Connect with us

International

The US says it wants the Palestinians to have their own state – but its actions say otherwise

Published

on

Spain, Ireland and Norway have recognised Palestinian state in May 2024, bringing the total number of nations to accomplish that to 144.

The United States shouldn’t be considered one of them.

The United States has officially supported a two-state solution, meaning that each Israel and a Palestinian state can be recognized as official countries, since the Clinton administration in the Nineteen Nineties. President Joe Biden reiterated this position at his July 11, 2024, press conference following the NATO summit, when he said“There is no final solution other than the two-state solution.”

However, the United States itself has consistently blocked full recognition of the Palestinian territories as a rustic – a minimum of symbolically – stopping them from becoming the 194th member state of the United Nations. Palestine has the status of a state everlasting observer at the UNwhere it is represented by the Palestinian Authority. Being a everlasting observer allows Palestine to attend most meetings but cannot vote on any international agreements or recommendations.

I’m a scholar of international affairs and a former American diplomat. Understanding this paradox requires a little bit of history.

Riyad Mansour, Palestinian ambassador to the UN, speaks during a UN Security Council meeting on the ceasefire vote in March 2024.
Jan Lamparski/Getty Images

At the starting

When the state of Israel was established in 1948, was immediately attacked by its Arab neighbors: Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, who refused to recognize its right to exist but did nothing to create a Palestinian state. The next wars and since then there was less hostility in the region.

For years, the United States has provided Israel with extensive support by way of politics, money, and military aid. At the same time, the United States has tried to help the leaders of Israel, Palestine, and the Arab countries achieve a day when all can live in peace.

The current war in Gaza has prompted Israeli politicians and others to state that Palestinian statehood debate rewards Hamas for the massacre of Israeli residents that sparked the war. But in some unspecified time in the future the war will end and the problem that sparked it will remain unresolved. And I imagine that if it shouldn’t be resolved, the end of the war shall be only temporary.

Many issues would wish to be addressed by Palestinian and Israeli politicians, in addition to leaders of other countries who help them negotiate. Three of the most significant are the borders of a Palestinian state, the right of some Palestinians to return to the land they were forced to flee in 1948, and the status of Jerusalem – which each Palestinians and Israelis insist that it be their capital.

While the U.S. has tried to promote negotiations toward peace without dictating the end result, it has long officially supported a two-state solution. Former President Donald Trump, for instance, said in 2018 that “I like the duality solution. I feel that works best… That’s my feeling.” Other presidents, like George W. Bush and Barack Obama, also tried to persuade the parties to negotiate.

Although the US government’s vision of peace theoretically includes the creation of a Palestinian state, the United States has repeatedly blocked UN attempts to upgrade Palestine’s status from observer to full member state.

This can be a symbolic change as the Palestinian state can be officially recognized as a state in the eyes of the international community, which might secure its standing in other international organizations and courts.

The United States blocked it back in April 2024, when it vetoed “Palestinian statehood resolution” in the Security Council, which must approve latest UN members. The United States is considered one of five everlasting members of the Security Council, together with France, Britain, China and Russia. Each of those countries has the right to veto any declaration or statement the council tries to make – unlike the council’s 10 other rotating members, who only have a vote.

What would the state seem like?

Because reaching an agreement on the borders of a Palestinian state and other issues shall be so difficult, effective mediation is important to achieving peace. The United States has largely lost any role on this process, but its isolated and inconsistent position.

White House spokesman explained in May 2024 that the United States mustn’t maintain its statehood “through unilateral recognition” but “through direct negotiations between the parties.”

There are two problems with this reasoning. First, 144 countries in the UN have already recognized the Palestinian state as a rusticmaking recognition less one-sided. And it was the UN that created Israel in 1948.

Secondly, Israel is currently experiencing the most extreme, right-wing government in its history. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long made it clear that he’s strongly opposed to any Palestinian state. If he agreed to even discuss the possibility of such a state, his coalition would immediately disintegrate and he himself can be forced to resign from office.

To avoid the pressure of discussing statehood, Netanyahu has for years encouraged other countries to provide Hamas with a whole bunch of hundreds of thousands of dollarsknowing that the organization would never negotiate. He did this to weaken the Palestinian Authority, which governs the West Bank and is prepared to talk.

A black, white, green and red flag can be seen in front of the United States Capitol building.
A professional-Palestinian protester waves a Palestinian flag in front of the U.S. Capitol constructing in October 2023.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The origin of inconsistency

So why, even before the current war in Gazahas the US refused to allow a small step – recognition of a Palestinian state at the UN – towards a two-state solution, which it claims is the only path to lasting peace? And why does the US remain in close contact with an Israeli government that can never allow it?

The explanation is easy – internal politics.

One sec 89% of American Jews said in April 2024 that they support Israel’s fight against Hamas, the war in the Gaza Strip has caused some divisions in the American-Jewish community.

American Jews have been strong supporters of the Democratic Party for many years, and the defense of Israel stays a very important issue for themBut believing that support could wane, Israel began reaching out to evangelical Christians many years ago. They are unfazed Republican Party votersUnconditional allegiance to Israel became an article of religion for lots of them.

Now Republicans and a few Democrats are competing over who’s a greater friend of Israel. When the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Arrest warrants requested in May 2024 for Netanyahu and one other Israeli leader, in addition to Hamas leaders, the House of Representatives quickly responded an unusual, bipartisan effortpassing a law that might impose sanctions on anyone who helps the ICC prosecute Israelis.

To avoid such controversial political issues, President Bill Clinton didn’t endorse a two-state solution until his final weeks in office.

Given the political realities of the ongoing war, you could ask why this matters. A Palestinian state joining the UN as a member state wouldn’t make it a rustic. Israelis and Palestinians would first have to come to an agreement. But gaining UN status would supply a glimmer of hope for individuals who dream of getting their identity recognized and their own country fulfilled.

There isn’t any way such a big policy shift could occur in the middle of a U.S. presidential election campaign. But if peace is to come, more people on each side will have to start considering in another way—and I imagine that the creation of a Palestinian state, a minimum of on paper, would help achieve that goal greater than anything the United States could do.

This article was originally published on : theconversation.com
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

International

Why did ancient Mesopotamians use sheep liver to predict Donald Trump’s electoral probabilities?

Published

on

By

I stand within the basement kitchen and poke on the sheep’s liver, in search of marks on its smooth surface. People are flocking to film the proceedings because I’m here to ask the query everyone wants answered: Will Donald Trump win the US election?

I follow instructions that were first written down by the ancient Babylonians 4,000 years ago and which have survived to this present day. Every wrinkle within the liver has a meaning, and cuneiform tablets discovered in modern-day Iraq explain how to interpret them.

Armed with this information, it is feasible to calculate the reply to any query, provided it’s yes or no, by adding up the variety of positive or negative signs and seeing which one comes out on top.

Since this liver contained an amazing variety of bad omens, I he stated that this time she said “no” to Trump. Although in 2016 this method he predicted victory long before he won the Republican nomination, and in 2020 he predicted that he wouldn’t be re-elected this yr.

Will Trump win the US elections?

What began as a fun conversation at a university open day has since turn out to be a serious part my research – not because I sincerely imagine in it, but since it gives us a few of the earliest evidence in history of how humans reason and think.

Looking at livers also allows us to draw serious conclusions about how people have handled uncertainty throughout history and proceed to struggle with it today. People have developed techniques as diverse as astrology, tarot cards, and even gut-searching in response to the agony of not knowing or the strain of creating a difficult decision.

Given the extent of feeling invested on this election, this can be a unique moment by which perhaps we are able to appreciate that on this respect we aren’t that different from those that lived 1000’s of years ago, even when our methods of looking into the long run are different .

I’m asking in regards to the insides

Developed in its classical form in Babylon, visceral divination was practiced throughout ancient Mesopotamia, with recorded history dating from the third millennium BC to the first century AD

This had enormous significance across all levels of society – it was a typical a part of the political decision-making process on the royal court, but was open to all. Budget options were even available for many who couldn’t afford a sheep.

People addressed their questions directly to the gods and believed that the moment they asked the reply could be written on their insides. This can then be “read” by a diviner trained on this esoteric language.

Map of Mesopotamia, a historical region of recent Iraq.
aipsidtr / Shutterstock

The British Museum has an archive of real questions asked by the king of Assyria (a kingdom in northern Mesopotamia) within the seventh century BC. All sorts of matters of state were placed before the gods. Will the Egyptians attack? Has the enemy taken over the besieged city? Will the governors return home safely?

Reading the archive, one gets the sensation that one’s nerves are on a knife’s edge because the king waits for news from afar, wanting to know what has happened to his soldiers and trying to resolve what to do next.

He not only asked them about what would occur in the long run, but in addition consulted with them about possible courses of motion. Should the Assyrian army enter the war? Should the king send a messenger to make peace? Asking the gods for his or her opinion would help him feel more confident in his next steps.

The Babylonians had no selections. However, this did not mean that the king could do whatever he wanted. It was vital to his public image that the gods were on his side, in addition to to his own self-confidence.

Each time a robust official was appointed, the entrails were read to make sure the gods’ acceptance. The army commander, high priests, and other vital positions were subject to this requirement. On one occasion, even the selection of the crown prince – and subsequently the long run king of Assyria – was put to the test.

The interpretation of the viscera was done with almost scientific standards of accuracy. Diviners worked in pairs or groups of up to 11 people, checking one another’s work to ensure they did it right. This was not a vague or murky process, but an actual attempt to ensure “accuracy” that might not be manipulated to get the reply the king wanted to hear.

Modern forecasting

We all want to know what the long run holds, and we have provide you with ingenious ways to discover, from opinion polls and data modeling to Paul the octopuswho became famous for selecting the winners of soccer matches throughout the 2010 World Cup. But are our methods really higher than looking contained in the sheep?

As all investors caution, past performance isn’t any guarantee of future performance. However, the one data we have now for our predictions is from the past, and most of our models don’t account for “unknown unknowns.”

As many experts have learned, predicting the long run is a difficult business: Polls can lie and other people can change their minds, while economists were often blindsided by sudden crashes.



Clay liver used for divination in ancient Mesopotamia.
Babylonian clay liver used for divination in Mesopotamia between 2050 and 1750 BC.
Collection of the Science Museum group, CC BY-NC-ND

Since liver reading only answers “yes” or “no”, it would be correct 50% of the time, according to the law of averages. Despite its randomness, the success rate can have seemed convincing on the time.

And once we trust the authority of the source, it is simple to discover a way to explain a mistaken result – the prediction got to the halfway point, answered a unique query, or would have been right if x hadn’t happened.

We shouldn’t be blind to the weaknesses of our own methods. We are sometimes mistaken, and the Babylonians may sometimes be right.

This article was originally published on : theconversation.com
Continue Reading

International

Israel’s ban on UNRWA continues the politicization of aid for Palestinian refugees and puts the lives of millions of people at risk

Published

on

By

The vote of the Israeli Parliament on October 28, 2024 on the ban on the operation of the UN agency providing assistance to Palestinian refugees is prone to they affect millions of people – this also matches the pattern.

Aid for refugees, particularly Palestinian refugees, has long been politicized, and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) has been a goal throughout its 75-year history.

This was seen earlier in the current conflict in Gaza, when at least a dozen countries, including the US, suspended funding for UNRWAciting Israel’s allegations that 12 UNRWA employees participated in the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023. In August, the UN dismissed nine UNRWA employees for his alleged involvement in the attack. Independent UN panel established a set of 50 recommendations ensuring that UNRWA staff respect the principle of neutrality.

The vote in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, to ban UNRWA goes a step further. When it enters into force, it can prevent UNRWA from operating in Israel and will seriously impact its ability to serve refugees in any of the occupied territories controlled by Israel, including Gaza. It could have devastating consequences for livelihoods, health, distribution of food aid and education for Palestinians. It would also derail the polio vaccination campaign conducted by UNRWA and its partner organizations carrying out in Gaza from September. Finally, the bill prohibits communications between Israeli officials and UNRWA, which is able to end the agency’s efforts to coordinate the movement of aid employees to stop inadvertent targeting by the Israel Defense Forces.

Help for refugees, and more broadly, humanitarian aid, is theoretically alleged to be neutral and impartial. But as experts in emigration AND international relationswe all know that financing is commonly used as a foreign policy tool through which allies are rewarded and enemies are punished. In this context, we imagine that Israel’s ban on UNRWA is an element of a broader pattern of politicization of aid for refugees, especially Palestinian refugees.

What is UNRWA?

UNRWA, short for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, was created two years after roughly 750,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled from their homes in the months leading as much as the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and the subsequent Arab–Arab War. Israeli.

Palestinians flee their homes during the Arab-Israeli war in 1948.
Photos from the History/Universal Images group via Getty Images

Before the creation of UNRWA, international and local organizations, many of them religious, provided services to displaced Palestinians. But then extreme poverty research and the dire situation prevailing in the refugee camps, the UN General Assembly, including all Arab states and Israel, voted to create UNRWA in 1949.

Since then UNRWA is the predominant aid organization providing food, medical care, education and, in some cases, housing for the 6 million Palestinians living in five areas: Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, in addition to the areas that make up the occupied Palestinian territories: the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The mass displacement of Palestinians – often called the Nakba, or “catastrophe” – had occurred before 1951 Refugee Conventionwhich defined refugees as any person having a well-founded fear of persecution in reference to “events which took place in Europe before 1 January 1951”. Despite 1967 Protocol extending the definition around the world, Palestinians proceed to be excluded from the predominant international refugee protection system.

Although UNRWA is responsible for providing services to Palestine refugees, the United Nations also established the UN Conciliation Commission on Palestine in 1948 to hunt long-term political solution and “facilitating the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of refugees and the payment of compensation.”

As a result, UNRWA doesn’t have a mandate to push for traditional durable solutions available in other refugee situations. As it happens, the reconciliation commission lasted only a couple of years and has since been sidelined in favor of US-brokered peace processes.

Is UNRWA political?

UNRWA was topic since its inception, and especially during times of heightened tensions between Palestinians and Israelis, to opposing political winds.

Although it’s a UN organization and due to this fact seemingly apolitical, it is definitely so often criticized by Palestinians, Israelis, and donor countries, including the United States, for political activities.

UNRWA has government functions in its five domains, including education, health and infrastructure, but its mandate is proscribed to political or security-related activities.

Palestine’s initial objections to UNRWA stemmed from the organization’s early focus on the economic integration of refugees in host countries.

Although UNRWA officially joined the UN General Assembly Resolution 194 which called for the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes, the UN, the UK and the US officials searched measures to enable the resettlement and integration of Palestinians into host countries, seeing this as a helpful political solution to the situation of Palestinian refugees and the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this sense, Palestinians perceived UNRWA as highly political and actively working against their interests.

In later a long time UNRWA modified the predominant focus from work to education under pressure from Palestinian refugees. But there have been UNRWA educational materials watched by Israel as an additional boost to the Palestinian militia, and the Israeli government insisted on checking and approving all material in Gaza and the West Bank, which it has occupied since 1967.

A woman holds a poster saying
A protester is removed by Capitol Police officers during a House hearing on January 30, 2024.
Alex Wong/Getty Images

While Israel does long suspected UNRWA’s role in refugee camps and providing education, the operation of an internationally funded organization, also saves Israel has millions of dollars annually in services it might be required to supply as an occupying power.

Since the Nineteen Sixties, this has been done by the United States – UNRWA’s predominant donor – and other Western countries they’ve repeatedly expressed their desire using aid to stop radicalization amongst refugees.

In response to the increased presence of armed opposition groups, The United States added a provision to UNRWA aid in 1970, requiring that “UNRWA take all possible measures to be certain that no part of the United States contribution is used to supply assistance to any refugee who’s undergoing military training as a member of the so-called Palestine Liberation Movement Army (PLA) or every other guerrilla-type organization.”

UNRWA complies with this requirement, even publishing an annual list of its staff in order that host governments can confirm them, but in addition employs 30,000 peoplethe overwhelming majority of whom are Palestinians.

Questions about UNRWA’s links with any militia led to the formation of Israeli and international militias viewing groups that document the social media activity of the organization’s large Palestinian staff.

In 2018, the Trump administration suspended its implementation $60 million payment to UNRWA. Trump claimed the pause would put political pressure on the Palestinians to barter. President Joe Biden resumed US contributions to UNRWA in 2021.

While other major donors restored UNRWA funding following the conclusion of an investigation in April, the United States still to do that.

“Immediate Disaster”

Israel’s ban on UNRWA will leave already ravenous Palestinians without relief. UN Secretary General António Guterres he said, banning UNRWA “It would be a disaster in the face of an already incomparable disaster.” The foreign ministers of Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea and the United Kingdom issued the regulation joint statement arguing that a ban would have “devastating consequences for the already critical and rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation, especially in the northern Gaza Strip.”

There have been reports Israeli plans for private security firms to take over the distribution of aid in Gaza through dystopian “gated communities” that may effectively be internment camps. This can be a disturbing move. Unlike UNRWA, private contractors have little experience delivering aid and are usually not committed to humanitarian principles neutrality, impartiality or independence.

However, an explicit ban issued by the Knesset may unintentionally force the United States to suspend arms transfers to Israel. American law requires it to stop arms transfers to any country that obstructs the delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid. And the US interruption in UNRWA funding was alleged to be only temporary.

UNRWA is the predominant conduit for aid to Gaza, and the Knesset’s ban clearly shows that the Israeli government is stopping aid from being delivered, making it harder for Washington to disregard it. Before the bill was passed, US Department of State spokesman Matt Miller he warned it “Adoption of the legislation could have implications for U.S. law and policy.”

Two U.S. government agencies at the same time previously alerted Biden administration that Israel obstructed aid to Gaza, yet arms transfers proceed.

This article was originally published on : theconversation.com
Continue Reading

International

Israel and Iran are playing a dangerous game of chicken that will not be able to be stopped forever

Published

on

By

An Israeli attack on military targets in Iran over the weekend is becoming an increasingly routine occurrence within the decades-long rivalry between the 2 countries.

Israel has conducted low-level or “unofficial” operations in Iran previously, but for the reason that October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks on southern Israel and the next Israeli war in Gaza, tensions between Iran and Israel have escalated into direct military confrontation for the primary time.

While the implications of this particular strike are not yet clear, it shows that violence within the Middle East will not end any time soon. It can also be a clear example of how easily one conflict – on this case in Gaza – can escalate into latest conflicts with unintended consequences.

But beyond Gaza and the Palestinians, other dimensions are at play. Relations between Israel and post-revolution Iran have never been good. The Iranian government does he called for the destruction of Israeland Israel used its foreign intelligence service, Mossad, to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program murders AND cyber war.

In its latest direct attack on Iran, Israel attacked military targets within the provinces of Tehran, Khuzestan and Eelam from the air, causing minor damage to military facilities and killing 4 soldiers. Israel consulted with the U.S. State Department on its plans, however the United States was not directly involved within the strikes.

Although Tehran is downplaying the extent of the destruction, the Iranian regime has not ruled out a response that should keep the region in suspense for weeks to come. In fact, some hardliners in Iran’s parliament say the strike has crossed the ia red line response is obligatory.

Armed Israeli Air Force planes fly out from an undisclosed location to attack Iran last weekend.
Israeli Army/Ho/AP

Who is to blame here?

Answering the query “who started it?” on this conflict it’s not that easy.

If you asked the Iranians, they might say that the primary escalation occurred in early April Israel attacked the Iranian diplomatic complex in Damascus, Syriakilling, amongst others, two senior Iranian generals.

If you asked Israelis, they might say that Hezbollah’s attacks in northern Israel last yr are actually Iran throwing stones because Hezbollah is combat representative of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Iran twice responded to Israeli attacks on its territory with barrages of rockets and drones carrying explosives – once in retaliation for a consulate strike AND again in early October after Ismail Haniyeh, one of the leaders of Hamas, was died as a result of a strike in Tehran. The latest Israeli airstrike was a direct response to Iran’s retaliation that took place in early October.

US President Joe Biden he said after the newest Israeli attack “I hope this is over” – an attempt to get either side to stop escalating. But unfortunately that is not his calling.

Maintaining a delicate balance

There is a reason why direct military attacks between nations are rare, even between sworn enemies. When attacking one other country, it’s difficult to predict exactly the way it will react, although a retaliatory attack is nearly often expected.

This is because defense forces are not only used to fight and win wars – they are also obligatory to deter them. When a fighting force is attacked, it’s important that it counterattacks to maintain the assumption that it may well deter future attacks and show its capabilities. This is what is occurring between Israel and Iran at once – neither side wants to appear weak.

If that is the case, where does escalation end? De-escalation is actually a game of chicken – one side must be content with not responding to an attack aimed toward lowering the temperature.

However, states are under equal pressure to select whether to respond to an attack or de-escalate.

On the one hand, showing that the military is unable to respond to an external threat is unacceptable and theoretically encourages further attacks. Unused repellent is not a repellent.

On the opposite hand, there may be a risk that retaliation will turn into a complete conflict with the opponent. In the case of Israel and Iran, this could almost actually mean the involvement of American forces – a terrible prospect.

Fortunately, this end result is unlikely. There are signs that each Iran and Israel are using their attacks to “save face” and maintain deterrence reasonably than further escalate tensions, given that each countries have carried out attacks on non-essential targets.

Both sides have reasons to avoid greater conflict. Israel just opened second front against its adversaries, targeting and facing Hezbollah in Lebanon the most important conventional fighting force within the region if total war broke out with Iran.

Iran’s leaders have come under domestic pressure in recent times due to widespread public discontent. Iran would reasonably proceed to attack Israel through its proxies and maintain plausible deniability, as direct war could threaten the regime’s survival.

However, this latest strike can also be a reminder that the longer conflicts last, the less likely they are to be contained. For greater than a yr, the war in Gaza has raised tensions within the region to a fever pitch. A ceasefire would make a significant contribution to reducing these tensions and stopping the spread of political violence within the region – before it is just too late.

This article was originally published on : theconversation.com
Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR NEWSLETTER

Subscribe Us To Receive Our Latest News Directly In Your Inbox!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Trending