Obstacle to Peace is a lengthy and involved read, yet readily accessible, and can and should serve as a compendium on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
This review was originally published at the Palestine Chronicle.
Jeremy R. Hammond, Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Cross Village: Worldview Publications, 2016)
It is obvious to most in the world that the U.S. and Israel are symbiotically linked to each other—each using the other for their own purposes, some of which are common, others that are not. In Obstacle to Peace, Jeremy Hammond dissects current events and the relationships between the two countries demonstrating that the biggest obstacle to peace in Israel-Palestine is the U.S. The focus is narrowed down to the specific relationship between the U.S. and Israel and does not delve into U.S. ambitions for the greater Middle East (which would still center, if not focus, on Israel). It is also much less a history than it is an examination of the methods by which the U.S. plays its role.
In his preface, Hammond says, “I have tried to write the book so as not to require an extensive prior knowledge of the subject to be able to understand it…[,] to be accessible to a broader audience … willing to commit the time to developing a well-informed opinion.” As a well-informed reader, I cannot say whether it would well and truly do this, but the language used and the actual structure of the book would make it accessible to a broad audience.
It is a detailed work concentrating on the combination of actions and language concerning the U.S.’s supporting role for Israel. The physical actions, the identifiable events of history, could be presented in a much shorter work for the time span covered. It is in the realm of language— agreements (written or otherwise), media representations, speeches, discourses, and the many elements of international law—affecting, describing, attributing, manipulating—where the bulk of Hammond’s presentation concentrates.
The latter element, international law, assumes a position front and center in Hammond’s arguments. Both the U.S. and Israel rationalize their actions by referring to international law, but they do so essentially by attempting to “manage perceptions”, create their own “narrative”, utilize the Chomsky-described vehicle of “manufactured consent” all the while operating with a set of “double standards”. Hammond makes an intense and well structured ‘deconstruction’ of the misleading language, the obfuscation, the fog of jargon utilized by U.S. and Israeli politicians, pundits, and media of all kinds.
Without getting into the details of his arguments (I leave that for the reader to read about), several things stand out. One of the standouts is the U.S. media complicity/subordination, while ironically Ha’aretz of Israel frequently is much more critical—and accurately so—than the U.S. mainstream media. Another feature that works slowly into light is the quisling nature of Mahmoud Abbas’s ruling power. Essentially he is helping Israel control the Palestinian people. This is recognized by both Israel and the U.S. (and by Abbas) as the threat to cut funding to the Palestinian Authority (PA) is viewed as more political fodder for the public, but if carried through would be detrimental to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land. From the latter arises the idea that war is the answer, that peace is not in the interests of either the U.S. or Israel for geopolitical and economic and other domestic reasons.
The largest element however is language—the language used for customary and coded international law.
There are essentially two types of international law: customary law, or informal, unwritten rules deriving from ‘state practice’ and objective obligations; and treaty law, or contractual written agreements intent on creating binding rights and obligations. The UN Charter, the various Geneva Conventions, trade agreements, environmental agreements, etc., are all part of the latter treaty law.[1]
Obviously, there are different interpretations of both the customary and treaty laws, but there is sort of a law of laws, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that says, “A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context…”[2] Thus, if the ordinary meaning is to be understood in context, then to support a position that would under the ‘ordinary meaning’ be against international law, it becomes necessary to change the context.[3] However, the reality of the context can only be changed by managing its presentation.
Changing the context is done through the methods described by Hammond throughout his presentation: alter the narrative, use double standards, manage perception, manufacture consent. It is in this area where Hammond does a superb thorough deconstruction of Israeli/U.S. attempts to change the context to fit their own denial of international law as it pertains to them.
As an example, this is shown by their attempts to stop Abbas from seeking statehood recognition within the UN. That accession would change the manner in which the various parties interact, and change the global view of how to deal with the situation in Israel/Palestine. It also reaches farther, as exemplified by the great fear of Palestinian accession to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which raises the question: if what you (Israel-U.S.) are doing is so in compliance with international law, why is there this fear of Palestine having recourse to the ICC?
One of my favorite neocons, John Bolton, “mindful of its [the U.S.’s] complicity and the possibility of future prosecution for war crimes at the ICC … warned ‘to convoke the International Criminal Court is like putting a loaded pistol to Israel’s head—or, in the future, to America’s.’” (p. 407) Why, Mr. Bolton, why?
The UNESCO and ICC cases, presented towards the end of the book, highlight Hammond’s use of the four aspects of contextual methodology of the U.S.-Israeli dialogue concerning Palestine. A clear double standard and change of narrative exists concerning the determination of a state of Palestine as per entrance to UNESCO.
Then Secretary of State Clinton cautioned against recognizing a state without “‘determining what the state will look like, what its borders are, how it will deal with myriad issues that states must address’—none of which issues had prevented the U.S. sixty-three years earlier from recognizing the state of Israel only minutes after the Zionist leadership unilaterally declared its existence without borders and mostly on land they had no rights to.” (p. 369) In fact they had no rights to any of the land other than the 5.8 percent [Editor’s note: about 7 percent by the expiration of the Palestine Mandate] they actually owned as the UN Partition Plan was rejected by the Palestinians and had no power of international law.
Earlier in Hammond’s presentation (p. 354), the New York Times argued that “vetoing a statehood resolution ‘would intensify Arab perceptions of American double standards,’ noting also ‘the president risks appearing hypocritical.’” A nice tidy way to identify double standards, manage perceptions, and manufacture consent for a narrative—in this case the idea being simply that it is not the fault of the U.S. but of Arab “perceptions.”
Obstacle to Peace is a lengthy and involved read, yet readily accessible. It can and should serve as a reference work, a compendium of information on the Israel-Palestine conflict. As for the initial structural reference, the chapters are clearly delineated and set out with clear subheadings. The bibliography/reference section is extensive. It also struck me that the words narrative, double standards, manufactured consent, manage perceptions are not listed in the very useful index—these contextual methodologies are so widespread throughout the book the marker would simply be passim.
The conclusion is simple, well supported by the precise examination of language and context: “the single greatest obstacle to a peaceful resolution” is “the criminal policies of the government of the United States of America.”
Notes
[1] Michael Byers, War Law—Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict. Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver, 2005. P. 3-4.
[2] ibid, p.5
[3] Some actions that may have become customary, such as pre-emptive war and the ‘right to protect’ syndrome have been abused by the U.S./NATO (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Kosovo/Serbia, Afghanistan) and now are not considered to be a customary rule (i.e. not accepted by the majority of the world) basically as they were used as an excuse to invade and change governments in other countries who did not accept U.S. global hegemony.
There is no shortage, these days, of “useful idiots” chomping at the bit (in their “Chomsky-ite” way) to march the world back to the “Progressive Socialist” days of Pre-World War II, which saw clueless meatballs like this one writing articles condoning Adolf Hitler and his rising Nazi party for their understandable desire to “protect the integrity of Germany’s frontiers.” They also thought that “Mein Kampf” was a brave tome (aside from all those silly little Anti-Semitic references that were just understandable by-products of the oppressed German peoples’ understandable frustration.)
Don`t confuse Zionism with Judaism, A.S.F.
Judaism is a fine old Religion and the foundation of the two later Semite Religions of Christianity and Islam, all venerating the God of Abraham.
Zionism is a Nationalistic Racist Political Movement, no different to the German Nazi Party, in particular when mirroring the Nazi racial superiority ideals.
There is no doubt that Adolf Hitler was Rabid and anti-Jewish, yet he never legally prevented Jewish-Christian marriages.
Not so in Zionist Israel, there it is completely impossible for a Palestinian Israeli citizen to marry a Zionist Israeli citizen, those that marry abroad (none in the past 7 years) and then return to Israel are referred to as “Mixed Marriages”.
It get`s worse A.S.F. any children from such unions are legally regarded as “Residential Palestinian Citizens” and are deported when they reach the age of 12, with or without their parents.
Zionist Israel brings shame upon Jews.
I think it’s worse in the Palestinian territories or anywhere near them, where a thirteen year old Jewish girl can be asleep in her bed when a Palestinian youth, who has been incited by his culture and his government to kill a Jew for the great crime of “breathing while Jewish”, gets stabbed multiple times, front and back and then has her throat slit for good measure. Where the poor victim Palestinians kill three Israeli youths, who just happen to be walking and committing that same great crime of “breathing while Jewish”,
get slaughtered and buried under some rocks in the desert. After which said victim Palestinians deny committing the crime and then turn around and say, “But, if we did, it would be a great thing”, and then throw an actual parade in the street wherein their own elected terrorist government hands out sweets to the screaming cheering throng. The lies and distortions spread by the practitioner’s of “Taqiyya” and “Kitman” are instilled in the Palestinian culture and the world should not further dignify or excuse them, much less feed and comply with them. “Intifadas” are not merely “frustrated” and reasonable acts of victims–they are institutionally approved acts of murder and they pre-date the creation of the State of Israel itself. They don’t bring shame on the Jews who are their targets. They bring shame on the Palestinians, who are their perpetrators, and on people like you who justify, enable and even cheer them on. You cannot target the ONE SOLE legally designated Jewish nation in the entire world and say that your over-the-top and one-sided Anti-Zionism is only about Israel and not about Jews. No one with an active brain cell or/and no axe to grind against Jews believes you. What we do have these days are an unfortunate number of people who have completely forgotten (if they ever knew or, if very young, were taught in the first place) the lessons of history–especially the lessons of the days leading up to the Holocaust, World War II and its immediate aftermath. THAT is the true tragedy and it could well be the death of all of us in the end.
The Holocaust did not happen in Palestine, A.S.F. why then are Palestinians punished for the crimes that were committed in Europe?
The vast majority of the worlds 15 million or so followers of Judaism, have neither the need nor the desire to live on stolen Palestinian land.
Jews for Justice for Palestinians, a UK organisation not to be confused with Chicago based Jews for Justice for Palestine.
Then there is the rapidly growing International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, Israeli history Professors in UK University, were instrumental in forming “Apartheid Israel” week, where over 100 universities throughout the world hold annual 2 week programs of films and speeches documenting Zionist Israeli crimes against humanity.
BDS, a Palestinian founded organisation, is supported by a growing number of individuals, and NGO`s, BDS is a “Will of the People” thing and increasingly effective, religion is not a factor.
Zionist Israel is in violation of 77 United Nations Resolutions, a record number!
The USA has used it`s UN veto on 31 occasions to prevent UN Security Council Resolutions imposing sanctions against Zionist Israel, a record number!
And since 1972, the USA has threatened to veto 42 UN Security Council Resolutions, so preventing the debate, a record number!
Then consider internal Zionist Israeli organisations, B`Tselem the Israeli Information Service, was dformed simply to document Zionist Israeli crimes against humanity in only the illegally occupied Palestinian West Bank.
And “Breaking The Silence” an Zionist Israeli organisation of IDF solders who document their objections to being ordered to commit crimes against humanity in the illegally occupied Palestinian West Bank.
Only last month ex Zionist israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, stated that (Zionist) Israel was becoming a Fascist State, an opinion that ex Zionist Israeli Defence Minister Yaalon had voice a few days earlier.
Zionism hides behind the skirts of a well respected old Religion, Zionism demands the removal of the intrinsic population of Palestine, today there are 5 million UN registered Palestinian Refugees, all denied the right of return to their homeland.
Non-Zionist Jews throughout the world are integrated into the societies of their respective homelands.
Zionists cannot and will not tolerate integration with Palestinians in Zionist Israel, the past 69 years of Zionist Israeli Apartheid policies is evidence enough of that.
And, A.S.F. as you, quite justifiably, condemn the murder of a Zionist Israeli child, you must also ask yourself why, since September 2000, for every 1 Zionist Israeli child that was murdered by Palestinians, there have been 160 Palestinian children murdered by Zionist Israelis.
I have used Zionist Israeli official Government figures, and B`Tselem figures, the Zionist Israeli Government does not document Palestinian deaths, anywhere!
The “Palestinians” (who weren’t even “Palestinians” until Yassar Arafat dubbed them as such much later) were offered their own state to self-govern (for the first time ever) at the same time that the State of Israel was created through the original UN Mandate. The “Palestinians” refused their option of an independent statehood. The British were in charge before then, not the “Palestinians” who were actually considered “Trans-Jordanians–because, you see, they were originally from JORDAN. That is why the proposed Palestinian state was originally proposed to be created under the auspices of Jordan to begin with. Perhaps you should educate yourself a little bit more on the history of the region before you make the false and tiresome claims that most Anti-Zionists these days do–Those being that Israel (and the Jews, excuse us, “Zionists”), stole the Palestinian;s homeland and, in their conquering genocidal zeal, targeted women and children first. Actually, Most of the original “Palestinians” fled to neighboring Arab countries upon Israel’s creation (after turning down their option of statehood) because either ever-so-helpful-and-concerned Arab brethren told them the incoming Jewish hordes were going to murder them in their beds and slit their children’s throats to make matzoh– a “blood libel” that continues to make the rounds of the territories every holiday season, even to this day. Some of those who did not flee decided, in the unstable aftermath, to outright sell some the land that they DID own to Jews. None of these truths seem to have entered your consciousness. It makes the very shaky ground you like to place your soapbox on seem even more like quicksand than it already is. And “BDS” is not a “will of the people” thing, it is a discriminatory–“we are singling out one country and one group of human beings for special negative judgement”–thing. That is what Anti-Semites and their “useful idiot” enablers do.
All of the alleged “offers” you refer to in fact consisted of rejections of Palestinians’ rights, including the right to self-determination, and demands for 100% of the concessions to come from the Palestinian side.
This nonsense about Jordan is just that: nonsense.
Israel was established via the ethnic cleansing of most of the Arab population of Palestine from their homes.
You are confusing Zionist propaganda myths with historical facts A.S.F.
Herodotus, the Greek “Father of History” wrote about Palestine, using the modern spelling some 400 B.C.
But thousands of years earlier, Egyptian Hieroglyphs described the Pharaoh Seti marching through “Filistine” on his way to fight the Hittites, Seti had 7 consecutive summer campaigns passing through the Biblical “Kingdom of Israel” (I bet that surprised you!)
The United Nations has never had a mandate to create “A Land”, the Partition line of 1947, was aimed at allowing talks to take place, it was NOT a creation of a Zionist State.
Transjordan never had a historical reality, Transjordan was created in 1922 by the British for the Hashemite Abdullah, as a bribe to stop him fighting the French who removed his younger Brother Fisal from Syria (The British later created Iraq and installed Fisal as “King” there. .
during 1947 and 48, Zionists completely destroyed nearly 600 Palestinian villages (Google Tantura Massacre, Tantura is now called Dor, a attractive Zionist resort).
The policy of early Zionist European immigrants to Israel was always to remove the intrinsic Palestinian population.
Read the US appointed 1919 King-Crane report; It said a (Zionist) State in Palestine was not feasible as it would require the removal of the intrinsic population, and could only be sustained by force of arms.
Today there are 5 million UN registered Palestinian refugees, all denied the right of return to their homeland, if as you erroneously claim, that Zionists did not force Palestinians from their homeland, then Zionists would have encouraged them to return to their homes.
Today Zionist Israel still refuses the Palestinians the right of return.
Zionist Israel is in violation of 77 UN Resolutions, an all time record.
The USA has used it`s UN veto to halt a further 31 UN Security Council vetoes that were critical of Zionist Israel, another all time record.
The USA has threatened to used it`s veto on 42 occasions, since 1972, to prevent UN Security Council resolutions critical of Zionist Israel being debated, yet one more all time record.
10 years ago a group of Palestinians gave up on any hope of the USA being even handed in the M.E. Their motivation when launching BDS was to appeal to “The People” for justice.
BDS is hugely successful, and has resulted in many NGO`s being created, BDS has created “problems” for pro-Zionist Israeli Governments who have responded with a polarized stance, as happened during the early years of the boycott campaign of Apartheid South Africa.
Semite, by the way is a 19th century word coined to describe “Of Middle East Origin”, one of the definitions used were Semite languages, which were all “Arabic” based, over 40 Semite languages (including Maltese) only one was Hebrew.
Anti-Semite is a silly expression, if you mean Anti-Jewish then be specific.
Personally, I am supportive of Palestine and Palestinians, because I object to the Genocidal Apartheid policies of Zionist Israel, I would hold those objections if Israelis were Druids!
Zionist Israel brings shame upon Jews.
Indeed, such murders are horrible, which is all the more reason why Israel ought to end its oppressive occupation regime and incomparably greater violence and murder of Palestinians.
And your above-stated comment just proved my point–That Anti-Zionists, who pride themselves on their supposed “tolerance”, have a great deal of trouble making room for views and opinions that differ from their own.
This allegation against me is not in evidence. I am not the one trying to support the crimes of one party against the other, but condemn the crimes of both.
Yeah, because rewarding terror and surrendering to the murderous demands of terrorists is always a good idea, especially if it means that Jews are made to give up the ONE SOLE Jewish nation in the entire universe. That’s fair.
So, if I come into your house and put you in a headlock and beat you, and you kick back at me and bloody my lip, I shouldn’t release my grip and stop beating you because that would be giving in to your violence, right?
What has your comment to do with the review?
The reviewer’s own slant is quite clear although he struggles to appear “objective.” This is just another “Anti-Zionist” puff piece, written as a supposedly dispassionate review of an obviously Anti-Zionist tome (like, the world really needs another one. Not.)