Why should the Arabs hope for anything new from the new US president with regard to Palestine, having agreed so enthusiastically to Bush’s roadmap and having fixed their demands on Israel’s fulfilling its obligations under the plan after the Palestinians had carried out theirs? That they should not hope for much was clearly demonstrated during [...]
When leaders in struggle confuse themselves with recognition of the rights of the people they claim to defend, everyone suffers, including the national cause, writes Azmi Bishara
The Scottish philosophers of the Enlightenment, from Ferguson through Adam Smith, taught us that such emotions as the yearning for recognition and affection from others, as well as envy [...]
The new US administration has stated repeatedly that it views the region from a perspective of Israeli security when it comes to Iran and uranium enrichment, as well as to resistance against Israeli occupation. It believes that Israel's right to security is not connected with ending the occupation, that it has the right to be an occupying power and at the same time be safe and that it is the Arabs' duty to sit quietly in their camps, under the conditions of the occupation and the economic boycott, watch the news bulletins on negotiations and rejoice at the Mitchell appointment.
At their core, most Israeli political parties are the same when it comes to their neighbours. They dispute among themselves only in terms of controlling budgets and ministries, but as far as contributing meaningfully to regional stability or economic growth, they are satisfied to be parasites off the American taxpayer while bullying the occupied. That is why they have invested so much in lobbying groups, partisan think tanks, and other organizations in the U.S. but made no effort to honour international law.
