McCain criticises Carter’s meeting with Hamas, calling it ‘a grave and dangerous mistake for an American leader.’ (Photo: Reuters)

By Stuart Littlewood

I don’t know about you, but Hillary Rodham Clinton scares the pants off me.

“I want the Iranians to know that if I am president, we will attack Iran,” she ranted when asked what she’d do if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel. Not only that, she’ll “totally obliterate them”… 70 million people.

Jeepers… what kind of lunatic would drag us all into World War 3 to defend a lawless, racist regime like Israel?
I see the Council on Foreign Relations helps keep tabs on the stooge-for-Israel inclinations of each presidential candidate, so how’s Hillary doing? “Clinton co-sponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006,” says the CFR. “She also sponsored a Senate resolution in 2007 calling for the immediate and unconditional release of soldiers of Israel held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah.”

Was she concerned about the 9,000 Palestinians, including women and children, abducted from their homes and held in Israeli jails? Apparently not.

Since taking office in 2000, Clinton has regularly supported military and financial aid packages to Israel. In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) she spouted the now-compulsory mantra: Hamas should not be recognised “until it renounces violence and terror and recognises Israel’s right to exist.”

She supports Israel’s ‘security wall’ and its declared purpose of preventing terrorist attacks. Does she support the wall’s undeclared purpose - which has nothing to do with security - and the way it bites deep into Palestinian territory?

Barack Obama has said the United States must isolate Hamas. He also co-sponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 and called on the Palestinian leadership to “recognise Israel, to renounce violence, and to get serious about negotiating peace and security for the region”. OK, why don’t America and Israel get serious about implementing the dozens of UN resolutions on the subject? He doesn’t say.

He called Carter’s meeting with Hamas leaders “a bad idea”, so what’s his pledge to talk with US adversaries without preconditions worth? If elected, Obama will insist on fully funding military assistance to Israel. Does this mean paying them even more billions of US tax dollars so that they can fire even more high-tech munitions at Gaza, vaporize more women and kids and knock out more infrastructure that Britain and the EU paid for?

John Sidney McCain the Third says he’s “proudly pro-Israel” and argues that there can be no peace process “until the Palestinians recognise Israel, forswear forever the use of violence, recognise their previous agreements…” Has he asked Israel to do the same? No.

He criticises Carter’s meeting with Hamas, calling it “a grave and dangerous mistake for an American leader”. And he wants the United States to continue providing Israel with whatever military equipment and technology it needs. If elected McCain would “work to further isolate the enemies of Israel”. Surely his time would be better spent worrying about why half the world hates the US.

McCain even thinks Israel’s military action in Lebanon in 2006 was justified. He’s willing to use military force against Iran if it acquires a nuclear weapon and poses a “real threat” to Israel. Well, we know from past experience what “real threats” boil down to. And guess what: he too co-sponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006.

What is this Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act they all so desperately wanted? It doesn’t make nice reading. The idea is to heap misery on any Palestinian government in which Hamas has a hand, ignoring the fact that the resistance movement is democratically elected and shows no sign of running away. The Act demands everything from the Palestinians and nothing from Israel, which can do no wrong in Washington’s eyes but, as everyone outside America knows, is the biggest terror organisation and law-breaker in the region.

Palestinians are perfectly entitled to put up armed resistance against illegal military occupation. Nevertheless the US requires them to end their struggle, get on their knees and publicly kiss their tormentors’ ass. They must re-commit to the Road Map and the two-state solution even though the ‘irreversible facts on the ground’ Israel is hurrying to establish and the impoverished, fragmented leftovers of land the Palestinians will be left with (less than 20% of what was originally theirs) are not a recipe for peace.

The plan is plainly to support Israel’s lust for prime land and strategic resources and end all hope of Palestinian viability and self-determination.

So the three main presidential candidates are singing off the same hymn-sheet and running neck-and-neck for the job of Stooge-in-Chief. Whichever finally makes it into the White House can count on us Brits being equally well prepped, thanks to the Israel lobby’s energetic string-pulling on this side of the Atlantic too.
Israel’s prime minister Olmert says AIPAC is “the greatest supporter and friend that we have in the whole world”. It is certainly busy, claiming that “through more than 2,000 meetings with members of Congress… AIPAC activists help pass more than 100 pro-Israel legislative initiatives a year… procuring nearly $3 billion in aid critical to Israel’s security.” Lobbyists meet every member of Congress and cover every hearing on Capitol Hill that touches on the US-Israel relationship.

Ariel Sharon is famously quoted as saying: “We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.” (1) Had he been available for comment today he’d probably be saying the same about the UK where AIPAC’s little brother, Friends of Israel, has succeeded in embedding itself deep inside British politics and at the heart of government. Its stated aim is to promote Israel’s interests in Parliament and sway policy.

Conservative Friends of Israel, for example, claims 80 percent of Conservative MPs and provides a programme of weekly briefings, events with speakers, and delegations to Israel. It also operates a ‘Fast Track’ for parliamentary candidates fighting target marginals at the next election.

According to senior Conservatives Israel is “a force for good in the world… In the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression - Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together”.
Are they mad? We’re talking here about a ruthless ethnocracy with racist policies, an apartheid agenda, advanced skills in state-terrorism and contempt for the UN Charter and international law.

Nevertheless MPs of all parties, and ministers, are basking in Israel’s hospitality, absorbing the propaganda and allowing themselves to be persuaded to push the interest of this foreign military power sometimes at the expense of our own. Such conduct is at odds with the second of the Seven Principles of Public Life, namely Integrity – “Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.”

Efforts are being made to have the influence of the Israel lobby investigated, but the people’s watchdog - the Committee on Standards in Public Life - is itself infiltrated and refuses to act.

This week former Serb officers went on trial at The Hague for ethnic cleansing. They face life sentences for murder, persecution, forced deportations and inhuman acts during the 1991-95 Balkan wars. Many people feel it’s time Israelis faced charges for similar crimes during the 60 years of occupation and catastrophe they have inflicted on the Holy Land. The list includes

• torture
• collective punishment
• targeted assassinations
• house demolitions
• wholesale slaughter
• use of indiscriminate and prohibited weapons against civilians
• land theft
• engineering humanitarian disasters
• creating medical and public health crises
• the wanton destruction of key infrastructure and public & private property
• restrictions on movement and trade
• illegal detention
• suppression of education
• denial of basic human rights
• denial of the right of refugees to return
• illegal settlements
• violation of every convention and code of conduct.

Speaking of the Holy Land, are the three stooges aware that Christian communities under Israeli occupation are being oppressed and crushed along with their Muslim neighbours?

It was heartening to read in The Guardian this week a letter signed by more than 100 prominent Jews saying they cannot celebrate the 60th birthday of a state “founded on terrorism, massacres and the dispossession of another people from their land… and that even now engages in ethnic cleansing.” They’ll celebrate when Arab and Jew live as equals in a peaceful Middle East.

So there you have it. Hillary/Barack/John the Third, you would do well to steer a different course in the Arab-Israel conflict. Quit stooging, kick AIPAC into touch, back off and re-think US foreign policy.

How much support do you think you’d get for annihilating 70 million Iranians?

-Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation.

Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations on Thursday, April 24, 2008 called former President Jimmy Carter “a bigot” for meeting with the leader of the Hamas movement in Syria. Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, “went to the region with soiled hands and came back with bloody hands after shaking the hand of Khaled Mashaal, the leader of Hamas,” Ambassador Dan Gillerman told a luncheon briefing for reporters. The ambassador’s harsh words for Carter came days after the ex-president met with Mashaal for seven hours in Damascus to negotiate a cease-fire with Gaza’s Hamas government. The ambassador called last weekend’s encounter “a very sad episode in American history.” He said it was “a shame” to see Carter, who had done “good things” as a former president, “turn into what I believe to be a bigot.” (Reference for Text: AP)

Linda Heard,

If any one individual could make a difference in the Middle East, former President Jimmy Carter is in the running. His statements display sincerity, impartiality and the kind of objective wisdom that a few elder statesmen acquire once they are no longer in a competitive arena. He has close links with regional leaders, is generally respected by all sides and has proved that he has a personal commitment to peace.

Many Americans do not consider Jimmy Carter an ex-president of note and he is not revered in the way that Ronald Reagan and others were. Perhaps because they tend to associate his presidency with Iran’s 444-day-long occupation of the US Embassy in Tehran forgetting that he brokered an Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty in 1978 and is a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

It’s unfortunate that Carter’s term of office came too early. Arab states were invited to join Egypt at the peace table but their chairs remained empty. There had been too many bloody wars with Israel and memories were too fresh to give up the struggle. Still, putting Israel and Egypt together was an incredible coup for President Carter bearing in mind their mutual enmity stretched back decades.

Imagine the face of our world if a mature and experienced President Carter inhabited the White House today. For one thing 83 percent of Arabs wouldn’t have an unfavorable opinion of the US as a recent Zogby poll indicates, while 88 percent wouldn’t classify the US as the country that most poses a threat to them.

A Carter White House wouldn’t have led an invasion of Iraq and wouldn’t now be clamoring to punish Iran. Furthermore, a Carter-envisioned “road map” to a Palestinian state might have led to a positive destination rather than taking the more gullible within this region on a merry-go-round.

He might not have the international clout he once enjoyed but Carter is determined to pursue his personal peace mission even in the face of US State Department’s disapproval. Israeli politicians have shunned him over his decision to meet with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, considered a terrorist by Israel and the US, while Sean McCormack a White House spokesperson accused the former president of opening himself up to exploitation by Hamas and Syria.

“I don’t think people are going to confuse the efforts of a private citizen, former President Carter, with the very clear policies of the United States government,” McCormack said in an effort to deprive Carter of any remnants of legitimacy.

He’s right about one thing. The former president’s efforts based on the principle of getting people together could not possibly be confused with those of the Bush administration, which is only interested in fomenting division and stirring up belligerency.

Carter believes that peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved without the participation of Hamas, which he says should be engaged in the process instead of isolated.

To this end, he recently met twice with Meshaal and his second-in-command Moussa Abu Marzouk. Both meetings were described as warm and dignified. Discussions included such subjects as the ongoing siege of Gaza, a deal involving the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, and a unilateral cease-fire on the part of Hamas. Carter is said to have laid certain proposals on the table, which Meshaal is believed to be considering along with other senior Hamas officials.

If Meshaal responds positively to Carter’s requests then the latter’s bold move will signify as a major ice-breaker that could lead to bigger and better things. But somewhere along the way, Israel and the US will have to render support to Carter’s efforts else they will go for naught along with the former president’s credibility in Palestinian eyes.

Sadly, I don’t believe this US administration is capable of a major U-turn over Hamas, which, ironically, must thank the White House for its January 2006 election into office. George Bush pushed for a new democratic Middle East and a Hamas-led Palestinian National Authority was the result.

Bush is also responsible for the rift between Fatah and Hamas and the resultant two separate Palestinian entities. It’s a division that has taken Israel off the hook. This time, it really doesn’t have a partner for peace representing all Palestinians.

Nevertheless, with the US ballot on the horizon, there is hope. It’s known that Carter supports Democratic hopeful Barack Obama for the top job and as a superdelegate Carter’s vote will count when it comes to the party nomination. If Obama makes it into the Oval Office he might return the favor by giving the former president more of an official peace-making role.

In the meantime, Carter would de well to prepare the way forward while Hamas leaders should capitalize on this public relations opportunity to display their softer, more reasonable sides. If they were to return Shalit and declare a unilateral cease-fire those steps would display good intentions and make it more difficult for their detractors to whip up international support.

It may also quieten the right-wing loons who are flooding the Internet which such messages as “Carter hasn’t found a dictator, thug or terrorist that he hasn’t wanted to embrace…” and “Somebody shred his passport please”.

Carter is a true patriot and a brave man. His book “Palestine Peace not Apartheid” shows his fearlessness of America’s pro-Israel lobby that vindictively accused him of being anti-Semitic. He’s a man who follows his own truth, no matter where the journey ends. The world needs more leaders like him and courageous individuals unafraid to stand strong beside him. Who knows! 2009 may signify the beginning of another era when Carter’s views may at last find a solid platform.