Obama v. Richard Falk on Israel and Occupied 
		Palestine 
		By Stephen Lendman
		ccun.org, December 30, 2008
		
 
Obama leaves no ambiguity where he stands. From public 
		statements, campaign pledges, policy advisors, and war cabinet 
		selections, his positions affirm:
 
-- one-sided pro-Israeli 
		zealotry; 
 
-- continued Palestinian oppression; 
 
-- no 
		end to the Iraq war and occupation;
 
-- possibly attacking Iran 
		and/or allying with Israel to do it;
 
-- pursuing an imperial 
		agenda; targeting Pakistan, Russia and other countries;
 
-- 
		expanding the size of the military; increasing expenditures for it; and
		 
-- providing Israel annually with billions of dollars; the latest 
		weapons and technology; the same zero interest rate loans Wall Street 
		gets; liberal debt forgiveness; virtually anything Israel requests on 
		the pretext of security, to wage aggressive war, or expand its illegal 
		settlements; and 
 
-- acquiescing and remaining silent after 
		Israel insulted a high UN official by harassing and detaining him, then 
		expelling him from the country.
 
Last March, Richard Falk 
		replaced John Dugard as the UN Human Rights Council's (UNHRC) Special 
		Rapporteur on Occupied Palestine. UNHRC is mandated:
 
-- to 
		promote and protect human rights globally;
 
-- detect and speak 
		out objectively against violations and violators;
 
-- "provide a 
		forum for identifying, highlighting and developing responses to today's 
		human rights challenges,
 
-- act as the principal focal point of 
		human rights research, education, public information, and advocacy 
		activities in the United Nations system," and 
 
-- respect the 
		rights of everyone irrespective of nationality, ethnicity, race, gender, 
		language, age, or religion "as stipulated in the United Nations 
		Charter."
 
Navanethem Pillay became Human Rights High 
		Commissioner last July. Richard Falk has regional responsibility for 
		Occupied Palestine. On December 14, he arrived at Ben Gurion airport, 
		Tel Aviv to perform his assigned duties. He led a three-person mission 
		that intended to visit the West Bank and Gaza, assess conditions on the 
		ground, then report on Israel's compliance with human rights standards 
		and international humanitarian law. 
 
Israel was informed of his 
		trip, his itinerary, individuals he planned to meet with, and issued 
		visas for himself, a staff security person, and an assistant. Falk had 
		no reason to expect interference, and as he put it: "I would not have 
		made the long journey from California, where I live, had I not been 
		reasonably optimistic about my chances of getting in." Nonetheless, he 
		was denied entry and harassed as follows:
 
-- despite his UN 
		status, he was put in a holding room with about 20 others experiencing 
		entry problems;
 
-- then "treated not as a UN representative, but 
		as some sort of security threat, subjected to an inch-by-inch body 
		search and the most meticulous luggage inspection I have ever 
		witnessed;"
 
-- separated from his two UN companions; they were 
		allowed entry and taken to the airport facility about a mile away;
 
		-- required to put his luggage and cell phone in a room, then taken to a 
		"locked tiny room that smelled of urine and filth;"
 
-- five 
		other detainees were with him in very cramped, uncomfortable quarters;
		 
-- he was confined there for the next 15 hours, "which amounted to 
		a cram course on the miseries of prison life, including dirty sheets, 
		inedible food and lights that were too bright or darkness controlled 
		from the guard office;"
 
-- Israel's "obvious intention (was) to 
		teach me, and more significantly, the UN a lesson: there will be no 
		cooperation with those who make strong criticisms of Israel's occupation 
		policy."
 
Israel accuses Falk of bias for making inflammatory 
		comments about its occupation of Palestine. He rejects the charge and 
		asserts that, like his predecessor John Dugard (whom Israel earlier 
		assailed) he assesses facts and relevant law truthfully. "It is the 
		character of the occupation that gives rise to sharp criticism of 
		Israel's approach," especially its collective punishment of 1.5 million 
		Gazans under siege. Although denied entry and expelled, Falk insists 
		that he'll continue "to use all available means to document the 
		realities of the Israeli occupation" and report as fully and truthfully 
		on them as possible.
 
He's mandated to assess conditions on the 
		ground, prepare detailed reports on what he finds, keep the UN fully 
		informed, the public worldwide as well, and recommend ways of 
		remediating violations. As an international law expert, he's eminently 
		qualified for the task.
 
Since assuming his post in May, he's 
		been denied entry into Israel and Occupied Palestine. On August 25, he 
		submitted his first report covering the first half of 2008. He 
		criticized the deteriorating human rights conditions for Palestinians, 
		called Israel's violations grave, singled out the Gaza siege and a 
		crackdown on free expression and peaceful assembly.
 
Earlier this 
		year, Israel denied a Bishop Desmond Tutu-headed UNHRC mission entry as 
		well. He was delegated to investigate the Israeli occupation force 
		November 2006 Beit Hanoun massacre, an appalling act of mass murder 
		killing 18 civilians (including seven children and six women) and 
		wounding 53 others. The mission had to enter Gaza from the Egyptian side 
		through the Rafah International Crossing Point, but even that way is 
		rarely easy.
 
Other international delegations have been 
		obstructed as well, including diplomats, humanitarian workers, and 
		journalists. Last November, the IDF stopped an EU one and one other 
		comprised of 20 representatives of international organizations seeking 
		entry into Gaza. Israel is extremely brazen, so far with no world 
		community condemnation of its practices.
 
As a UN member and 
		signatory to various human rights conventions, it must honor their 
		mandates. Nonetheless, it doesn't as well as much other international 
		law and UN resolutions going back to the 1947 General Assembly Partition 
		Plan (Resolution 181). It divided Palestine 56 - 44% for Israel. 
 
		When Arabs were nearly 70% of the population, Jews got most of the 
		fertile land, nearly all urban and rural territory, 400 of over 1000 
		Palestinian villages, but it wasn't enough. After Israel's 1948 "War of 
		Independence," it secured 78% of Mandatory Palestine, expelled or killed 
		about 800,000 Palestinians, destroyed 531 of their villages, 11 urban 
		neighborhoods, and committed grievous crimes of war and against 
		humanity. They've been documented and included:
 
-- cold-blooded 
		massacres of civilian men, women, children, the elderly and infirm;
 
		-- destruction of homes, villages and crops;
 
-- mass instances 
		of rape; and
 
-- other atrocities on a vast scale;
 
The 
		State of Israel was born. The US was the first country to recognize it. 
		Palestinians lost 78% of their land, and in 1967 the remainder. They now 
		live under military occupation. It's harsh and cruel. Their rights are 
		ruthlessly denied. They experience daily abuse and neglect. Their 
		refugees aren't able to return. Conditions on the ground are 
		intolerable, and UNHRC is mandated to assess and report on them. Richard 
		Falk, like John Dugard before him, is dedicated to do it.
 
		"Slouching toward a Palestinian Holocaust"
 
In July 2007, Falk's 
		used this title for an article, and Israel noticed. He wrote: "it is 
		especially painful for me, as an American Jew, to feel compelled to 
		portray the ongoing and intensifying abuse of the Palestinian people by 
		Israel through a reliance on such an inflammatory metaphor as 
		'holocaust'....Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the 
		treatment of Palestinians (in such terms)? I think not."
 
He 
		condemned Israel's actions in Gaza and referred to subjecting "an entire 
		human community to life-endangering conditions of utmost cruelty." He 
		called it "a holocaust-in-the-making" and appealed to world governments 
		and international public opinion "to act urgently to prevent these 
		current genocidal tendencies from culminating in a collective tragedy."
		
 
He urged concerted action to spare Gazans "from further pain 
		and suffering." He took umbrage with how America supports Israel and 
		with European governments for having "lent their weight to recent 
		illicit (and overt) efforts to crush Hamas as (the legitimate) 
		Palestinian (government)." He referred to "Israel's impunity under 
		America's geopolitical umbrella," and the immorality of the 
		international community watching Gaza's "ugly spectacle unfold while 
		some of its most influential members actively encourage and assist 
		Israel" in its efforts.
 
He called Gaza "a cauldron of pain and 
		suffering....with more than half (the population) living in miserable 
		refugee camps," dependent on humanitarian aid, and living under military 
		occupation in spite of the sham 2005 "disengagement." He condemned world 
		leaders for not recognizing the legitimately elected Hamas government, 
		calling it a "terrorist organization" when, in fact, it's not, and 
		failing to recognize how its leaders reached out to Israel in peace, 
		declared a unilateral 18 month ceasefire, did it again for another six 
		months, then ended it in self defense after repeated Israeli violations.
		 
He condemned Israel for being "more determined than ever to foment 
		civil war in Palestine," arm and pit Fatah against Hamas, "make Gazans 
		pay with their well being and lives," crush their will, and maintain 
		separate Gaza and West Bank "destinies."
 
Israel intends to 
		isolate Gaza, cantonize the West Bank, seize Palestinian land, expand 
		its illegal settlements, and appropriate "the whole of Jerusalem" as its 
		capital by grabbing all areas Palestinians have and expelling them. 
		While talking peace, Israel wages war, won't compromise, doesn't respect 
		international law, commits grievous crimes against humanity, denies 
		"Palestinians their right of self-determination," and treats the entire 
		population as an "enemy" of the State.
 
"To persist with such an 
		approach under present circumstances is indeed genocidal, and risks 
		destroying an entire Palestinian community...." This prospect sends a 
		"warning of a Palestinian holocaust in the making, and should remind the 
		world of the famous post-Nazi pledge of 'never again.' "
 
On 
		December 9, 2008 (five days before Falk arrived in Israel), he issued 
		the following statement titled: "Gaza: Silence is not an option." He 
		highlighted the plight of the people, the unacceptable conditions and 
		desperate urgency to act, the cruelty and lawlessness of the blockade, 
		and yet Israel "maintains its Gaza siege in its full fury, allowing only 
		barely enough food and fuel to enter to stave off mass famine and 
		disease."
 
He called this action "flagrant and (a) massive 
		violation of international humanitarian law" under Geneva and other 
		human rights conventions. He said it's long past time for talk. "The UN 
		is obligated to respond under these conditions." World governments are 
		complicit for going along or remaining silent. The "UN (and) 
		international society (are obligated to discharge) their fundamental 
		moral and legal duty to render protection to the Palestinian people." 
		Israel ruthlessly prevents them.
 
Little wonder Falk, or others 
		with these views, are persona non grata at the least or targeted for 
		something far worse, including assassination. Israel is unyielding in 
		its position, yet officials like Falk and human rights activists speak 
		out and act, even at the risk of their safety and well-being.
 
		What to Expect From Obama
 
A new administration is taking shape. 
		Nearly all of its top officials have been announced. In less than a 
		month, it will assume office, so how will it address Occupied Palestine? 
		Negligently and with disdain from the man James Petras calls "America's 
		First Jewish President," Barack Obama, in quoting a prominent Chicago 
		Jew, a former congressman, federal judge, Clinton White House Counsel, 
		and early Obama supporter - Abner Mikvner.
 
Obama has been 
		carefully groomed and vetted for his job, surrounded by pro-Israeli 
		zealots, transformed into a committed "Israel-Firster," well-indocrinated, 
		funded and considered safe. As Petras states:
 
"By the end of the 
		1990s, Obama was firmly embedded in the liberal Zionist Democratic Party 
		network and through it he teamed up with two key Zionist figures who 
		were crucial to his presidential campaign: David Axelrod," a long-time 
		Chicago political strategist, and "Obama's chief (one) since 2002 and 
		the chief architect and tactician of his presidential campaign in 2008; 
		Bettylu Salzman, daughter of Phillip Klutznick (now deceased), a 
		billionaire real estate developer, slumlord, zealous Israel-Firster," 
		and Jimmy Carter's Commerce Secretary from 1980 - 1981.
 
		Chicagoan Penny Pritzker (of the wealthy Pritzker Hyatt Hotels family) 
		was Obama's main fund fundraiser. Called by some the most powerful woman 
		in America, she's certainly notable, one of the richest, an influential 
		American Jew, and staunchly pro-Israel as is her family.
 
She had 
		a sordid involvement in subprime mortgage lending, made millions by 
		defrauding the poor, was one of Obama's Transitional Economic Advisory 
		Board members, and Warren Buffett calls her the person to call when you 
		want something done. She'll have a seat at the table in the new 
		administration behind the scenes, her preferred role in business and 
		politics.
 
Other figures will be active and prominent, Dennis 
		Ross for one. He was Director of the State Department's Policy Planning 
		office under GHW Bush, after which he became Clinton's Special Middle 
		East Coordinator. He's also a co-founder of the AIPAC-backed Washington 
		Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), an extremist pro-Israeli front 
		group with prominent American Jews in it like Ross (on his mother's 
		side) who remains a consultant. WINIP's Board of Advisors is a who's who 
		rogues gallery with names like Richard Pearle, Alexander Haig, George 
		Shultz, James Woolsey, Lawrence Eagleburger, and others.
 
Petras 
		calls Ross "a virulent Zionist advocate of Israel's ultra-militaristic 
		policies, including an armed preemptive attack on Iranian nuclear and 
		military installations. Ross is an unconditional supporter of the 
		Israeli starvation siege of the 1.5 million (Gazans) and fully backed 
		Israel's savage air attacks against civilian targets in Lebanon." His 
		closeness to Obama signals a continued pro-Israeli hardline agenda, no 
		letup in the persecution of Palestinians, and the possibility of an even 
		greater regional war. So far no official announcement of his role has 
		been made, but he'll be prominent either publicly or behind the scenes.
		 
Various positions mentioned include Undersecretary of State for 
		Political Affairs (number three behind Clinton), Deputy Secretary of 
		State, Deputy National Security Advisor, or Special Middle East Envoy. 
		In recent months, Ross has been affiliated with the Washington-based 
		Bipartisan Policy Center that was founded in 2007 by former senators 
		George Mitchell, Howard Baker, Tom Daschle and Bob Dole. It presents 
		itself as centrist, but, in fact, on key issues is militant and hard 
		line, especially on the Middle East. It advocates coercing Iran to 
		surrender its sovereignty, knuckle under to Washington, or be 
		unilaterally attacked if it won't, and gets its advice from "two leading 
		Iran experts:"
 
-- Michael Rubin of the right wing American 
		Enterprise Institute, a former Giuliani advisor, closely allied to Bush 
		neocons; and
 
-- Ken Katzman of the Congressional Research 
		Service, a Middle East specialist who's ideologically allied with the 
		right and no friend of Iran.
 
They, Ross and others produced the 
		2008 report: "Meeting the Challenge: US Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear 
		Development." It argues that Iran's commercial program, contrary to 
		available evidence, aims to develop nuclear weapons and threatens "US 
		and global security, regional stability, and the international 
		nonproliferation regime." In stark contrast, the November 2007 National 
		Intelligence Estimate refuted this claim and stated that Iran has no 
		current nuclear weapons program. Washington ideologues like Ross dismiss 
		it, press their case for war, recommend a major military presence in the 
		Gulf, and pressuring Russia to cease efforts to aid the Islamic 
		Republic.
 
He's also current chairman of The Jewish People Policy 
		Planning Institute (JPPPI), another pro-Israeli front group that 
		includes past and present prominent Israeli government officials in its 
		membership as well as influential American Jews. During his Clinton 
		years, he was hostile to Iraq and Iran, advocated war, and subverted all 
		efforts for an equitable resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
		
 
A noted Arab said about him: "In the 1990s, the "perception 
		always was that Dennis (Ross) started from the Israeli bottom line, that 
		he listened to what Israel wanted, and then tried to sell it to the 
		Arabs....He was never looked at....as a trusted world figure or honest 
		broker." All along he flacked for Israel, and ideologically he's closely 
		aligned with Republican neocons and their permanent war agenda. 
 
		According to the Jewish publication, Ynetnews.com, he may not become 
		Middle East Envoy with Colin Powell now considered a "serious option" 
		for the job. That is, if he wants it and if Hillary Clinton will accept 
		a notable figure like him circumventing her and reporting directly to 
		Obama. Another possible candidate, besides Ross, is Daniel Kurtzer, 
		former US ambassador to Israel and Egypt, and in other Middle East 
		posts, including as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern 
		Affairs. He now has a Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International 
		Affairs chair in Middle East Studies. 
 
On December 14, Barak 
		Ravid wrote in Haaretz that "Obama (will) base his Middle East policy on 
		(an) army of envoys," and he named four possibilities - Dennis Ross most 
		prominently, Colin Powell, Dan Kurtzer, and Martin Indyk.
 
He 
		suggested that besides a Middle East Envoy, others would be appointed 
		to:
 
-- Iraq to work with the government; the puppet one, that 
		is, to assure America's permanent occupation, total control over state 
		policy, and unchallenged regional influence;
 
-- Iran to open 
		dialogue and "participate in international discussions on an incentive 
		package;" in fact, for the government to cease its legal commercial 
		nuclear development, surrender to America's will, and become a vassal 
		state or risk possible attack and mass destruction;
 
-- 
		Afghanistan and Pakistan "to stabilize the security situation;" in fact, 
		a major effort may be undertaken to destabilize it as part of a broader 
		agenda to stoke violence, increase Washington's presence in the region, 
		double US forces in Afghanistan to 60,000 or more according to recent 
		reports, and "Balkanize" each country, Iraq and possibly Syria into 
		separate autonomous states; and
 
-- North Korea "to watch over 
		denuclearization and the lifting of international sanctions;" in fact, 
		plans for North Korea include ending its nuclear program, lessening the 
		country's ability to defend itself, bringing it into the US orbit, and 
		making it subservient to America's will.
 
Martin Indyk
 
		He's a lobbyist and very much a pro-Israeli zealot. He's also a former 
		US ambassador to Israel, the only foreign-born one (to a London Jewish 
		family), an Assistant Secretary of State for Near East affairs in the 
		Clinton administration, and currently a senior foreign policy fellow and 
		head of the Washington-based Brookings Institution's Saban Center for 
		Middle East Policy.
 
In the early 1980s, he began his Washington 
		career as deputy director of research for AIPAC. In 1985, he co-founded 
		WINEP (described above). In the November-December 2000 issue of New Left 
		Review, Edward Said said this about him: 
 
"On the eve of 
		Clinton's inauguration in January 1993, it was announced that Indyk - an 
		Australian national of Jewish origin, born in London - had been sworn in 
		as an American citizen at the express command of the President-elect, 
		overriding all normal procedures in an act of peremptory executive 
		privilege, to allow him to be parachuted immediately into the National 
		Security Council, with responsibility for the Middle East. What had 
		Indyk been or done to merit such extraordinary favour? He had been head 
		of (WINEP) that lobbies for Israel in tandem with AIPAC." 
 
Said 
		added that the consensus in Washington that Israel is a model democracy 
		"is virtually impregnable." If  there's ever a sign of slippage, in 
		pours a phalanx of Zionist lobbyists like Indyk. They constitute an 
		ideological pro-Israeli trump card along with Congress, especially the 
		Senate. Virtually "the entire (body) can be marshalled in a matter of 
		hours into signing a letter to the President on Israel's behalf."
 
		Regarding Hillary Clinton at the time, Said said that no one better 
		"exemplifies the sway of AIPAC better." She "outdoes even the most 
		right-wing Zionists in fervour for Israel in her avid clawing for power 
		in New York" and will stoop at nothing to get it. She's Machiavellian 
		and very dangerous.
 
So is Indyk (Dennis Ross and others) in 
		service to Israel. At WINEP in 1993, he outlined his notion of dual Iran 
		and Iraq containment, and it became policy under Clinton. It postulated 
		that outlier Middle East states be "contained," isolated, and threatened 
		to weaken them politically, economically, and perhaps militarily.
 
		For Iraq, it recommended continued sanctions, an economic embargo, and 
		if "Saddam's regime crosses clearly drawn lines of appropriate behavior, 
		particularly with regard to its weapons of mass destruction programs and 
		its threats to other countries, the United States should punish it 
		severely."
 
A more flexible approach was taken on Iran, saying 
		that its "geopolitical importance is greater than Iraq's and the 
		challenge it represents is more complex. Given (America's) military 
		presence (in the region), Iran does not currently pose a threat of 
		military aggression, but its long-term policies could destabilize the 
		region."
 
The report accused Iran of opposing the 
		Israeli-Palestinian "peace process," promoting Islamic militancy, 
		supporting terrorism and subversion, and seeking nuclear weapons. Rather 
		than war, it recommended "a more nuanced approach," but if Iran 
		initiated a "special provocation....clear retaliatory measures" would be 
		called for.
 
Targeting Iraq and Iran benefits Israel by weakening 
		or eliminating its two main regional rivals. Iraq is now neutralized, 
		not Iran, but harsh sanctions against it are in place. Pro-Israeli 
		zealots, like Indyk and Ross, want them tightened. They also support war 
		to destroy the country's nuclear infrastructure and much of its military 
		capacity.
 
This is Obama's team with others on it, like Hillary 
		Clinton and Robert Gates, as belligerent. It suggests that peace in the 
		Middle East is a nonstarter; the occupation of Iraq and Palestine will 
		continue; Iran may be targeted; Pakistan as well; the war in Afghanistan 
		will be expanded; imperial adventurism will be stressed; so will 
		permanent war and homeland repression; and human rights advocates like 
		Richard Falk will be sorely tested in their jobs.
 
		Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for 
		Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at
		
		lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
 
Also visit his blog site at 
		sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on 
		RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday through Friday at 10AM US Central time 
		for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and 
		national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.
 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11378
        
		
      
      
      Fair Use
      Notice
      This site contains copyrighted material the
      use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
      owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance
      understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
      democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this
      constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for
      in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
      Section 107, the material on this site is
      distributed without profit to those
      who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
      for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
      If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of
      your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
      copyright owner.