of Israel have to give way to a United State of Palestine in which Palestinians whose human rights were violated beginning with the creation of the State of Israel, will have the right to return to the places from which they were evicted?
It is difficult to conceive of any other solution that is ethical. More on this...