10 times the US contradicted its own rhetoric on peace and justice

From blocking ceasefires to shielding allies from criticism, these instances highlight how Washington has undermined global efforts for peace and justice.



AA

The Gaza veto is just one of many instances where American interests have overruled the international community's collective will. / Photo: AA

The United States frequently portrays itself as a global champion of peace, democracy, and human rights. Yet its actions at the United Nations – and elsewhere – often tell a different story.

On Wednesday, the US vetoed a UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution calling for an "immediate, unconditional, and permanent" ceasefire in Gaza and measures to prevent the starvation of Palestinians. Despite 14 members voting in favour, Washington single-handedly blocked the resolution, stating it "could not support an unconditional ceasefire".


This marks the fourth such veto by the US since the onset of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza in October 2023. Additionally, the US has vetoed at least 58 resolutions critical of Israel or condemning its violence against Palestinians since 1972, according to UN data.


The Gaza veto is just one of many instances where American interests have overruled the international community's collective will.


Here, we explore 10 historical examples of the US wielding its veto power to block resolutions aimed at fostering peace or holding nations accountable, exposing a troubling pattern.


1. Blocking condemnation of the bombing of Libya (1986)


In April 1986, the US launched air strikes on Tripoli and Benghazi in response to alleged Libyan involvement in a terrorist attack on a Berlin nightclub. These strikes resulted in civilian deaths and widespread international outrage.


A UNSC resolution condemning the attack as a violation of international law was introduced but vetoed by the US, which claimed the strikes were an act of “self-defence”.


2. Shielding Israel during the Lebanon War (2006)


During the 2006 Lebanon War, Israel launched a military campaign in southern Lebanon, causing extensive civilian casualties and destruction. A draft UN resolution called for an immediate ceasefire and condemned the targeting of civilians.


The US vetoed the resolution, claiming it would undermine “Israel’s ability to respond” to Hezbollah.


3. Opposing sanctions on apartheid South Africa (1970s-1980s)


During the apartheid era, the UN introduced multiple resolutions calling for economic sanctions against South Africa to pressure its government to end racial segregation and systemic oppression.


The US repeatedly vetoed these resolutions, citing concerns about the economic impact on both South African and American businesses operating there, further delaying international efforts to dismantle the oppressive regime.


4. Blocking condemnation of US actions in Nicaragua (1980s)


Throughout the 1980s, the US provided military and financial support to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, who were fighting the socialist Sandinista government.


The conflict caused widespread civilian suffering and was condemned as a violation of Nicaragua's sovereignty. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) later ruled that US actions violated international law.


Multiple UN resolutions sought to condemn the US for its role in fueling the conflict and violating Nicaragua’s territorial integrity. The US vetoed these resolutions, fueling a devastating conflict while undermining global norms.



5. Opposing criticism of the invasion of Panama (1989)


In December 1989, the US invaded Panama, claiming it sought to protect American citizens and restore democracy. However, many countries viewed the invasion as a violation of Panama’s sovereignty.


When the UNSC introduced a resolution condemning the invasion, the US vetoed it, arguing that its actions were necessary for regional stability and democracy, justifying its own actions under the guise of promoting democracy.


6. Supporting Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights (1981)


In 1981, Israel unilaterally annexed the Golan Heights, territory seized from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War. The move violated international law, as UN resolutions prohibit the acquisition of territory by force.


The UNSC introduced a resolution declaring Israel’s annexation "null and void". The US vetoed it, claiming it would “complicate the peace process in the region”.


7. Blocking ceasefire efforts after Vietnam War (1960s-1970s)


The Vietnam War, which lasted from 1955 to 1975, was one of the deadliest conflicts of the 20th century. The US escalated its involvement in the 1960s, citing the need to stop the spread of communism. International calls for a ceasefire grew as civilian casualties mounted.


Throughout the conflict, the US opposed the UN resolutions aimed at the admission of Vietnam to the UN, further blocking peace efforts.


8. Opposing investigations into Iraq War (2003)


In 2003, the US led a coalition to invade Iraq, citing the presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power. No WMDs were ever found, and the war led to massive civilian casualties and regional destabilisation.


The UN introduced efforts to investigate the legality of the war and its humanitarian consequences, but the US blocked such initiatives, insisting that its actions were justified under the doctrine of preemptive self-defence.


9. Blocking resolutions on Gaza blockade (2010)


Following the Israeli assault on a humanitarian flotilla attempting to deliver aid to Gaza, international outrage grew over Tel Aviv’s blockade, which was a violation of international law. The blockade severely restricted the movement of goods and people, worsening humanitarian conditions in Gaza.


The UN introduced a resolution condemning the blockade and calling for its immediate end. The US vetoed the resolution, arguing it “failed to address security concerns”.


10. Supporting Israel’s occupation of West Bank (1967-Present)


Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, territories internationally recognised as part of Palestine.


The UN has consistently called for Israel to withdraw from these territories, as their occupation violates international law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention.


However, the US has consistently shielded Israel from international criticism, often using its veto power to block resolutions critical of Israel’s actions.



Alarming pattern


From shielding allies to justifying its own military actions, the US has repeatedly prioritised strategic alliances and economic gains over global peace and accountability.


Each veto has had consequences, prolonging wars, delaying justice, and eroding trust in international institutions.


The latest veto of the Gaza ceasefire adds to the US' troubling legacy, making it clear who is complicit in the suffering of millions.

Opinion

Israeli prepares to annex the occupied West Bank and impose a fait accompli on the Palestinians



A view of the West Bank separation barrier, which separates Bethlehem from Jerusalem, has become the site of many artists’ drawings to depict the Israeli attacks on Palestinians, on November 12, 2024 in Bethlehem, West Bank [Wisam Hashlamoun/Anadolu Agency]

MEMO
November 21, 2024 

by Aziz Mustafa


As soon as it was known that Donald Trump will be back in the White House in January, far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich announced that 2025 would be the year to impose the occupation state’s sovereignty over “Judea and Samaria”, known to the rest of the world as the West Bank. Naftali Bennett made a similar announcement in 2016, when Trump was a US presidential candidate for the first time. The Palestinian territory, said Bennett, should be part of the occupation state.

Annexation is illegal under international law.

Any Israeli attempt to annex the West Bank projects a worrying picture of the consequences. The Israelis themselves are monitoring this, but it is not acknowledged by the right-wing government, because even partial annexation could lead to some negative responses that would jeopardise the occupation state’s position. While the Jewish settlers and their leaders who support annexation claim that it can be implemented gradually and thus be revealed as a fait accompli, with reduced negative consequences, research suggests that this is a delusion.

The gradual annexation of so-called Area C of the West Bank (delineated by the Oslo Accords and controlled fully by Israel), or even part of it, is expected to lead to the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, and thus the end of its security coordination with the occupation state, and the occupation army will have to control the occupied Palestinian territory. In such a situation, Israel will be forced to fund a military-run regime and be responsible for the lives of 2.8 million Palestinians. The cost of such a move is estimated at $14.5 billion annually, including expenses for health services, education and national insurance for Palestinians.

OPINION: Smotrich has confirmed that the quest for ‘Greater Israel’ is real

Moreover, the annexation of the West Bank could damage the Israeli economy due to a predicted decline in foreign investment and the imposition of international sanctions. Security will also be affected, as the occupation army will be required to double its presence on the ground, hindering its readiness for war on other fronts. Vital security cooperation under the peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt will be hit, with the potential for Jordan to become dangerously unstable within the international arena, and Israel could find itself in a serious diplomatic crisis.

Even if the incoming Trump administration supports the annexation move, even tacitly, the reaction of Europe and the Arab world is expected to be harsh. It is likely to include economic and diplomatic sanctions, and Israel’s international legitimacy, such as it is, will be damaged severely.


It might even be declared to be a pariah state, similar to South Africa during the apartheid era.

The main fear, though, is that annexation will lead to a point of no return, where the occupation state will be forced to choose between two impossible options: a binational state in which it will lose its Jewish majority, or an apartheid regime in which millions of Palestinians live under Israeli military rule, without full civil rights. Israel has already been found to have passed the threshold as an apartheid state by B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Coinciding with Israeli preparations to annex the West Bank, the government’s attitude towards Palestinian construction, especially in Area C, means implementing a demographic and population revolution in favour of the Jewish immigrant settlers at the expense of the indigenous Palestinians.

There were 2,868 new Palestinian buildings built in Area C from June 2023 to May 2024, less than half of the number built in the corresponding periods in previous years since 2018. The monthly average in 2023 was 260 new Palestinian buildings, compared with an average of 608 buildings per month in previous years from 2018 onwards. This is a 57 per cent decrease. Meanwhile, there has been very intense activity by the occupation army, prompting many Palestinians to stay in their homes and postpone their housing plans.

READ: Israel forces assault staff member after storming Palestinian school

The operations of the army-run Civil Administration in the West Bank; the appointment of far-right extremist Smotrich as Finance Minister and as an additional minister in the Defence Ministry; and the establishment of the Settlement Directorate have all contributed to imposing more control over Palestinian land in the West Bank. This began with building a strategy for work and determining the location for Palestinian construction, and has been extended to a legal advisory system to deal with petitions, the confiscation of engineering equipment and the demolition of “unlicensed” structures that deter Palestinian residents from trying to extend their homes or build new properties.

A major factor in the decline in Palestinian construction has been the decisive move by the Ministry of Settlements and National Missions, headed by Orit Strook, to fund land coordinators in all settlement councils. Their job is to patrol in a vehicle and use drones to detect and report any Palestinian construction. The result has been the confiscation of more than 440 tractors, small trucks and engineering tools used by Palestinian contractors, leaving them without tools for lengthy periods, which is costly and forces them to think twice before their next construction project.

The occupation authorities do not hesitate to demolish any new Palestinian building.

Unlike the past, the procedure is short and sharp. The heads of Palestinian villages know that anything being built has a low chance of survival and faces rapid demolition. The occupation authorities have destroyed 901 Palestinian buildings in Area C this year alone, and declared 5,978 acres to be state land. This is equivalent to half of the entire area that was declared as state land since the 1993 Oslo Accords.

With 19 per cent of Palestinian new-build sites destroyed in 2021, 27 per cent in the following year, 2022, and 22 per cent in 2023, a shocking increase has been recorded this year, with 68 per cent of new Palestinian buildings destroyed. All of this is in preparation for the annexation of the West Bank as soon as Donald Trump takes office in January. With many supporters of Israel’s illegal settlements nominated for major positions in his administration, the incoming US president may be unable to stop the annexation plan, even if, as Republican Party sources claim, he opposes it.

The shadow of Israeli settlement expansion hangs over Gaza

Analysis: With an emboldened Israeli far-right calling to resettle Gaza, Israel's systematic destruction is seen as a prelude to mass Palestinian displacement.

Mohamed Solaimane
21 November, 2024

THE NEW ARAB

Since its launch on 5 October this year, Israel’s campaign of forced evacuations in northern Gaza has claimed over 2,000 Palestinian lives and left more than 6,000 injured. While the immediate toll is devastating, Gazans fear an even darker threat looms over the enclave’s future.

Eyewitness accounts detail the widespread levelling of neighbourhoods in northern Gaza, with bulldozed infrastructure and new road networks tailored for military use. Coupled with growing calls within Israel’s political establishment to reinstate settlements in the area, these developments are deepening fears of permanent Palestinian displacement.

The destruction has sparked speculation that Israel intends to establish a buffer zone along its border with Gaza, a security measure that could also prevent the return of displaced Palestinians, but more troubling is the spectre of reintroducing settlements to northern Gaza, a region Israel evacuated in 2005 when it dismantled 21 settlements as part of a unilateral withdrawal.

The Israeli resettlement of Gaza is no longer a fringe idea
In-depth
Jessica Buxbaum

While Israel’s government has not explicitly announced plans to annex northern Gaza or resettle it with Israeli civilians, observers point out that the widespread displacement and destruction align with longstanding proposals from Israeli military figures to establish a no-man’s land in northern Gaza, intended as a buffer zone against potential attacks.

Far-right parties and settlement organisations in late October organised a provocative rally held just hundreds of meters from Gaza’s border. The event featured members of Israel’s parliament and cabinet, all advocating for renewed settlement in Gaza. This gathering followed a January conference, during which far-right activists and lawmakers signed a petition urging the Israeli government to rebuild settlements in Gaza and northern parts of the West Bank.

Ahmed Fayad, a researcher in Israeli affairs, argues that these calls are “deeply rooted” in the ideology of the Zionist movement now dominating the government.

“This government believes that wherever settlements exist, the army will defend them, thereby ensuring security for surrounding areas,” Fayad told The New Arab, adding that he sees the push for settlements in northern Gaza as driven by “ideological conviction” as well as “political and military aims”.

Israel’s current actions in northern Gaza, which include razing buildings, displacing populations, and enforcing strict security protocols, appear designed to create “a buffer zone, ostensibly to protect nearby Israeli communities,” he adds.

The widespread displacement and destruction in north Gaza align with longstanding proposals from Israeli military figures to establish a no man's land intended as a buffer zone. [Getty]


“It’s too early to conclude that far-right proposals for new settlements will gain traction,” he noted. “Settlements require a level of security and stability that simply doesn’t exist in Gaza right now. The territory is still a closed military zone, inaccessible even to Israelis.”

The future of Gaza, Fayad contended, depends on how Israel envisions its administration of the territory in the post-war era.

“There’s a clear desire among elements of the Israeli government, as well as far-right activists, to reestablish settlements in Gaza,” Fayad said. “Legislative and administrative measures already in place could make this relatively easy to execute. However, such a move hinges on military and political decision-making, which is complicated by the memory of the severe security risks settlements faced before Israel’s 2005 withdrawal.”
Related

Israeli ethnic cleansing nears completion in northern Gaza
Analysis
Paul R. Pillar

The shift from political discourse to open calls for action is evident in statements by Israeli politicians and officials. Current and former members of Israel’s Knesset, ministers, and other high-ranking figures have increasingly advocated for establishing settlements across Gaza.

Mowaffaq al-Kafarna, a political science professor at Gaza University, does not rule out the eventual establishment of settlements but considers it unlikely during the current military campaign.

“The war is ongoing, and the complexities of ensuring security for settlements make such a move implausible at this stage,” he said.

However, he warns that Israel’s actions on the ground suggest a long-term strategy to completely evacuate northern Gaza.


“In this scenario, northern Gaza’s depopulation is just the beginning, with the process potentially extending to Gaza City itself,” al-Kafarna explained. “Israel seems intent on creating a northern Gaza entirely devoid of Palestinian presence, starting with this evacuation as a precursor to wider changes.”

He pointed to the systematic destruction of neighbourhoods and the construction of new road networks bisecting northern Gaza as evidence.

“The division of northern Gaza into isolated sections, combined with widespread destruction, lays the groundwork for gradual and comprehensive depopulation,” he said. “What we’re seeing is the first phase of a larger plan to establish security zones. Settlements may follow, depending on Israel’s long-term calculations.”

He also believes the overarching goal is to neutralise Gaza as a threat to Israel, dismantle resistance groups entirely, and replace Hamas with a pliable civilian administration loyal to Israeli interests.

“This is about ensuring Gaza can never challenge Israel again,” al-Kafarna said. “It’s not just about military domination but also political control, ensuring free movement for the Israeli military while maintaining a civilian administration subservient to Israeli security interests.”

There's a clear desire among elements of the Israeli government, as well as far-right activists, to reestablish settlements in Gaza. [Getty]


One possibility, he suggests, is the incorporation of Gaza under Israel’s broader political and security apparatus. However, this would likely exclude any responsibility for the Palestinian population, which Israel might delegate to international organisations.

“This would contrast sharply with the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority manages civilian life. In Gaza, there would be no place for any Palestinian-led authority,” he noted.

From the Palestinian perspective, the signs on the ground suggest that settlements are not a distant possibility but an imminent reality. Nasser Attaallah, a Palestinian writer and political analyst, believes that Israel’s policies and actions in northern Gaza are preparing the ground for settlement expansion.

“Netanyahu and his extremist government have dredged up distorted historical and ideological justifications to legitimise these brutal crimes,” Attaallah said. “Settlement in Gaza is no longer just a plan; it’s becoming a reality.”

He warned that such moves will further entrench Palestinian dispossession, with “devastating consequences for the already shattered social and economic fabric of Gaza”.


For Palestinians like Attaallah, the renewed settlement discourse signals a return to a dark chapter they hoped was closed.

“We are witnessing the resurrection of an old nightmare,” he said, “and the world seems powerless to stop it”.

As Israel continues its military campaign in Gaza, Palestinian voices express a deepening sense of despair and inevitability over the region’s future. For many, the 7 October Hamas attack on Israel, which set off the latest escalation, has become a pretext for what they describe as the total obliteration of Gaza.
Related


With Trump's win, Israel moves closer to annexing the West Bank
Analysis
Jonathan Fenton-Harvey

“Gaza is facing a full-scale settlement project,” Attaallah asserts. He argues that years of far-right planning, previously limited to policy papers, are now becoming a reality under the current government. The situation is further compounded, he believed, by the global landscape, particularly the influence of now-President-elect Donald Trump.

“During his first term, Trump legitimised settlements and supported every move by the Israeli right wing. With an administration sympathetic to the settler cause, the situation for Palestinians can only worsen,” he explained.

For Palestinians, this rhetoric, combined with the devastation on the ground, signals the erasure of any prospects for autonomy or stability. The stakes, Attaallah emphasises, could not be higher.

“This is about more than land - it’s about the survival of a people and the obliteration of their existence.”

This article is published in collaboration with Egab.

Opinion

Realism and the invasion of Gaza: 

Critiquing Israel’s Zionist agenda


Palestinians fleeing to Gaza City with their belongings they could take with them, on October 23, 2024 in Gaza City, Gaza. [Mahmoud Isleem – Anadolu Agency]

MEMO
by Syeda Fatima Shuja

November 21, 2024

Realism is a prominent school of thought in international relations and often justifies state actions based on national interests, power dynamics and security. It prioritises the preservation of the state’s autonomy and survival, even at the expense of ethical considerations. However, realism fails to address the moral implications of state actions adequately, particularly when they result in human suffering and violations of international law.

“States,” said Kenneth Waltz in 1979, “are the principal actors in international politics, and their primary concern is survival. The structure of the international system compels states to act in ways that maximise their security.”

In the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, realism’s reliance on power and security has often masked the underlying injustices and deprivations faced by the Palestinians. It has perpetuated a binary understanding of the conflict, overlooking the complexities of historical grievances, political motivations and the legitimate Palestinian struggle for self-determination.


This narrow perspective overlooks the crucial need for justice, accountability and the recognition of Palestinian rights.

Israel’s latest invasion and occupation of the Gaza Strip, a densely populated territory now under complete Israeli control, is a stark example of how realist thinking can fail to address fundamental moral concerns. The ongoing blockade, military operations and restrictions on movement have caused immense human suffering, yet these actions are often justified by the need to ensure Israel’s security. This approach ignores the long-term consequences of the occupation, including the erosion of trust, the perpetuation of violence and the hindering of peace negotiations. Not for nothing has it been called a “plausible genocide” by the International Court of Justice.

READ: IDF soldiers will pay for Netanyahu seeking to impose military rule in Gaza, warns Gallant

The justification used by Israel for its capture of the Gaza Strip is rooted in a combination of historical narratives, security concerns and political calculations. The claim that Gaza is a strategic buffer zone for Israel is often used to justify the occupation, arguing that the territory’s control is vital for Israel’s security. This narrative, however, is highly contested, with critics arguing that it overlooks the disproportionate use of force against Palestinian civilians and the role of the “unlawful” (as per the ICJ) occupation itself in fuelling conflict.

For Israel, the war in Gaza is framed as a war of self-defence against the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, but, in reality, it amounts to a genocide against the Palestinians. The occupation of the Gaza Strip can be seen as a strategic move, aiming to gain an advantageous position in future negotiations. Moreover, Israel is interested in the natural gas fields off the coast of Gaza. The Zionist state also wants to eliminate the possibility of serious resistance from Gaza when extremist Jews seek to destroy Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and build a temple in its place.

Although the ongoing air strikes, blockade of humanitarian aid and essential goods and services, and the destruction of civilian infrastructure including hospitals, schools and homes have led to a staggering number of civilian casualties, there has been little or no adequate action by the international community to stop the carnage. At least 44,000 Palestinians have been killed, mainly women and children, while 104,000 have been wounded. The sheer scale of the violence, along with the targeting of civilians, has drawn accusations of disproportionate force and collective punishment.


The loss of innocent lives, particularly children, has been devastating.

Thousands of children have been killed or severely wounded in their homes and schools, leaving families in shock. Women’s rights and safety have also been undermined as they bear the burden of displacement, loss of loved ones and injury. Rapes by soldiers have been reported. Whole communities and generations have been affected, losing their homes, futures and hopes.

READ: British MPs urge government to endorse ICC arrest warrant for Netanyahu, Gallant

The ongoing genocide in Gaza raises serious questions about Israel’s treatment of civilians. This is not self-defence as outlined by the realist perspective, as the state is not focusing on addressing the threat posed by Hamas, which it regards as a terrorist organisation. That’s just an excuse. Ethnic cleansing of the enclave is the objective, either through killing or displacement. What’s more, an occupation state — Israel in this case — has no legal right to claim “self-defence” against the legitimate resistance of the people living under its military occupation.

The occupation state has ignored the repeated calls by the international community to respect international law and protect civilians. This highlights the need for reform of the United Nations, where Israel has been protected by the US veto and no means of enforcing resolutions are available. This emboldens Israel and allows it to act with total impunity. The effects are starting to be felt badly across the whole region.

While there has been much talk about the political aspects of “the day after” the war, little thought has apparently been given to the undoubted serious physical and mental health issues affecting the Palestinians in Gaza. Children are traumatised, as are their parents. Who is going to help them?

In the middle of all of this, even as Western governments struggle with poverty and declining public services in their own countries, they continue to give billions of dollars in aid to Israel as well as preferential trading, research and arms agreements.


Nobody is able to explain why with any degree of conviction.

Realism fails to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza because it focuses solely on power dynamics and security concerns, ignoring the human suffering and rights violations. This narrow perspective perpetuates the cycle of violence without tackling the underlying cause: the decades-old occupation. A just approach based on international law and human rights is needed to end the conflict.

“The Israeli occupation of Palestine is an affront to human rights, an act of aggression, and a violation of international law,” said Noam Chomsky. How right he was.

Opinion

Smotrich has confirmed that the quest for ‘Greater Israel’ is real


Israel’s Finance Minister and leader of the Religious Zionist Party Bezalel Smotrich on March 20, 2023 [GIL COHEN-MAGEN/AFP via Getty Images]

MEMO
by Hussein Laqra’a
November 20, 2024


The leaders of 56 Arab and Islamic countries advocated at the Riyadh Summit last week for the “two-state solution” and the need to establish a Palestinian state on the nominal borders of 4 June 1967, and tried to convince the world that it is the only solution to the Palestinian issue. In response, the extreme far-right Finance Minister of the occupation state, Bezalel Smotrich, insisted that 2025 will be the year that “Judea and Samaria” — the occupied West Bank — will be annexed to Israel and that he expects US President-elect Donald Trump to support this step. He basically confirmed that the quest for “Greater Israel” is real.

The nominal borders as at 4 June 1967 were the 1949 Armistice (“Green”) Line between the Zionist state of Israel and the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. These occupied Palestinian territories combined make up no more than 22 per cent of occupied Palestine. This means that the 56 Arab and Islamic countries have agreed that 78 per cent of Palestinian land should be served to the Zionist occupation state on a silver platter. In fact, the 2002 Arab Summit in Beirut approved of this.

Some Arabs paid for advertisements in Israeli newspapers to promote this “Arab Peace Initiative”, but the Zionist Prime Minister at the time, war criminal Ariel Sharon, said that it “is not worth the ink it was written with” and rejected it completely. This rejection of the initiative continues to this day, despite Arab pleas and appeals, as well as the many humiliating concessions made by the Palestinian Authority since the 1993 Oslo Accords were signed. The occupation regime and parliament passed a bill recently refusing to recognise a Palestinian state, even if the entire world does so. The Israeli right and left, government and opposition, all agreed on this.

OPINION: A nation in denial: Why Israel’s defeat is imminent

Now Smotrich is working to bury the two-state solution once and for all, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supports him. We have to ask, therefore, why the Arab and Islamic countries are trying to revive the moribund “two-state solution” despite it being biased and complicit with the occupation?


More than 30 years of “negotiations” have simply bought time for the occupation regime to steal more Palestinian land.

We now know — if anyone was ever in any doubt — that the settler-colonial state rejects sharing Palestine with the Palestinians, even if it is only 22 per cent of the historic territory. While arguing that chants of “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” are “anti-Semitic”, the Zionists have no qualms about stating openly that they want a Jewish state “from the river [Jordan] to the [Mediterranean] sea”. Intensive settlement activity — all illegal under international law — is swallowing up what remains of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and probably northern Gaza as well if the occupation regime is allowed to get away with its ethnic cleansing and genocide. It would have made far more sense, therefore, for the Arab and Islamic leaders to turn this humiliating page, forget about a “two-state solution” and declare the death of the so-called “peace process”. At the same time, they could have announced their collective political and practical support for legitimate resistance to the brutal Israeli occupation.

I have been saying for years that the Palestinian Authority is wrong to participate in futile negotiations with the occupation state to establish an independent Palestinian state that the Zionists will never accept. And that this path will lead to the loss of what remains of Palestine and thus the liquidation of its cause.

I have also said that the Arabs are wrong to waste their time chasing the mirage of peace with a criminal, fascist, racist, expansionist regime which wants all of Palestine for itself; and, indeed, wants to establish “Greater Israel” from the Nile to the Euphrates, despite the peace treaties and normalisation agreements with its neighbours whose land it will steal. When the occupation finishes swallowing the West Bank and East Jerusalem with settlements and announces their annexation, it will devote itself to expanding at the expense of its Arab neighbours, into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, even if it takes another eight decades. When the right time is right, the occupation will do this and will not care about any of the normalisers who are now supporting it against any and all legitimate resistance, thinking that they are thereby weakening Iran’s influence in the region and creating the appropriate conditions for a comprehensive peace deal.

Smotrich stood next to a map of the State of Israel in March 2023 in France, and “Israel” included Jordan, even though the Zionist entity signed a peace treaty with the Hashemite Kingdom in 1994. Didn’t the terrorist Menachem Begin sign a peace treaty with Egypt in 1979?

That won’t stop the Zionists. They want it all, and give nothing in return.

The issue is quite clear, but unfortunately the Arabs continue to bury their heads in the sand. If they were rational, they would have stopped the reckless promotion of the two-state solution illusion that the occupation regime does not want, and the normalisation countries would have severed, not strengthened their relations with it. Moreover, the Palestinian Authority would announce the end of security coordination with the enemy forces in the West Bank, the cancellation of the Oslo Accords, and its return to resistance against the occupation. If the Arabs were rational, they would have backed the legitimate resistance as their own first line of defence instead of abandoning the Palestinians in Gaza. Are they all insane?

Translated from Echoroukonline, 

16 November 2024

UK

Obituaries

Baron John Prescott: from striker to strike-breaker

John Prescott was a militant in the National Union of Seamen. He threw his principles overboard, became a Labour minister and pushed privatisation

John Prescott

By John Newsinger
Thursday 21 November 2024  

SOCIALIST WORKER Issue

John Prescott, who died on Thursday, is being celebrated throughout the media as some sort of “giant of the labour movement”.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, he personifies the old joke about Labour MPs—that they believe in the emancipation of the working class, but starting with them. Membership of the House of Lords was the climax of his personal emancipation.

Prescott was not always like this. He came from a working class family and failed the 11 plus, a brutal exam system which entrenched class divisions. When he left school without any qualifications, he went to work in the Merchant Navy.

Here, he became a trade union militant and was involved in unofficial strikes. He took on the corrupt right wing leadership of the National Union of Seamen (NUS). He was one of the leaders of the National Seamen’s Reform Movement, fighting to bring the union under rank and file control.

In 1963, Prescott got into Ruskin College, Oxford, and from there went on to do a degree at Hull university.

While a student at Hull, he was still involved with NUS, helping his comrades out in 1966.The Merchant Navy workers took on Harold Wilson’s Labour government in a strike that lasted from 16 May until 1 July.

Wilson denounced the strike as Communist-led. Prescott wrote a pamphlet defending the strikers and supporting their demands, Not Wanted On Voyage.

In the June 1970 general election, he was elected as a Labour MP for Hull East. To begin with Prescott was on the left, very much a working class militant who had made it to the House of Commons.

But over the years this began to change. His lifestyle became increasingly upper middle class—while his working class credentials became a means to advance himself and right wing positions.

He decided to embrace the politics of New Labour and support Tony Blair in the 1990s. In fact, Prescott was useful to Blair because New Labour could always wheel out the “working class Prescott” in order to justify all their anti-working class measures.

New Labour adopted a whole-heartedly neoliberal agenda. Prescott was there to pugnaciously argue that it was in the interests of working people. This was his role. He was installed as deputy prime minister in 1997 after Labour’s landslide victory in the general election.


The seafarers’ strike of 1966—hope betrayed by Labour
Read More

Prescott supported the government’s privatisation agenda, particularly the part privatisation of the Royal Mail and the full privatisation of Air Traffic Control.

New Labour introduced university tuition fees in September 1998. If fees had been in place back in the 1960s, then there can be no doubt whatsoever that Prescott would never have gone to university.

Prescott was wholeheartedly behind British involvement in the US invasion of Iraq in 2001— for which Blair was forever grateful.

His role in taking on the trade unions in order to further New Labour’s neoliberal agenda was even more important.

He was put in charge of breaking the 2002 firefighters’ strike. Labour governments have always had to take on the unions at some point, decisively smashing a strike in order to make sure that the workers know their place.

This is what Wilson had done with the seamen in 1966—and what Prescott was charged with doing to the firefighters. There was concern in some circles, given his early history as a union militant, about whether he was up to the job. But Blair had every confidence in him.

In his memoirs, Prescott later moaned about how one of his oldest friends from the Merchant Navy, whose son was a firefighter, had attacked him over the dispute. He told Prescott that he was a “fucking sell-out” who had once been all for the workers and now was betraying them. And Prescott complained that the man had not spoken to him since.

But while he might have sold out the working class and lost some old friends, it was not all bad. Once he resigned from the Commons, he was promptly installed in the Lords as Baron Prescott in 2010, devoting himself to making as much money as possible.

Turkey: What's behind Erdogan's outreach to Kurds?

Elmas Topcu 

DW

November 20, 2024

The Turkish government is sending ambiguous signals to the Kurds. Analysts believe it is hoping to garner some votes while also possibly splitting the opposition.

Political gestures of importance: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (R) shakes the hand of Turkish Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) Leader Devlet Bahceli (L)

Image: DHA

When Devlet Bahceli, chairman of the ultra-nationalist Nationalist Movement Party, or MHP party, shook hands with politicians from the Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), the gesture marked a political U-turn.

Up until October, Bahceli had claimed that the left-wing, pro-Kurdish DEM Party, just like its predecessor, the HDP, was an extension of the militant Kurdistan Workers' Party ( PKK) and should, therefore, be banned.

Even more surprising was Bahceli's next suggestion that PKK head Abdullah Ocalan could be released in exchange for announcing the dissolution of his party. Bahceli's party is considered the parent organization of the right-wing extremist group Grey Wolves and is known for its anti-minority ideology.

In the following days, the 76-year-old Ocalan received a visit from his family for the first time in 43 months. He has been in solitary confinement in a high-security prison since 1999.

A peace process with the PKK was put in place a decade ago already, but President Recep Tayyip Erdogan terminated it a year later in 2015.

After a few non-violent years, the bloody conflict flared up once more.

The Turkish government cracked down on Kurdish politicians in Turkey and launched military operations in northern Iraq and northeastern Syria.

The PKK has its headquarters in Iraq's Qandil Mountains. A de facto self-governing Kurdish state, known as Rojava, has established itself in northeastern Syria.

Ahmet Turk, a pro-Kurdish politician, was elected as mayor three times and also dismissed three times

Image: Kivanc El/DW

A carrot and stick approach?

Since Bahceli's push for Ocalan's potential early release, people in Turkey have been puzzling over what the government in Ankara is up to.

Why are its representatives seeking proximity to Ocalan at the same time as elected Kurdish local politicians are being removed from office?

In late October, Ahmet Ozer, the mayor of Istanbul's Esenyurt district and a member of the Republican People's Party (CHP), was arrested for alleged links to the PKK.

A few days later, three Kurdish mayors in southeastern Turkey were replaced by state officers.

This also happened to Ahmet Turk, an 82-year-old veteran of Kurdish politics. He has been elected and dismissed as mayor of the city of Mardin three times.

Observers agree that Erdogan is set on becoming the president of Turkey again.

However, a constitutional amendment would be necessary for a fourth term in office. As of now, Erdogan lacks the necessary majority in parliament.

Analysts believe that his plan is to use the carrot and stick approach to bring the Kurds and pro-Kurdish DEM Party into line by offering concessions, such as softening Ocalan's sentence to house arrest or possibly ending the practice of imposing state officials in Kurdish regions.

Moreover, such moves could also split the opposition.

Could the Turkish government's hope be to offset Abdullah Ocalan's release for Kurdish votes?

Image: Christoph Hardt/Panama Pictures/picture alliance

Power shift in the Middle East?

Arzu Yilmaz, a political scientist at the University of Kurdistan Hewler in Iraq's city of Erbil believes that there are other reasons for the latest developments.

"First and foremost, the unstable situation in the Middle East and the US govenment's decision to withdraw US soldiers from Iraq and Syria by 2026," she told DW.

Given Donald Trump's re-election, this could happen sooner than expected, she added.

Around 2,500 US soldiers are still stationed in Iraq, and some 900 in Syria, where they cooperate closely with local Kurdish militias.

"The balance of power in the Middle East is shifting, but despite its ambitions, Turkey is not an important player," Yilmaz said, saying that Ankara might want to change that.

Bese Hozat, the co-chair of the Kurdistan Communities Union, an umbrella organization of several parties of Kurdistan, including the PKK, echoed these thoughts. "Turkey's geopolitical and geostrategic position and influence in the region is gradually weakening," she said in an interview, adding that this was "causing the Turkish government to panic."

In her view, this has pushed it to find a workaround and try to instrumentalize Kurdish leader Ocalan for its own purposes.

Military operations expected

Earlier this month, Erdogan announced that he would soon close the "security gaps on the southern borders".

This signals a new round of Turkish military operations in Syria and Iraq.

Arzu Yilmaz believes that the Iraqi Kurds have no reason to worry about the future as their status quo is enshrined in Iraq's constitution.

However, the future of the self-governing Kurdish region in northeastern Syria is more uncertain, she said, adding that so far the US had supported the Kurds but it remained to be seen what would happen after the withdrawal of US troops. It was unclear who would fill the resulting power vacuum.

A key factor would be how the Kurds in the various regions cooperated with each other, she said: "This will determine whether the Kurds ultimately emerge from this crisis stronger or weaker."

Sources close to the PKK say that an initial meeting of Kurdish parties from Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey took place in the Belgian capital Brussels in November, however, the result of the discussion remains unknown.

The Kurds are the largest ethnic group in the world without their own state. According to estimates, more than 12 million live in Turkey, around 6 million in Iraq and the same in Iran, and just under 3 million in Syria.

Germany boasts the largest Kurdish diaspora community, which numbers around 1 million.

This article was translated from German.

A decade after the Islamic State, what lies ahead for the Iraqi Kurdistan region?

Analysis: As the decade that began with the rise of IS ends, the Iraqi Kurdistan Region faces a disturbing array of internal challenges.



Analysis
Winthrop Rodgers
19 November, 2024
THE NEW ARAB

At the start of 2014, Iraq’s Kurdistan Region was a centre of geopolitical attention. It had experienced a period of economic growth dating back to the mid-2000s, with many Kurds who had fled abroad in previous decades returning home.

At the beginning of the year, it was marketed positively as the “other Iraq”. By the end, the Kurdistan Region was the platform for the International Coalition to fight the Islamic State (IS). A decade later, it is now awkwardly caught between what it was and an uncertain future.

With the threat of IS much diminished, the international community has turned its focus elsewhere as crises in Ukraine and Gaza have emerged. As a result, domestic challenges in the Kurdistan Region are all the more potent and can no longer be papered over.
Related

Will KDP-PUK tensions threaten Iraqi Kurdistan's unity?
Analysis
Winthrop Rodgers

Former Kurdistan Parliament Speaker Yousef Mohammed Sadiq acknowledged that the war against IS was important but argued that there should be a greater focus on domestic factors when assessing the last decade.

“Other incidents that happened along with the emergence of the IS war have affected Kurdistan more,” Mohammed told The New Arab. “Unfortunately…Kurds could not benefit from all the sacrifices they made in the war against IS.”


Despite the massive influx of attention and funding from the international community for the fight against IS, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) struggled to pay its civil servants and launched a devastating program of austerity. Its economy is still struggling amid disputes with Baghdad and problems exporting oil.

Politically, it was pulled in two directions: a drive to reform the duopolistic system that had emerged in the 1990s or realise the birth of an independent state. Both paths failed to achieve their goals. Socially, a new generation of young people came of age shaped by these economic and political headwinds.

“Due to the local issues within the Kurdistan Region, I expect that it either stays like this or will get weaker,” Mohammed said.
A dark economic period

The Kurdistan Region’s economic boom came to a crashing halt in 2014. Although this coincided with and was exacerbated by the emergence of IS, it was primarily caused by disputes between Iraq’s federal government and the KRG over the budget and Erbil’s desire to export oil independently.

When the exports started, Baghdad cut off budget transfers to the Kurdistan Region. This had an outsized impact on the economy because the public sector is by far the most important employer and the KRG could no longer make payroll. In response, Erbil began withholding a portion of the salaries of all civil servants.

Although framed as a temporary measure, this austerity policy would last five years until 2019, and then resume for a time during the Covid-19 pandemic. The KRG promised to repay what it kept back from its people but has never made good on that pledge. The independent oil exports that it fought so hard to achieve never brought in enough money to offset what it had lost from the federal budget.

“People’s conditions got worse and they ended up spending all their savings from before 2014,” said Mohammed, noting that public servants still do not have much certainty about when their next paycheck is coming. Instead of being routine, the timing of salary disbursements is still front-page news in the Kurdistan Region.


There was a massive influx of attention and funding from the international community to Iraqi Kurdistan for the fight against IS. [Getty]


“This has not only affected government employees, but all residents of Kurdistan, because what is coming in and out in the market relies on public sector salaries,” Mohammed added.

Today, relations between Baghdad and Erbil remain troubled. The prospects for a national oil and gas law have dimmed. Despite some encouraging noises, oil exports are still suspended after almost two years. It is doubtful that there will be a major budgetary breakthrough ahead of the Iraqi parliamentary elections next year as all factions look to their bases.

Another lost decade lies ahead unless Baghdad and Erbil can find an agreement to provide timely, regular, and large infusions of cash from the federal budget.

Political failures

Since 2014, the Kurdistan Region was pulled in two directions politically: one focused on addressing a popular desire for reform and the other driven by nationalist ambitions. Neither would succeed in meeting their goals. As a result, Iraqi Kurdish politics is perhaps returning to its fundamentals.

By 2014, the Gorran Movement represented a serious challenge to the ruling duopoly of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union Kurdistan (PUK). It won the second-most seats in the Kurdistan Parliament in the 2013 regional elections on a platform of fighting corruption and instituting parliamentary democracy.

A constitutional crisis was boiling. Then-Kurdistan Region President Masoud Barzani had overstayed his mandate in office, in part because of an emergency agreement to aid the KRG’s response to IS. With the Kurdistan Parliament set to debate the issue, the KDP prevented Yousef Mohammed Sadiq from entering Erbil to preside as speaker. The KDP-Gorran power-sharing cabinet collapsed.
Related

A dark future for press freedom in Iraqi Kurdistan
In-depth
Winthrop Rodgers

Meanwhile, the war against IS and the support from the international community convinced Barzani that there was a unique opportunity to seize the long-held dream of independence. Without a functioning parliament, the KDP-led KRG pressed forward with the 2017 independence referendum.

In hindsight, the referendum is viewed as a major strategic mistake. It resulted in significant territorial losses, including Kirkuk. Since then, Baghdad has pressed its advantage and repeatedly restricted the Kurdistan Region’s autonomy.

As the reform project spearheaded by Gorran collapsed, the KDP and the PUK regained their footing as the two most powerful parties. However, they have become increasingly divided and unable to present a unified front.

Mohammed, who played a central role in these events, reflected that the politics of the past decade “caused a deep impact on the region and the loss of trust in the process of democracy in the KRG”.


Iraqi Kurdistan's social dynamics have changed massively in new ways over the past decade. [Getty]


“The Kurdistan Region is getting weaker and more divided due to the issues between the KDP and the PUK. As a consequence, the KRG as an entity has gotten weaker within the framework of the Iraqi state,” he added.

With both the reform and nationalist projects suffering heavy setbacks, the ruling KDP-PUK duopoly has again become the driving force in Iraqi Kurdish politics.

This is not encouraging. There will likely be a lengthy government formation process following the Kurdistan Parliament election on 20 October characterised by discord between the two parties. The result will be more instability and less certainty.

A new generation comes of age

If the Kurdistan Region’s economy is still grappling with the upheaval that began ten years ago and its politics are returning to a previous era, its social dynamics have changed massively in new ways over the past decade.

“A new generation has developed and emerged in our society,” Mohammed said. “This generation has not experienced the [1991] uprising and civil war era. That is why they have different goals and dreams.”

There are ongoing debates about freedom of speech, the role of women and minorities, and religious conservatism. All of them are heavily influenced by the emergence of social media.

The new generation sees “the whole world through their phones and most of them speak a different language, especially English. They also have a lot of aspirations and dreams but not enough opportunities,” Mohammed added, suggesting that this is partly the source of wide discontent among young people.

One consequence of this social upheaval, combined with the economic and political dysfunctions, is that many Iraqi Kurds are trying to migrate to Europe. This is a darker bookend to the late-2000s when the diaspora was coming home.

As the decade that began with the rise of IS ends, the Kurdistan Region faces a disturbing array of internal challenges. Even in the most ordinary circumstances, they would be difficult for a government and society to manage. But the Kurdistan Region is located in a part of the war where cataclysm is all too common.

A new era dawns, but the future is highly uncertain.

Winthrop Rodgers is a journalist and analyst based in Sulaymaniyah in Iraq’s Kurdistan Region. He focuses on politics, human rights, and political economy.

Follow him on Twitter and Instagram: @wrodgers2

 USA

Trump’s Cabinet of Dangerous Fanatics and Kooks

Thursday 21 November 2024, by Dan La Botz


President-elect Donald  Trump has rapidly chosen loyalists for cabinet positions and other high offices. The Senate must vote to confirm cabinet members and his choices are controversial even among Republicans. In some cases, Trump’s capricious, unvetted picks are likely to lead to governmental chaos if they are confirmed. Comics and journalists have referred to the new cabinet as “Trump’s clown car.” The clowns, however are not funny; they’re frightening.

Perhaps most outrageously, Trump has chosen Representative Matt Gaetz, for Attorney General. In 2020 Gaetz was accused of child sex trafficking and statutory rape for taking a 17-year-old high school student across state lines to have sex with her. Both the Justice Department and the House Ethics Committee investigated the matter but he was not charged.

Trump’s choice for Secretary of Energy is Chris Wright, the CEO of Liberty Energy, a Denver-based fracking firm. He will be a supporter of the fossil fuel industry and an opponent of efforts to cut back on greenhouse gases. Last year Wright said, “There is no climate crisis, and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition either.”

Trump has picked Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., an anti-vaxxer to be Secretary of Health and Human Service, a department with a $1.7 trillion budget and tremendous influence on health policies. His choice has been widely criticized by health scientists and physicians.

Trump ran on the immigration issue saying he would close the border and begin deportations on day one, and to deal with it he has chosen white nationalist Steven Miller as chief of policy for homeland security and a tough-talking cop named Thomas Homan to be Border Czar. Homan was responsible for Trump’s family separation policy during Trump’s first term. They will deal with immigrants brutally.

Turning to foreign policy, for Secretary of Defense Trump has picked Pete Hegseth, a veteran Iraq and Afghanistan, a major in the National Guard and a TV host for far-right Fox News in 2014. Hegseth, who never managed a large organization, will be in charge of the 3.4 million employees of the Department of Defense. His choice has outraged members of Congress and former military officers, in part because of his support for soldiers accused of war crimes. He says the military is too “woke” and opposes its diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, which he says have weakened military values. He opposes too putting women in combat positions. Hegeth was accused of sexual assault when at a Republican women’s event, and though he was not charged, paid off the woman. Hegseth has a tattoo, Deus Vult (God’s Will) and wears a Jerusalem cross, both symbols of the white nationalist movement.

Trump choice for Director of National Intelligence, former Representative Tulsi Gabbard, has been called a “Russian agent” and a “traitor” by a U.S. Representative because of her support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine She also met with Russian-backed dictator Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

As U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Trump picked Baptist Minister Mike Huckabee the former governor of Arkansas. Huckabee fully supports Israel’s right to control the West Bank, a name he rejects preferring the Biblical Judea and Samaria. He says there is no West Bank, no occupation, and no such thing as a Palestinian.

Finally, we have Elon Musk, the tech mogul and world’s wealthiest man, who gave a least $132 million to Trump’s campaign, has been chosen together with pharmaceutical entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy to head a new Department of Government Efficiency. Musk has something like a trillion dollars in government contracts.

Cabinet appointments have to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, though Trump may attempt to avoid this by “recess appointment” made when the Senate is not in session. Senators do not seem to have the integrity and courage to stand up to him. Trump’s clowns could blow up the government.

17 November 2024

Attached documents

• trump-s-cabinet-of-dangerous-fanatics-and-kooks_a8748.pdf (PDF - 905.4 KiB)
  Extraction PDF [->article8748]

• Dan La Botz

  Dan La Botz was a founding member of Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU). He is the author of Rank-and-File Rebellion: Teamsters for a Democratic Union (1991). He is also a co-editor of New Politics and editor of Mexican Labor News and Analysis.

International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.