Pressure Upon Israel Could Resolve Iranian Nuclear Issue

             The crisis over the Iranian nuclear aspirations is really quite simple to resolve if there is political will to resolve it. The issue is not the threat of whether Iran will use a nuclear bomb against Israel but rather whether Israel will continue its hegemony over the Middle East, especially over the Palestinians.   Additionally, the hypocrisy that the West adopts visa via Israel and every other Middle Eastern country is overwhelming to the people of the region.  Putting a little pressure upon Apartheid Israel can solve many of the Middle East problems.

           

The belief that Iran will use a nuclear weapon against Israel as an offensive strategy is foolish.  It is inconceivable that any country will use a nuclear bomb against another in an offensive manner. President Harry S. Truman used the nuclear bomb against Japan because he perceived that an invasion of Japan will result in an excessive amount of US casualties. Additionally, President Truman used the atomic bomb knowing full well that there would be no retaliation as no other country had the capability to retaliate with nuclear power. This is not the case today.

            It is highly unlikely that Iran would strike Israel for several reasons.  First, Iran would be committing suicide as Israel has an enormous nuclear capability to strike Iran back with much more devastation. Thus it would be suicidal for Iran to strike the first blow.  Second, the proximity of millions of Muslims around Israel, including Iran, would cause such devastation from the atomic burst that Iran will not benefit strategically within the Muslim world.  Third, the proximity of Jerusalem, a holy site for Muslims, to any potential target within Israel makes striking Israel with nuclear weapons theologically impractical. 

            The hyperbole rhetoric emitting from Apartheid Israeli leaders against Iran is aimed to deflect news coverage about its apartheid practices against the Palestinians.  To seek the sympathies of the West, Apartheid Israel falsely portrays itself as a goldfish in a sea of piranhas. The real fact is that Apartheid Israel is the great white shark in a small pound of fat cat fishes.   As the only nuclear power in the Middle East, Israel continues its hegemony over the Middle East with unchecked arrogance.  In 1981 and 2007, Apartheid Israel attacked Iraq and Syria, respectively, in an unprovoked attempt to prevent them from developing nuclear capabilities.  Additionally, while the US and the West demand inspections of North Korea and Iran’s nuclear facilities, nothing is said about Israel’s nuclear power plants which, according to exports, have produced hundreds of nuclear weapon warheads.

            Apartheid Israel would like the West and Russia and China, as they are UN Security Council permanent members, to believe that Iran will use nuclear weapon to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth.”  In fact, Iranian President Ahmadinejad never said this statement and this translation is completely wrong.  But Israel knows that perception is reality and putting this perception into minds makes it the “perceived truth”—but this is not always the “truth”.

            President Ahmadinejad, during the speech in which he is accused of wanting to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth,” used the words words “rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” which mean “regime occupying Jerusalem.”[1] Ahmadinejad was advocating a regime change in Israel.  But Apartheid Israel does not want the world to know this and the American press does not want to investigate Israel in fear of retaliation from the powerful Israeli lobby.  To be fair, this wrong interpretation came not from Israel but from Iran itself.  However, when Iran tried to correct the wrong terminology, the quote spiraled out of control.  Of course, Apartheid Israel made this wrongly translated term the center of its propaganda campaign to deflect coverage of its apartheid practices.

            The West’s domination over the Middle East through its proxy Apartheid Israel and the support of Arab dictators and kings who repress the people’s human spirit to be free and democratic continues to make the region unstable.  Further, the discrepancy in policy towards Arab countries and Apartheid Israel leads many in the region to wonder how America and the West could be so hypocritical.  Apartheid Israel can occupy Palestine for over 40 years and no military force is sent to remove the occupier.  Yet, Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait could not be tolerated for one day as the US and Britain rallied the world around Operation Desert Storm in 1990. Apartheid Israel has imprisoned over 1.6 million Palestinians in Gaza and bombed the population relentlessly in the 2008-2009 onslaught without a whisper from the US and the West.  Yet, the world comes to the aid of the Libyans during their Arab Spring revolution to oust Muammar Gaddafi.  The 1.5 billion Muslims cannot understand why they are treated different than the 15 million Jews.

            What further perplexes many Arabs is that Israel is a nuclear power that has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). While Pakistan and India have also not signed the Treaty, they have both publicly stated that they do have nuclear warheads.  Israel, on the other hand, has been purposely deceptive as to its nuclear capability.

India has pledged a no first use policy unless it is attacked by an adversary using nuclear weapons.  Additionally, India has expressed its commitment to non-proliferation but stated that it considers the “NPT as a flawed treaty and it did not recognise [sic] the need for universal, non-discriminatory verification and treatment."[2]  India has cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by entering into agreements to inspect its facilities.

Israel will not cooperate with the IAEA. When called upon to open its nuclear facilities in September, 2009, Israel’s chief delegate to the IAEA conference responded “Israel will not co-operate in any matter with this resolution."[3]  Why haven’t Western countries called upon the UN to impose sanctions against Israel for its refusal to have its nuclear facilities inspected?  Why is this double standard for Israel tolerated?

Striking a balance between Iran and Israel can be one way to make Iran more cooperative and to abandon any military component with its nuclear ambitions. Having Israel submit to inspections of its nuclear capabilities and to make it pledge a no first use policy similar to India will give assurance to Iran and all Middle East countries that the West is willing to deal fairly with the people of the region. Additionally, the West needs to exert pressure on Israel to resolve Palestinian statehood aspirations by ending decades of occupation. Failing diplomatic pressure, sanctions upon Israel should be on the table.

Fair dealing in the Middle East is the only thing Arabs want to see. They do not want the West to adopt a pro-Arab policy.  Arabs want a fair policy in the Middle East that treats every country and every religion equally and with dignity.  If this was the policy, the issue with the Iranian nuclear ambitions would not be an issue.  The lack of fairness in Western Middle East policy, however, is driving the region into another major war.  Pressuring Israel to act the way the West demands Iran to act would solve the Middle East problems.

            The question is whether there  is a political will to pressure Israel?


2/25/2012 update:  I just read this article by Allan Hart, author, and found this statement quite interesting to this article: 


"From recently de-classified documents we now know that in a memorandum dated 19 July 1969, Henry Kissinger, then national security adviser, warned President Nixon that the Israelis “are probably more likely than any other country to actually use their nuclear weapons.” And as I mentioned in my post of 30 January with the headline Is Israel on the road to “self-destruction”?, Golda Meir said in an interview I did with her for the BBC’s Panorama programme when she was prime minster that in a doomsday situation Israel “would be prepared to take the region and the world down with it.”"

(© Copyright, Fadi Zanayed.  Publication or distribution of this material is allowed provided its content is not altered and the source and its author are cited.)

---

[1][1] ‘Wiped Off The Face of the Earth’ The Rumor of the Century, Arash Norouzi, May 26, 2007 http://antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

[2] India seeks Japan's support, calls NPT 'flawed' By IANS, Sat, Mar 24, 2007

http://www.whereincity.com/news/3/15197

[3] Israel pressured on nuclear sites, Aljazeera, September 18, 2009, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2009/09/2009918173136830771.html

Leaders Need to Sow Love Not Hatred

Nine Palestinian children and a teacher were killed on Thursday morning, February 17, 2012 when an Israeli truck carrying a fuel tank crashed into the school bus transporting the kindergarten children near the Qalandia checkpoint in Ramallah.  May they rest in peace. May God give solace to their families and to all Palestinians as this is a national tragedy.

Such a tragedy should have international coverage. Yet, a search of the internet revealed very little was posted except for the Arab press. It's hard for me to accept this discrepancy in news coverage, especially when this tragedy involves 4-6 year old children and their teacher. Additionally, what I cannot understand is some Apartheid Israelis rejoicing over such a tragedy and thanking God that it was not Jewish children who had perished in this horrific accident. Are we not all of God’s children and every human life is sacred.

I posted this incident in my Facebook status.  I expressed my sympathy and revealed the reaction of some Israelis. One person made a comment condemning the Israelis’ open praise of such a tragedy and then praised how discreet Hitler was in his actions. I did not see the connection with Hitler so I immediately deleted the comment. 

I then commented: “You cannot condemn hatred if you have hatred in your heart”

Yes the reaction of some Israelis was abysmal and I cannot understand it. What eats at my soul is not only that it was a reaction in of itself but that it was a reaction from some Jews when their ancestral history teaches the entire world that racial hatred stands contrary to human values. Because of the hatred inflicted upon Palestinians, mainly because Israelis have painted all Palestinians as terrorists, I will not tolerate Palestinians who advocate hatred of Jews or any other race, ethnicity, religion or any other group. My use of the term apartheid in reference to Israelis in my articles is not hatred, it is telling the truth—Israel is the Apartheid State of Israel.

Eventually the apartheid system that Israel continues to try to perpetuate will come to an end and Palestinians and Israelis will then live together between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean just like the different races in South Africa now live. Nelson Mandela, having been imprisoned for over 27 years by the White South Africans because of the color of his skin has taught us the following in his Autobiography:

No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion.  People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its’ opposite.

            

             Palestinians should not return hatred for hatred. Palestinians should forgive those who cheer at the death of  innocent kindergarteners.  In a previous article entitled “Palestinians Can Teach Jews Forgiveness”, I wrote:

A human element needs to be a part of the Palestinian struggle to be free of the Israeli apartheid practices.  If there is no human element than the Palestinian struggle will not have been worth the effort……Palestinians cannot be like the Apartheid settlers who are using their cars to run over Palestinian children.  http://fadizanayed.blogspot.com/2012/01/palestinians-can-teach-jews-forgiveness.html

            I am sure that this message resonates in a significant number of Palestinians and Israelis. Leaders on both sides need to listen to this message and start seeking the votes from people who have this human element rather than pursuing the votes of people who hate. Leaders need to teach love rather than hatred. 

            Nelson Mandela had every reason to hate his White captors and no one would have been against him had he hated them.  However, he would have never been any better than the apartheid regime that he sought to replace had he sowed hatred in his heart.  Rather, we sowed love and lead his people to love and prosperity.

            Both Palestinians and Israelis need a Nelson Mandela. Both need to sow love.



(© Copyright, Fadi Zanayed.  Publication or distribution of this material is allowed provided its content is not altered and the source and its author are cited.)

Apartheid Israel Policy To Retain Area C

                A recent Apartheid Israeli Supreme Court decision allows the exploitation of Palestinian natural resources to fund the military occupation of Palestine.  It also suggests a long term policy within Apartheid Israel to fund the continued occupation of Palestine indefinitely.  This has been the policy of Apartheid Israel since the Oslo Agreement.

The Court decision involves quarries in Area C in the West Bank which under the Oslo Agreement is controlled by Apartheid Israel.  This decision sheds light on how Apartheid Israel wants to retain Area C and give Areas A & B to the Palestinians under limited rule.

                Without going into the illegality of the ruling under international law, the decision renders some long term policy considerations within the Apartheid Israeli government.  In a previous article entitled “Will Areas A & B become Palestine?” I stated that Apartheid Israel’s policy is to keep Area C and give Areas A & B to the Palestinians, thus self-imposing a “peace” solution upon the Palestinians.  I stated that already Apartheid Israel is calling the checkpoints as “terminals” and “crossings” which is an obvious reference to a border.  Additionally, Apartheid -in-Chief Benjamin Netanyahu wants to give additional powers to the Palestinian Authority in Area B so as to entice them to continue to the talks that question when the peace talks should begin and to thwart any reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas.

                The decision by the Apartheid Israeli Supreme Court sheds a new argument for my analysis.  The decision had the audacity to state that even if the exploitation of the Palestinian quarries

“…still takes place during the next thirty years at the estimated extent (in an estimated value of approximately 7.2 million tons on average, annually, for the next fifteen years, and approximately 11.2 million tons on average, annually, for the following fifteen years), the total overall consumption for the whole abovementioned period will exhaust about half a percent of the overall mining potential in the Area, which stands at approximately 65.1 billion tons”  (emphasis added)

This reference to the “next thirty years” came from the “States [Israel] estimation” according to the Judgment opinion.  It unequivocally states that Apartheid Israel is looking three decades ahead for the continuation of the illegal occupation.  Referring to Area C, the opinion confirms the statement that the “Civil Administration” states that “…these quarries are established on Israeli state land…”  

Apartheid Israel has no intention of giving up Area C upon which the illegal settlements have been erected.  By hook or crook, Apartheid Israel is moving forward to retain Area C.   Unfortunately, the Palestinian authority had negotiated “the responsibility over the issue of quarries and mining within Area C– including licensing authorities, supervision, their expansion and operation” to the Apartheid Israeli Civil Administration.  Such responsibility was to be gradually transferred from the Civil Administration to Palestinian hands as a part of a comprehensive process aimed at transferring powers and responsibilities within those areas.   This gradual transfer of power to Palestinian hands was to be part of the final status talks that never materialize.   Thus, if these talks never materialize then they will remain in Apartheid Israeli hands. 

Within the Oslo Agreement and the Interim Agreements, the parties, Palestinian Authority and Israel, had agreed that during the interim term the quarries would remain active, and it was even decided that in case any questions should arise in the course of the process of transferring rights over the quarries, such questions shall be discussed by a joint committee.  The parties further agreed to respect the recommendations of said committee, and it had been also agreed that "until the committee had reached its decision, the Palestinian party shall refrain from taking any measures that could negatively affect those quarries"

The Court’s decision generally stated that the issue of the quarries was a political decision that was addressed by Apartheid Israel and the Palestinian Authority and the court will not undue a political agreement with a foreign state. Additionally, the Court, in an obvious attempt to seem in compliance with the 4th Geneva Convention, ruled that the royalties collected from the excavation of the quarries helps fund the military occupation and helps employ Palestinians. 

What a quagmire situation the Palestinians have dug themselves into?  The Israeli Supreme Court will not interfere in the exploitation of Palestinian natural resources and the Apartheid Israeli government will not discuss final status talks thus leaving everything in Area C in limbo but in the control of the occupier.

  

This has been Apartheid Israel’s plan with the signing of the Oslo Agreement.  What else can anyone conclude when Apartheid Israel has continued to build more and more illegal settlements in the West Bank after the signing of the Oslo Agreement?  What else can anyone further conclude when “the settler population has grown consistently between 4-6% per year over the last two decades, a much higher rate of growth than Israeli society as a whole (1.5%).”[1]

                The Palestinian Authority must resist all efforts to fall into the scheme of this Apartheid Israeli policy.  It should not negotiate with Apartheid Israel and must continue to expose Apartheid Israel for what it truly is an Apartheid State of Israel. It must support the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement worldwide. 


(© Copyright, Fadi Zanayed.  Publication or distribution of this material is allowed provided its content is not altered and the source and its author are cited.)

---

[1]Israeli Settlements, Palestine Monitor, Exposing Life Under Occupation, http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article7

When Will Israel Attack Iran?

                Major events between the Palestinians and Apartheid Israelis usually happen in a lame duck session of an outgoing US President, i.e. the time between the November election and the inaugural of a new President.   Should President Barack Obama lose his bid for a second term as US President in November of this year, recent history teaches us that something dramatic will happen in the Middle East.  There is a concern that during that time period Israel will strike Iran to preempt it from obtaining a nuclear facility capable of producing a nuclear bomb.

                The rhetoric coming out of the Apartheid Israeli government about the option to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities is at a high pitch tone.  While this saber rattling by Apartheid Israel is aimed to deflect its own atrocities against the Palestinians, it is hypocritical in that Israel has a history of opacity about its own nuclear reactor.   Nonetheless, Apartheid Israel is preparing the world public opinion for an attack against Iran. The question is not whether Apartheid Israel will attack Iran but rather when will it attack?

Apartheid Israel has a history of attacking Middle Eastern countries that are attempting to develop nuclear power.  On June 7, 1981, Apartheid Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor under construction 10.5 miles southeast of Baghdad, Iraq. On September 6, 2007, Apartheid Israel struck a nuclear reactor in the Deir ez-Zor region of Syria.  Syria denied that the nuclear reactor was designed for military purposes.   

The time between the outgoing and incoming US Presidents seems to be the timing when Israel will most likely attack Iran.  I say this because of several historical events which happened between these time frames.  

               

In 1980, the Iran Hostage Crisis did not end until the inauguration of President Ronald Reagan and the departure of President Jimmy Carter.  In 1988, secret events were undertaken by the United States to have the PLO recognize Israel during the time after the 1988 elections and the inaugural of President George Bush Sr.  In 2008, when President George W. Bush was leaving office and Americans elected Barack Obama as President-Elect, Apartheid Israel launched Operation Lead Cast against the Palestinians in Gaza.  The assault on Gaza did not end until two days before the inaugural of President Obama.

 

                These significant developments in the Middle East around a lame duck Presidency period leads me to conclude that should President Obama lose his bid for re-election in November, then it is highly likely that Apartheid Israel will attack Iran between the election and before the inaugural of the newly elected Republican.   If this happens, President Obama will not be in a position to do anything against Apartheid Israel that cannot be undone by an incoming President beholden to the Apartheid Israeli lobby.   Additionally, a President-Elect can then claim that what has been done by Israel is done and cannot then challenge Apartheid Israel but will instead have to deal with the fallout of the attack.

               

As noted above, Israel has had a history of vagueness about whether it has a nuclear reactor with enriched uranium capable of producing an atomic bomb.  It has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, neither has Pakistan or India though these countries are confirmed nuclear powers. Israel remains ambiguous about its nuclear capabilities.   

               

It is hypocritical for Israel to have a nuclear reactor, not be a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and then threaten to attack another country for trying to develop nuclear capability. It is believed that Apartheid Israel has between 75 to 400 nuclear weapons and has had them since 1967.

                While Iranian President  Mahmud Ahmadinejad has made statements calling for Israel’s destruction, it cannot be reasonable believed that he nor any Iranian leader will attack Apartheid Israel with a nuclear weapon.  Such an act would be contrary to the Muslim dogma of protecting the holy city of Jerusalem.  Any such attack will inevitable have a considerable fallout throughout the Middle East and will affect millions of Muslims including Iran itself.  Any such attack would be unrealistic from an offensive standpoint. 

               

Israel, on the other hand, is willing to take offensive measures against Iran as they have done so against Iraq and Syria.  While the fallout of the Iraq and Syria attacks was next to nothing, it may not be so with Iran.  Iran has one and a half more times the population of both Iraq and Syria.  Iran controls the Strait of Harmous of which 20% of the world’s oil supply flows.  Just the mere threat that the oil flow will be impeded by Iran has driven the price of a barrel of oil up. Having the oil supply actually interrupted will cause havoc with any already burdened world economy. 

Israel will attack Iran. The real question is whether anyone has the political will to stop Israel? 

The Arrogance of the UN Veto

            Arrogance is just one more word to describe the Apartheid Israeli government.  This time it involves the United Nations Security Council veto power which is granted to the five permanent members (United States, Great Britain, France, China and Russia). 

            This week China and Russia vetoed a UN Security Council Resolution against Syria for the second time in four months.  The reaction from the US and Apartheid Israel was typical.  U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the veto a "travesty". Members of Apartheid-in-Chief Benjamin Natanyahu’s cabinet were disappointed by the veto and Knesset members were appalled by Russia's behavior.

            This arrogant reaction by the US and Apartheid Israel comes after a February, 2011 US veto of a UN Security Council Resolution which would have condemned the settlements as “illegal” and after the US threatened to veto a proposed UN Security Resolution on Palestinian Statehood in September, 2011.

            Apartheid Israeli supporters point to the Russian naval base in Syria and to the sale of jet fighters to the Assad regime to state that Russia has some sort of culpability in the Syrian murderous crackdown of the Arab Spring in Syria. This position would suggest to any logical person that the US, which is working closely with Apartheid Israel on military exercises and sells (gives is a better word) jet fighters to Israel, is then complicit with Israel in the occupation of Palestine.

            The problem with the US foreign policy is that it does what it will not allow others to do. The US can support the illegal settlement of Palestine by Apartheid Israel but Russia and China cannot support the brutal Syrian murderous actions against its own people.  Apartheid-in-Chief Netanyahu is conspicuously silent on the Russian and Chinese veto. However, he did state recently before a cabinet meeting:

At the end of last week we received a reminder about the environment we're living in. We heard Iran's ruler talk about Israel's destruction, we saw the Syrian army massacring its own people. Some leaders have no compunctions about harming their people or their neighbors.[i]

Zvi Bar’el, the writer of the Haaretz opinion article in which this quote was taken, then stated:

True, it's a lousy environment. Only one sentence is needed to complete the picture: "And there are governments that don't mind continuing to occupy other nations for nearly 50 years.

            This arrogance of expressing moral outrage at the atrocities of other countries while committing atrocities yourself is typical of how repugnant the world political stage has succumbed.  This indignation comes down to the use of the UN veto by the five permanent nations.  The US cannot use the veto to allow Israel to continue its apartheid occupation of Palestine and its obnoxious suppression of the Palestinian human spirit to be free; and then condemn the Russians and Chinese for vetoing the condemnation of the Syrian brutal suppression of the Syrian people’s human spirit to also be free.  One cannot support the condemnation of one human suppression and veto the condemnation of another human suppression.  It just is not morally right.

            While the veto in the UN Security Council is a power that will not be so easily given up by the five permanent members, it is time to rethink this awesome power. At this juncture, however, it would be better if the five permanent members of the UN Security Council would rethink their use of the veto.  Instead of using the veto to advance one’s self-interest, they should use the veto on a consistent basis that will advance the human spirit to be free.   I understand that this may be asking too much from China, but the US, as the sole super power, needs to lead with a moral conviction.  The US needs to be consistent in its foreign policy.

(© Copyright, Fadi Zanayed.  Publication or distribution of this material is allowed provided its content is not altered and the source and its author are cited.)

---

[i] Veto Morality, Zvi Bar'el, February 8, 2012, http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/veto-morality-1.411637

غطرسة للامم المتحدة النقض

(قمت بترجمة هذه المقالة على Google. محدودة كما هو قدرتي على قراءة اللغة العربية،أنا لا يمكن أن تضمن دقة الترجمة)

            غطرسة واحد فقط أكثر كلمة لوصف حكومة الفصل العنصري الإسرائيلي. هذه المرة أنها تنطوي على الأمم المتحدة حق النقض في مجلس الأمن السلطة التي تمنح إلى الدول الخمس الدائمة العضوية (الولايات المتحدة وبريطانيا وفرنسا والصين وروسيا).

            هذا الأسبوع حق النقض ضد الصين وروسيا على قرار مجلس الأمن الدولي ضد سوريا للمرة الثانية في اربعة اشهر. كان رد الفعل من جانب الولايات المتحدة وإسرائيل الفصل العنصري نموذجي. دعت وزيرة الخارجية الاميركية هيلاري كلينتون في ذلك حق النقض على "مهزلة". أصيبوا بخيبة أمل من أعضاء مجلس الوزراء بنيامين نتنياهو الفصل العنصري في ورئيس من قبل أعضاء الكنيست، واستخدام حق النقض قد هالهم سلوك روسيا.

            هذا رد فعل متعجرف من قبل الولايات المتحدة وإسرائيل الفصل العنصري يأتي بعد فبراير، 2011 الولايات المتحدة حق النقض لقرار مجلس الامن الدولي الذي من شأنه أن يدين المستوطنات بأنها "غير قانونية" وبعد الولايات المتحدة هددت باستخدام الفيتو ضد القرار المقترح الامن الدولي بشأن اقامة دولة فلسطينية في سبتمبر ، 2011.

            أنصار الفصل العنصري الإسرائيلي تشير إلى القاعدة البحرية الروسية في سوريا، وعلى بيع طائرات مقاتلة لنظام الأسد أن أذكر أن روسيا لديها نوعا من اللوم في حملة القمع التي شنتها القاتل السوري من الربيع العربي في سوريا. هذا الموقف أن أقترح على أي شخص منطقي أن الولايات المتحدة، والتي تعمل بشكل وثيق مع إسرائيل الفصل العنصري في مناورات عسكرية وتبيع (يعطي هو أفضل كلمة) طائرات مقاتلة إلى إسرائيل، ومن ثم متواطئة مع إسرائيل في احتلال فلسطين.

            المشكلة مع السياسة الخارجية الأميركية هو أن يفعل ما لن تسمح للآخرين للقيام به. يمكن للولايات المتحدة يمكن أن تدعم الاستيطان غير الشرعية في فلسطين من قبل إسرائيل الفصل العنصري لكن روسيا والصين لا تؤيد وحشية الإجراءات القاتل السوري ضد شعبه. الفصل العنصري في ورئيس نتنياهو الصمت بشكل واضح على الفيتو الروسي والصيني. بيد أنه في الآونة الأخيرة دولة قبل اجتماع مجلس الوزراء:رأينا في نهاية الأسبوع الماضي تلقينا تذكيرا حول البيئة الذي نعيشه. سمعنا الكلام الإيراني الحاكم حول تدمير اسرائيل، الجيش السوري ذبح شعبه. بعض القادة ليس لديهم الندم عن إيذاء الناس، أو جيرانهم. [أنا]تسفي Bar'el، وكاتب المقال في صحيفة هآرتس الرأي الذي اتخذ هذا الاقتباس، وقال بعد ذلك:صحيح، انها بيئة رديء. وهناك حاجة فقط جملة واحدة لاستكمال الصورة: "وهناك حكومات التي لا تمانع في استمرار لاحتلال دول أخرى منذ ما يقرب من 50 عاما.

            هذه الغطرسة للتعبير عن الغضب الأخلاقي في الفظائع التي ارتكبت في دول أخرى، وارتكاب الفظائع نفسك نموذجا للكيفية بغيض الساحة العالمية السياسية واستسلمت. هذا السخط ينزل إلى استخدام حق النقض من قبل الأمم المتحدة والدول الخمس دائمة. لا تستطيع الولايات المتحدة استخدام حق النقض للسماح اسرائيل لمواصلة احتلالها الفصل العنصري في فلسطين، وقمعها البغيض من روح الإنسان الفلسطيني في التحرر، ومن ثم إدانة الروس والصينيين عن الاعتراض على إدانة القمع الوحشي السوري من الإنسان للشعب السوري روح ليكون أيضا مجانا. يمكن للمرء أن لا يعتمد على إدانة واحدة قمع الإنسان ونقض إدانة آخر قمع الإنسان. انها ليست مجرد حق من الناحية الأخلاقية.

            في حين أن حق النقض في مجلس الامن الدولي هو القوة التي لن يتم بسهولة لذلك تخلت من قبل الدول الخمس الدائمة العضوية، فقد حان الوقت لإعادة النظر في هذه القوة الهائلة. في هذه المرحلة، ومع ذلك، سيكون من الأفضل إذا كانت الدول الخمس الدائمة العضوية في مجلس الامن الدولي وإعادة التفكير في استخدامها حق النقض. بدلا من استخدام حق النقض لدفع الفرد للمصلحة الذاتية، ينبغي لها استخدام حق النقض على أساس ثابت من شأنها أن تقدم الروح البشرية أن يكون حرا. وأنا أفهم أن هذا يمكن أن يطلب الكثير من الصين، ولكن الولايات المتحدة، باعتبارها القوة العظمى الوحيدة، يجب أن تؤدي مع الإدانة الأخلاقية. الولايات المتحدة تحتاج إلى أن تكون متسقة في سياستها الخارجية.

(Zanayed فادي © حقوق الطبع والنشر،. يتم السماح نشر أو توزيع هذه المواد شريطة أن لا تغيير محتواها وأشار المصدر وصاحبه.)[ط] الأخلاق حق النقض، تسفي Bar'el، 8 شباط 2012، http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/veto-morality-1.411637