woensdag 13 december 2017

In Jerusalem we have the latest chapter in a century of colonialism




In Jerusalem we have the latest chapter in a century of colonialism



Donald Trump’s intervention is not a mere aberration. It’s part of the continuing story of injustice in Palestine

Palestinian refugees near Haifa in 1948. Palestinian refugees near Haifa in 1948. ‘Patrick Wolfe showed us that events in Palestine over the last hundred years are an intensification of (rather than a departure from) settler colonialism.’ Photograph: Bettmann Archiv

Tuesday 12 December 2017 

One hundred years ago, on 11 December 1917, the British army occupied Jerusalem. As General Allenby’s troops marched through Bab al-Khalil, launching a century of settler colonialism across Palestine, prime minister David Lloyd George heralded the city’s capture as “a Christmas present for the British people”.
In a few months’ time, we mark another such anniversary: 70 years since the Palestinian Nakba of 1948, the catastrophic destruction of the Palestinian polity; the violent dispossession of most of its people with their forced conversion into disenfranchised refugees; the colonial occupation, annexation and control of their land; and the imposition of martial law over those who managed to remain.
The current US president’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel bookends a century of such events: from the Balfour declaration in November 1917 to the partition plan of 1947; from the Nakba of 1948 to the Naksa of 1967 – with its annexation of Jerusalem, the occupation of the rest of Palestine, further mass expulsions of Palestinians including from East and West Jerusalem, and the invaders’ razing of entire ancient neighbourhoods in the city.
Donald Trump’s declaration could easily be read as one more outrage in his growing collection of chaotic and destructive policies, this one perhaps designed to distract from his more prosaic, personal problems with the law. It is viewed as the act of a volatile superpower haplessly endorsing illegal military conquest and consolidating the “acquisition of territory by force” (a practice prohibited and rejected by the UN and the basic tenets of international law). And it is seen alongside a long list of domestic and international blunders.
However, this analysis obscures what happens each day in occupied Palestine, and hides what will surely happen next – unless governments, parliaments, institutions, unions and, most of all, citizens take measures to actively resist it.
Leaders across the world appear incapable of naming what is taking place in Palestine, so their received wisdom on the cause and nature of the conflict, along with the “consensus solutions” they offer, prove futile. This century of events instead should be understood as a continuum, forming part of an active process that hasn’t yet stopped or achieved its ends. Palestinians understand it: we feel it in a thousand ways every day. How does this structure appear to those who endure it day in, day out?
Patrick Wolfe, the late scholar, traced the history of settler colonial projects across continents, showing us that events in Palestine over the last 100 years are an intensification of (rather than a departure from) settler colonialism. He also established its two-sided nature, defining the phenomenon – from the Incas and Mayans to the native peoples of Africa, America, and the Middle East – as holding negative and positive dimensions. Negatively, settler colonialism strives for the dissolution of native societies; positively, it erects a new colonial society on the expropriated land: “Colonisers come to stay: invasion is a structure not an event.”
After the British marched into Jerusalem in 1917 and declared martial law, they turned Palestine into an Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA). Declaring martial law over the city, Allenby promised: “Every sacred building, monument, holy spot, shrine, traditional site, endowment, pious bequest, or customary place of prayer of whatsoever form of the three religions will be maintained and protected.” But what did he say of its people? Allenby divided the country into four districts: Jerusalem, Jaffa, Majdal and Beersheba, each under a military governor, and the accelerated process of settler colonialism began.
At the time of the military takeover, Palestine was 90% Christian and Muslim, with 7-10% Palestinian Arab Jews and recent European settlers. By the time the British army left Palestine on 14 May 1948, the expulsion and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people was already under way. During their 30 years’ rule, the British army and police engineered a radical change to the population through the mass introduction of European settlers, against the express wishes of the indigenous population. They also suppressed Palestine’s Great Revolt of 1936-39, destroying any possibility of resistance to what lay ahead.
Once any individual episode is understood as part of a continuing structure of settler colonialism, the hitherto invisible daily evictions of Palestinians from their homes assume their devastating significance.
Invisible too has been the force driving the expansion of illegal settlements on Palestinian land. Without a framing of settler colonialism, the notion of the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, of “spiriting away” the native Arabs “gradually and circumspectly”, makes little sense. In Jerusalem this is how gradual ethnic cleansing is being practised today.
The new US policy on Jerusalem is not about occupation and annexation; the supremacy of one religion over another so “balance” must be restored; the two-state solution or the failures of the Oslo agreement; or the location of an embassy, or division of Jerusalem.
Nor is it even about the soap opera-level conspiracy the Palestinian people have been abandoned to: where the son-in-law of the US president, who has actively funded the rightwing settlement movement in Israel, has been granted absolute power to fabricate a “peace process” with a crown prince who has just locked up his relatives.
In this dystopic vision, the village of Abu Dis outside Jerusalem is proposed as the capital of a future fragmented Palestinian “state” – one never created, given that (along with all US-led peace processes), its eventual appearance is entirely dependent on Israel’s permission. This is named, in “peace process” language, as any solution to be agreed “by the parties themselves”, via “a negotiated settlement by the two sides”.
With colonialism always comes anti-colonial resistance. Against the active project to disappear the indigenous people, take their land, dispossess and disperse them so they cannot reunite to resist, the goals of the Palestinian people are those of all colonised peoples throughout history. Very simply, they are to unify for the struggle to liberate their land and return to it, and to restore their inalienable human rights taken by force – principles enshrined in centuries of international treaties, charters, and resolutions, and in natural justice.
The US has been blocking Palestinian attempts to achieve this national unity for years, vetoing Palestinian parties in taking their legitimate role in sharing representation. Palestinians’ democratic right to determine their path ahead would allow our young generation – scattered far and wide, from refugee camps to the prisons inside Palestine – to take up their place in the national struggle for freedom. The US assists the coloniser and ties our hands.
Former European colonial powers, including Britain, now claim they are aware of their colonial legacy, and condemn centuries of enslavement and the savage exploitation of Africa and Asia. So European leaders should first name the relentless process they installed in our country, and stand with us so that we can unite to defeat it.
 Karma Nabulsi is fellow in politics at St Edmund Hall, and teaches at Oxford University

zondag 10 december 2017

Has Kushner given Riyadh carte blanche?

image-from-the-document-manager

Has Kushner given Riyadh carte blanche?





WASHINGTON, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have found themselves at odds of late with US State Department diplomats and Defense Department leadership, taking provocative actions by blockading Qatar; summoning Lebanon’s Prime Minister Saad Hariri to Riyadh earlier this month, where he abruptly resigned; and blockading since Nov. 6 major Yemeni ports from desperately needed humanitarian aid shipments in retaliation for a Nov. 4 Houthi missile strike targeting Riyadh's international airport.
The State and Defense departments have urged Riyadh and Abu Dhabi to ease their pressure campaigns on Qatar and Lebanon and improve aid access in Yemen to avert catastrophic famine. But Saudi and Emirati officials have suggested to US diplomatic interlocutors that they feel they have at least tacit approval from the White House for their hard-line actions, in particular from President Donald Trump and his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, who Trump has tasked with leading his Middle East peace efforts.
Kushner has reportedly established a close rapport with UAE Ambassador to the United States Yousef al-Otaiba, as well as good relations with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, with whom Kushner met in Riyadh in late October.
But growing US bureaucratic dismay at perceived Saudi/Emirati overreach, as well as Kushner’s mounting legal exposure in the Russia investigations, has many veteran US diplomats, policymakers and lobbyists urging regional players to be cautious about basing their foreign policy on any perceived green light, real or not, from the Kushner faction at the White House. They warn the mixed messages could cause Gulf allies to miscalculate and take actions that harm US interests. And they worry US diplomacy has often seemed hesitant, muted and delayed in resolving recent emerging crises in the Middle East, in part because of the perceived divide between the State Department and the Department of Defense on one side and the White House on the other, making US mediation efforts less effective and arguably impeding US national security interests.
When the Saudis and Emiratis were about to launch the blockade of Qatar in June, then-US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Stuart Jones got a call in the middle of the night from UAE Ambassador Otaiba to inform him of the impending action. Jones’ reaction was “extremely harsh. ‘What are you guys doing? This is crazy,’” a former US ambassador to the region told Al-Monitor. “And … Yusuf [Otaiba]'s response was, ‘Have you spoken to the White House?’”
Jones, contacted by Al-Monitor, confirmed the conversation took place but declined to characterize it, saying it would be inappropriate and unfair to Otaiba.
But the example of Qatar is instructive because the State and Defense departments ultimately prevailed over the initially perceived White House green light to the Saudis and Emiratis for their blockade, said former US Ambassador to Yemen Gerald Feierstein.
“Initially, of course, the White House very clearly and dramatically was not on the same page as State and Defense,” Feierstein, now with the Middle East Institute, told Al-Monitor. “But I think that over the course of time, State and Defense have won that fight. And my sense is if [Secretary of State Rex] Tillerson and [Secretary of Defense James] Mattis are together and pushing hard, they can win those arguments. … Clearly, when the two of them are together, they can successfully push back on the White House.”
The perception that the White House is giving the Saudis and Emiratis carte blanche is magnified by the Trump administration’s desire to get Saudi Arabia and the UAE to buy into and achieve deliverables in a relaunched Israeli-Palestinian-Arab peace process.
"It just is stunning how sublimated our policy has become to one or two things,” a former senior US administration official speaking not for attribution told Al-Monitor. “Fundamentally, we want to go after Iran, [and] we want to go after that ‘outside-in’ Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. And the Trump administration appears to believe that this requires giving the Saudis a huge amount of space in order to get what we want vis-a-vis Israel. … My guess is they are prepared to trade virtually anything in order to get that 'outside-in' deal."
But the Saudis and the Emiratis risk miscalculating and getting caught in mixed messages coming from the White House versus the State and Defense departments.
“It works, until reality intervenes,” the former senior US administration official said. “Right now, they have … a very strong, effective relationship with the White House that has been reliably supportive of their activities. But they have limited or no broader foundation for that support in the interagency; their support in the interagency beyond the White House is much more brittle. And were they to do anything that damages the support at the White House, either accidentally or with their decisions, they may not have a safety net because the rest of the agencies were not brought along in their chosen course of action."
"I think they could struggle or founder if Jared [Kushner] suddenly disappeared,” the former senior US administration official said. “Because there is no one who has that camaraderie with the crown prince and has the instinctive desire to find common ground that Jared does. If something happens to Jared — he gets distracted or is no longer on the scene — what happens to [their] critical relationship with the White House?"
Republican lobbyist Ed Rogers, on a Nov. 13 panel at the Emirates Policy Center in Abu Dhabi, was described as urging US Gulf allies to broaden their outreach in Washington from one narrowly focused on the Trump White House to the US government institutions and the Democrats in Congress. “I made the point that lobbying efforts and Washington should not ignore the Democrats in Congress and that they may be coming back in one house or another in 2018,” Rogers told Al-Monitor by email.
Some veteran US policymakers doubt that Kushner is giving Prince Mohammed the green light for all his actions.
“My guess is it is vague,” Bruce Riedel, a long-time CIA and White House official and Saudi specialist, told Al-Monitor. “Jared doesn’t know details.”
“Much more specific is the input from UAE Crown Prince Mohamed bin Zayed, who eggs on Mohammad bin Salman,” Riedel, a contributor to Al-Monitor, said.
A spokesman for Kushner did not respond to Al-Monitor’s query on whether Kushner discussed with Prince Mohammed the latter’s plans for countering Hezbollah in Lebanon or would speak to the perception that Kushner may be giving Gulf allies a sense of permission for recent hard-line actions. In an Oct. 29 statement, a senior White House official confirmed that Kushner, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategy Dina Powell and special representative for International Negotiations Jason Greenblatt “recently returned from Saudi Arabia.” Kushner “has also been in frequent contact with officials from Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, the UAE, Jordan and Saudi Arabia,” the White House official said.
Former US Ambassador Feierstein wondered if the recent Saudi recall of Hariri to Riyadh was part of the Kushner peace chessboard.
“Is this a peace process play?” Feierstein wondered. “Is this somehow a US/Israel/Saudi Arabia kind of strategy that is playing out, aimed at isolating Hezbollah and basically destabilizing the Hezbollah-dominated government in Beirut in exchange for some Israeli concession on the peace process with the Palestinians? … What exactly is the full deal out there?”
The State Department was blindsided by Saudi Arabia’s decision to summon Hariri from Lebanon on Nov. 4 and the reported push for him to resign, Levant expert Randa Slim said.
“I know … that the Americans were totally surprised by what the Saudis did,” Slim, head of the Track II Dialogues initiative at the Middle East Institute, told Al-Monitor. “They were taken aback. [The Saudis] did not coordinate with people at State.”
“Part of Mohammed bin Salman’s strategy to curry favor … and ingratiate himself with the Americans is to [call out] Hezbollah as being a primary culprit and roll it back,” Slim said. “I think there is where the green light comes from. … The Saudis are doing things without consulting; they are misinterpreting and over-reading” tough White House rhetoric on Iran and Hezbollah, while the State and Defense departments are saying they want stability.
On Yemen, the White House needs to firmly press the Saudi-led coalition to lift its blockade of key Yemeni ports, which is exacerbating one of the largest famines in the world, said former US Foreign Disaster Assistance chief Jeremy Konyndyk.
“The problem is that the Saudis think Trump and Kushner are the only ones whose views matter,” Konyndyk told Al-Monitor. “And they're probably right.”
“I doubt [Kushner would] give an explicit green light on [the Yemen] blockade,” Konyndyk added. “But the Saudis were champing at the bit to crack down on the place, and the only thing holding them back was the United States saying no repeatedly. In that situation, you don't have to say ‘yes.’ Just have to stop saying ‘no.’ [I] suspect that's what happened.”
The US administration has renewed its efforts to prevent the Yemen humanitarian crisis from getting worse, including engaging the Saudi-led coalition to demand improved access, a current senior US official, speaking not for attribution, told Al-Monitor Nov. 20.
But the US administration will need to be more forceful in its conversations with the Saudi leadership to avert catastrophic famine in Yemen.
"It is clear that some senior Saudis understand how truly dire the humanitarian situation is, but it is unclear whether they will ultimately influence Saudi decision-making on Yemen and whether the United States will weigh in as well forcefully enough to have a significant impact on the humanitarian crisis,” the former senior US administration official said.


Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/11/jared-kushner-saudi-arabia-carte-blanche-destablize-region.html#ixzz50oARHlhk


---------------------------------------

My Comments : 

1. One can not clearly understand the true dimensions of Kushner's violently geo-political machinations in the ME without realizing the basic and crucial; fact, that Trump has been catapulted into the WH by his main zio-Jewish financial backers Robert Mercer and Sheldon Adelson..

2. Kushner and his father in law - since the super PACs of Mercer and Adelson effectively took over the Trump election campaign and provided richly for the post-inauguration procedures) are completely dependent on the detailed instructions that the Adelson-Mercer clans have been dictating to them on the level of USA policy making ( in general and regarding the ME in particular) and on the personnel occupation of the crucial political posts.

3. Especially the Adelson clan has been renowned for both his close connections with the belligerent Jabotinsky orientated Tel Aviv regime and the GOP neo-conservatives, that, for a considerable time now,  have been plotting a series of regime change initiatives in the ME and beyond, ultimately meant to diminish the role of (firstly the) Shiite influence in the ME and, at the very same time, propel the role and enlarge the status of the western colonial project called Israel in the ME as the main regional entity.

4. Within that geo-political power play, the Sunni orientated Saud clan has been served the role of proxy warrior for the USA and their Israeli colony, in order to eliminate various Shiite orientated regimes in the ME, like Syria , Lebanon, Yemen and Iran.

5. All this long term colonial activity in the context of course, as has been extensively described in public by someone like former USA general Wesley Clark, who - already in the direct aftermath of the 9/11 attack - received crucial information on that specific subject from one of his former colleagues at the Pentagon.

6. Since 'special USA peace mediator for the ME', Jewish Jahred Kushner is under fire from the Mueller investigation, he and his fellow plotters do realise, that their most favourite time-frame to act according to the Yinon-plan and  the Clean Break project most probably will be highly limited.

7. Also the position of  White supremacist Trump - in this case evidently a marionette of aforementioned Jew supremacists annex Super-PAC-men - might be at risk in the near future which might threaten as well the entire geo-political projects that have been set into motion for the ME region so far by his predecessors.

8. This limited time frame might be the main reason behind the recent frantic "diplomatic" initiatives that Kushner (totally at the service of the political marionette player Netanyahu et al.) and his fellow ME plotters seem to be forcing upon the ME, and which at the same time may be the main reason that these "diplomatic" initiatives at the end, might be back-firing heavily and even might be exploding into their own faces...