| Just saw this email, after I’d sent the email I just sent. Always respectful of the other people on this list, and understanding why propagating Kendall’s hyper militarism and anti-constitutionalism is not, or at least, should not, be in accord with a group calling itself the “Committee for the Republic,” especially when we see this ideology developing in opposition to what the Committee for the Republic was founded upon by Chas, and Bruce Fein, and then giving awards to Whistleblowers, whom Kendall would have condemned as “traitors,” like Chas and Bruce for their “opinions” and what they have written. As the same with deceased members like Bill Polk and Norman Birnbaum would have been “targeted” as “Liberals” by Kendall, according to his own writings (especially Bill, who headed the Adlai Stevenson Institute for years, which would have merited targeting as a “Liberal,” as Kendall wrote, and Owen recorded correctly, in agreement with). So I find it quizzical that people who have been ideologically targeted for their ideas, like Chas, and as I am implicitly for my work in Human Rights and trying to uphold the Constitution against "Conservative opposition,” as I and the appellate legal team I am on, know from looking at the judges we go before, for ideological bias. But I get it, let’s not dig deep about who is targeting the Constitution, and constantly calling for more war and military spending, by identifying their ideological roots, in both parties, as that would seem to run counter to the stated purpose of the Committee for the Republic? So I will not mention _____ again, even while he is being sold by Owen and others as the answer to our problems today, in implicit, and explicit, support of the Republican Party, and Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis, as well as offending those allied to the Peter Thiel supported organizations.
(I continue to work on “brevity,” and you can see I’m making progress.) On Apr 26, 2023, at 8:38 AM, Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com> wrote:
I am sure that most on this list would appreciate this tendentious discussion being taken offline, if it is continued at all.
Read the damn book! Listen to the author at the Philadelphia Society!
Kendall makes a continuous argument against the First Amendment which is the centerpiece of his “legal theory,” and for that alone his ideas must be opposed. Add in his enthusiasm for genuine fascists like Trujillo, and you ‘know the man.” Unless one opposes the U.S. Constitution and wants to subvert it, as Kendall did. Can it be any more plain than that! Even what I’ve come to realize is a fundamental characteristic of “Conservatives,” obtuseness, shouldn’t foreclose the ability to read and see the “plain meaning” of what is on the page right in front one’s eyes! Or comprehend what is coming out of the mouth of someone as “speech,” when it is undeniably being heard.
I recommend people read Bruce Fein’s work, as a “corrective" to Kendallianism, as I have extensively before Tom even pointed me to Kendall, to “learn what real conservatism” was (I learned!) for at least a couple decades, as well as knowing Bruce and “hearing” words coming out of his mouth, which were in every case the opposite of Kendall’s on the Bill of Rights! In particular, read “Constitutional Peril,” which goes against everything that Kendall was for. Including identifying the Vietnam War as “folly.” (My copy is at hand, less than two feet away.) If Bruce still self identifies as a Conservative (how can anyone when we see the fruits of the “Conservative Movement’s” militaristic thought, in both parties now, but with the Republican’s distinguishing characteristic to always denounce Democrats as “weak” in the prosecution of any war, and to demand ever more national wealth be dedicated to that prosecution. Such as demands made by “Republican peaceniks” that vast sums be dedicated to. . . wait for it . . .the U.S. War on China! And upon all their allies, as necessary to wage war in U.S. militarist thought.
But to today’s Kendallian influenced Conservatism, Bruce e would logically be a “CINO,” given his writings on the Constitution are the complete opposite of Kendall’s, and contrary to Kendall, Bruce opposes foreign interventions, as Owen’s preface makes clear Kendall did . . . but you have to “read” that to comprehend that, and I guess, for “Conservatives,” even reading something plainly written, I mean Kendall’s own words, not the author's, doesn’t guarantee comprehension of Kendall’s thought, or to overcome outright denialism.
But I look forward to hearing more. Any of you “libertarians” wish to defend yourselves against Kendall’s totalitarian thought, given Kendall despised libertarianism so much? I thought not, not when more tax cuts for the Oligarchs are always at hand to "offset” greater military spending, along with cuts to such “wasteful” programs as the USPS, VA (the victims of the Oligarch’s wars), Medicare, and infrastructure, which must be implemented to “balance the budget.” All of which we saw in 2017 with libertarian support for Trump’s/McCain’s massive, accelerated military spending (I heard it from their own “keyboards”).
Todd gets outraged whenever I dare to suggest that not ever conservative is a Straussian or a neocon supporter of endless wars. He apparently views my objections as a personal attack on him. One can disagree without being disagreeable. In his latest diatribe, he invokes Chris Owen, the biographer of Willmoore Kendall, to support conclusions Todd already had reached. So, I thought it worthwhile to share Todd's words with the autho since Todd was using his name so freely and putting words in his mouth. The author does not want to get in a back and forth with Todd. (I sure can understand that.) But, as a historian and the leading biographer of Kendall, he was willing to respond briefly to what Todd had to say about his views on Kendall's thinking. I will share that with Todd and the others in a separate email. Tom Pauken
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message -------- Date: 4/25/23 3:17 PM (GMT-06:00) Subject: Re: [Salon] Trump-era spike in Israeli settlement growth has only begun | AP News
Per the email below this, this is not to engage in another exchange with Tom Pauken, as much as I enjoy the vitriol on his side, nor to respond to his continuing disparagement and contemptuous smears of me for being in disagreement with his reverence for the ideological founders of the “Conservative Movement,” particularly Willmoore Kendall. But it is to “correct the record,” historically and ideologically, once again as he continues to promote Willmoore Kendall as the "Traditional Conservative,” par excellence. Which I agree with. Which is why I am so harshly critical of “Traditional Conservatives,” the more I read them, and read their latter day interpreters, as their CIA officer founder’s ideas now infect both political party’s doctrine of Perpetual War. (Read Preface below, bearing in mind what a false dichotomy was created in a debate by Kendall with a “pacifist,” as if there is no position in between.)
That is, with a common “National Security State Ideology” descended from those ideas of Willmoore Kendall which called for “two political parties,” but in full agreement with each other, as “consensus,” with woe to anyone who dissents from that “consensus.” Which is the basis he defended McCarthy on. An ideology which, though it can be seen in how the Biden administration is going (almost) all out to suppress dissent, “almost” because the USG has yet more “instruments of repression” passed into law principally by Republicans in 2012, is so celebrated today by Conservatives and Libertarians, as can be seen in this video of the Conservative/Libertarian Philadelphia Society. Which has all the supposed factions of the Right represented, in seemingly full harmonious agreement on what is being said (though in fairness, the Q and A is not shown).
Willmoore Kendall despised libertarians and non-Straussian Conservatives like Russell Kirk, with the latter type of today claiming to oppose “Straussianism,” while calling themselves “Traditional Conservatives,” even though Kendall himself adhered to Leo Strauss and his “political theory.” But here, at the Philadelphia Society, all are clustered together in this audience, figuratively, as they are so fully assimilated/intermingled wherever Conservatives and Libertarians are gathered. In spite of Kendall’s open contempt, as he wrote, of the non-Straussian Conservatives. Yet here all “factions” sit together agog as Kendall is praised by Owen for the hostility he had for the Constitution! So one must ask: is this just plain stupidity on their part? According to Owen, writing approvingly, Kendall was fully aligned by common “political theory” with Leo Strauss, and yes, Harry Jaffa, and friendship, as I pointed out in the past. Both of whom Kendall tried to entice into coming to the University of Dallas to teach in his new “Politics Program." With the term “Straussian” commonly used to identify their disciples. Which includes Willmoore Kendall, as Straussian’s themselves recognize, favorably, to include both Leo and Harry.
I use the term “Straussian” generously as a pejorative, as do so many others, but I include the “Disciples” of Willmoore Kendall in that, whom I won’t name, even if they don’t realize that in Kendall, they’ve imbibed Straussian “political theory.” In showing that, if one gets by the “Double-talk” in both Kendall, and his disciples, like Owen, Owen has done a(n) (unintended) service in understanding the Straussian Willmoore Kendall (look at the chapters yourself, don’t take my word for it, or anyone else’s!). But in line with that, I also use the term Straussian as synonymous in “political theory” with “fascism,” albeit in an early stage here, just as it was when Strauss desired to stay in Germany under the Nazis, as an already developed Fascist State, in 1933. And I use the term as to accurately point out that there is in fact, no distinction between “Traditional Conservatives,” and “Straussians,” as Kendall/Strauss made clear. Which was fully revealed in the Trump administration when they all came together, to include Republican “Zionists,” as Trump was fully in spirit, and in performance. And with the many other Republicans/Conservatives who regularly pass through Hillsdale College and/or the Claremont Institute to be anointed by the High Priests of Straussianism, now fully in partnership with The American Conservative magazine in joint “educational” programs with Hillsdale College in DC.
Owen’s book doesn’t hide that Kendall was so close to Leo Strauss, but celebrates it! (See the Index attached, and apologies for not having Chap. 8 to share which the index shows is where Harry Jaffa is mentioned. Hand-scanning with a phone was not easy so I didn’t include Chap. 8 due to time. But the book is on its way to me from a library so I will get a better scan of it when I receive it, which will only corroborate even more what I am saying, though the chapters attached are all that is necessary to do that.) But watch the video, particularly the introduction by the “Moderator,” and even more importantly, from 24:30 - 39:40 (not discouraging watching the whole thing, but the section referred to above captures Kendall’s Rousseauist "Absolutist Democracy” in perfect summary. I can only view it with jaw-dropping incredulity, though not surprise, as these Libertarians and Conservatives sit silently by, in seeming acquiescence, while Owen promotes with Kendall’s words the most anti-Constitutional doctrine ever proposed in this country. To include echoing Confederates, like John Calhoun, though not by name as Kirk favorably referred to him, who too denounced “rights” for human beings. Kendall did that with Orwellian-like reinterpretations of written documents, which he called “textual analysis,” leading to his own politicized, idiosyncratic “revisionism” of the “text,” identical to Leo Strauss’s method. Beginning for Kendall with John Locke while still a Marxist, and picking up steam on that same theme of “Absolute Majoritarianism” when he turned to the extreme-Right as a “Traditional Conservative.” While he regularly denounced those who were less extreme, like Russell Kirk (who was too stupid to recognize that) and Eisenhower, with Kendall in league and in full agreement with Joe McCarthy. Don’t take my word for that but listen to the Kendall biographer whom Tom extolls as the “Authority” on Kendall, and with the attached files, read what he says in glowing praise of Kendall in quoting Kendall’s views, as in his panegyric to him. Which is necessary to understand the “Ideological Foundation” of the Military Industrial Complex, and the ideological architects of that, the Conservative Movement's founders. Read Owen’s book which fully substantiates that! (Tom and I must have read different versions of Owen’s book.)
One can’t call Owen’s book a “Freudian slip” in revealing what Kendall was actually promoting as “Democracy,” which was in fact ideologically what Jacob Talmon labeled “Totalitarian Democracy,” because it is plain that Owen is equally enthusiastic for Kendall’s Rousseauist ideas of “Absolutist Democracy” as was Kendall. And Conservatives in general as this “Doctrine” is in plain view at Israel’s fascist strategy of “Judicial Reform” (first, kill all the lawyers, or at least the “liberal” Judges). But this is what Kendall’s “Democracy” was, if one can see what is in “plain view” as “political theory,” and what is intended as the “Final Solution” for Israel, to exclude any dissent, now to include Jewish Israeli dissent as well, going beyond the Palestinians, which has already been developing ever more harshly for decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_democracy#:~:text=Totalitarian%20democracy%20is%20a%20term,decision%2Dmaking%20process%20of%20the
But listen to the complete video if you have time, but for sure listen to, and concentrate upon, the section from 24:30 - 39:40, as well as the the introduction by the Hillsdale College Straussian at the beginning.
Owen begins his spiel with this: "Sometimes called an “Absolute Majoritarian,” he believed that 50% plus one of the people had the right to decide matters, and 50% minus one had the duty to obey.” (Obey, you hear that Jim Bovard, you must obey Joe Biden! :-)
Okay, it’s settled, Biden has every right to repress any dissent to his rule! He had more than 50% plus one of the people vote for him (just ask Tucker Carlson!) And let Jim Bovard stop complaining, and disrupting “consensus,” and acknowledge that under the “Traditional Conservative” doctrine of Willmoore Kendall, Biden has an "absolute right,”née, duty, to incarcerate him or otherwise punish someone, like Joe McCarthy did (whom with his students, Buckley and Bozell, but mentoring them, Kendall was the ideological brains behind) to anyone disrupting the consensus. And Owen doesn’t hide that, as he obviously approves of it, perhaps from his and Kendall’s common Southern roots (with Kendall from Little Dixie in Oklahoma, look it up, a cultural extension of “Dixie”).
Explaining as well as Murray Rothbard said, from page 132 I believe: "Rothbard recognized Kendall's arguments as an attack on libertarianism. He labeled him "the philosopher extraordinaire of the Lynch mob whose majoritarian principles might be used to justify the crucifixion.” As I’ve said, Kendall certainly was compatible with the Segregationists right up until he died, and since, and would certainly have been greatly appreciated by the Ku Klux Klan, as Rothbard recognized! And by Pontius Pilate, and the howling mob in Jerusalem who called for impaling Jesus Christ on a cross.
So what’s this with “libertarians” joining together with Kendall worshiping “Traditional Conservatives,” and listening to Owen denounce, with Kendall’s words, “Constitutional rights,” especially free speech? When I hear Kendall being denounced by the factions he denounced, and defending the Constitution from Kendallian inspired attacks, I may begin to get over the contempt I’ve come to feel toward those people, like Owen, who indirectly by quoting Kendall, or others referring to him as someone whose “political/legal theory” we should turn to today, with his outright attacks upon the U.S. Constitution, and the few remaining “rights” we have left today, after Kendall did so much to inspire in the Republican Party the evisceration of! With that bacillus coming to infect the Democrats now as well, not that they were ever “Saints” either.
That Trump (and Biden) didn’t/don’t incarcerate more people for that is only because the “Legal Revolution” against the Constitution begun by Willmoore Kendall (and later, joined by George Carey - see "Basic Symbols”) and fellow ideologists within his faction of the Conservative Movement hasn’t been completed quite yet. Though it damn near has in Israel, supported in large part by American Conservatives who obviously have imbibed Kendallianism, as that is the political/legal ideology the Legal Revolution taking place in Israel is attempting to put in place. Right off the pages of Kendall’s books, particularly “Basic Symbols!) (I have never seen such a conspicuous public display of “symbols,” flags, as I saw in Israel, and specifically in Israeli occupied East Jerusalem and occupied Bethlehem. Except in pictures I’ve seen of 1930’s Germany!)
I will bring this to a close as anyone with ears to hear can hear what Owen boasts of, correctly and approvingly, of Kendall’s “genius.” And have eyes to see can read of it in the attached book chapters (I’ve highlighted their most egregiously anti-constitutional passages), and in the other file, one can see the “Renaissance” of Kendallian “Conservatism,” as just one example. With much more to say on that as it also represents far more than did the Neoconservatives and their "East Coast Straussianism,” the far more dangerous, and now virtually openly revealed, fascist doctrine of the “West Coast Straussians,” and the complete capture of the “Conservative Mind,” such as it is, and represented in the “New Right,” composed of the “China Hawks, the NaziCons, etc.
But here are a couple quotes from Owen’s talk, with context added to a couple:
"Changes only after consensus developed . . deliberative process,” meaning, “no rights for you boy, there’s no consensus yet!"
Going with, in re Kendall: he “looked askance at rights talk, . . . rights were undemocratic . . . "
Definitions: “Justice" - receive what he deserves, “'Deliberation' above rights and equality,"
All “legalistic word play,” which Kendall excelled at, above all others!
Democracy? Quoting Owen: "The True role of political thinkers like himself, Kendall believed, was to guide the people to know their own strength and to learn to use it against those who would undermine their ability to rule themselves.”
Right out out of Leo Strauss’s favorite books by Machiavelli and Hobbes, and The Republic, calling for the Dictator, to keep everyone in line, as "Order."
At a talk by Kendall (forget which page it is from, but it is highlighted in a book chapter below, when Kendall made some particularly egregious statement, Owen wrote that Kirk was “amused,” Rossiter “intrigued,” which says all one needs to know of the quality of their minds. Only Rothbard was horrified, in recognizing the inherent fascist nature of what Kendall was saying, and stood for. To quote Maxwell Smart: If only he had used his genius, for niceness instead of evil!
P.S. Tom sneeringly tells me to “get a life.” In addition to work with fellow lawyers on nuclear arms issues, and a Law School’s Human Rights Center, and some antiwar activism, and remaining involved on Guantanamo issues, I thought I “had a life” :-) But my main avocation today, regardless of capacity, is for sure, at a minimum, what Susan Eisenhower called “alert citizen.” And as an “alert citizen,” even if Willmoore Kendall would have denounced me for “disrupting the consensus” (to include on this email list, as I’ve seen that extreme right-wing “consensus” take shape here since 2016), and a couple of his idolater wish for me to “just fade away,” and not call out the Straussians/Schmittians/Kendallians/NatCons, who together constitute the “component parts” and main ideologists of the New Right, and revealing that what they are about isn’t "defending the Constitution,” but destroying it, by reinterpreting it, as a retired Army Officer, my Oath to Defend the Constitution didn’t cease with my retirement from the Army. But it continues as long as I continue to draw retired pay, in addition to the moral duty created by such an Oath. As that, from the evidence provided here, means opposing the anti-Constitutional ideas of Willmoore Kendall inspiring the “New Right,” it necessitates me to do with the First Amendment what James Madison called for with it, to act as a Centinel (sic) over those in power. Which Kendall so vigorously opposed with his outright hatred of the First Amendment as he and his radical-right ilk demanded they be the sole authority “guiding” the American people, just like the Politburo once was in the USSR, to include Khrushchev’s Ukraine and Stalin’s Georgia. Which requires the "alert citizen” making an effort to know what our ideological “guides” are up to, using that as Kendall wrote as (the one thing I agree with him on) the means to anticipate what they are planning. He argued that for intelligence analysis of foreign countries, but it applies as well to our own ideological leaders and “Movements” even more. And "unmasking them,” revealing their lies, when called for. Hannah Arendt “theorized” (a politically neutral term, except for people like Strauss, Schmitt, and Kendall) how to do that. It begins with locating the “Origins” of political phenomena. All of which can be considered as what I am working on, which is “The Origins of American Fascism.” And for that, Tom has been a never-ending inspiration, and mentor, in directing my attention to Willmoore Kendall!
Thanks to Christopher Owen’s unintentional assistance, Kendall’s extreme right-wing thought is clarified in Owen’s book. And when next one of the Conservatives here see him, pass on my gratitude to him in revealing the full-scope of how extreme Kendall really was, on the furthest right side of the the political spectrum, just this side of . . .
Todd,Trump is not a traditional conservative in any sense. He is a “deal guy” who has no fixed principles. Harzony and his buddy David Brog are running an operation claiming to represent “national conservatism”, but it is a false flag operation run out of Israel. Willmoore Kendall, James Burnham, er al, would have sniffed this out immediately and would have had no part in promoting it. WillmooreKendall is not a Straussian, but should be classified as a conservative populist. Kendall’s biographer, Chris Owen, makes that clear in his excellent book “Heaven Can Indeed Fall.” The American Conservative is not controlled or directed by Harzony. Todd, get a life. Tom Pauken Sent from my iPad Without naming names, I well recall someone here assuring the List, and rebuking me, that Trump represented the “end for the Neocons,” or words to that effect. While another made clear that Trump was a “Traditional Conservative” in the line of Willmoore Kendall, James Burnham, and Barry Goldwater (I agree), all of whom we should turn to for their “wisdom” (I don’t agree), or words to that effect. A “New Right” arose, with Israeli Settler Yoram Hazony at the center of it as the “National Conservative Chief Ideologist,” and with The American Conservative magazine’s its chief purveyor of Hazony’s propaganda line. And “Conservatives” still ignore their own fascist roots in the ideas of Kendall (and his mentor/collaborator, Leo Strauss), Burnham, and Goldwater’s and his fellow Conservatives always ready eagerness to use nuclear weapons to bring our wars "to victory,” whether the Cold War, or Vietnam. And these are the …….. whose ideas we’re supposed to turn to!
And Trump was going to "end the endless wars,” but never revealed by the New Right liars or their ignorant/naive, gullible, believers of their lies, as he and Netanyahu setting about bringing the 1967 War to an “end,” with the final solution to be that advocated and recorded by Netanyahu’s father; to complete the ethnic cleansing of Palestine of Arab Palestinians, leaving the land solely for what was visualized by the Right, Israel’s and the U.S.’, as the Jewish Fascist State of Israel (without that political descriptor included).
With this as Trump’s Greatest War, with him guilty as a full collaborator of all the war crimes this entails! And necessitating my willing concession that Trump did represent the “end of the Neocons,” by completing the transition of the U.S. to a full embrace of “Fascist” ideology, as part of the “fascist network” Netanyahu was building through various illicit means, of which Trump had been a beneficiary. And so-called “anti-Trumpers” enabled and facilitated it every step of the way by propagating the deception that it was Putin and Russia who got Trump elected, as if willfully concealing that it was in fact the fascist Netanyahu, the Israeli/US Right, and multifarious Israeli “intelligence” operators who did in fact get Trump elected (with generous help from the Democratic Party’s right-wing establishment promoting a Trumpian NY counterpart, that no one outside her party wanted as POTUS as even the NYT revealed her corruption just before the 2016 election). So every time a “New Rightist,” and a pro-war “anti-Trumper,” opens their mouth, or writes a line propagating their lies, the only correct response is to say: You Lie! And if the scales ever fall from our eyes, maybe we can restore “real political participation” to the people in this country (it"s called democracy), and pillory the pro-war fanatics who always “rise to the top,” as similar material does in septic systems.
JERUSALEM -- U.S. President Donald Trump’s first days in office have coincided with the largest Israeli settlement expansion since 2013. Seemingly encouraged by the changes in Washington, Israel has approved more than 3,000 new units in the occupied West Bank, and it's just the beginning. This week's announcements were just "a taste" of what's to come, Netanyahu told the Knesset Wednesday, taking questions from lawmakers. "We are going to be doing many things differently from now on," he said. "Surrounded by a group of advisers with close ties to the settlement movement, Trump's administration declared last year that it did not consider the settlements to be illegal under international law. Then, in January, he unveiled a Mideast plan that envisions placing large parts of the West Bank, including all of the settlements, under permanent Israeli control."
"Prime Minister Naftali Bennett cited then-US President Donald Trump's recognition in 2019 of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan and no sign that his successor, Joe Biden, intends to reverse the decision, as factors behind a multi-million-dollar housing and infrastructure plan for the area."
BLUF: "President Donald Trump has effectively backed Israel’s right to build West Bank settlements by abandoning a long-held U.S. position that they break international law.
"He also has won Israeli praise and drawn Palestinian anger by recognising contested Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the U.S. Embassy there. U.S.-backed peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians broke down in 2014."
Trump-era spike in Israeli settlement growth has only begun
BLUF: " Trump took unprecedented steps to support Israel’s territorial claims, including recognizing Jerusalem as its capital and moving the U.S. Embassy there. His Mideast plan, which overwhelmingly favored Israel, was adamantly rejected by the Palestinians."Trump’s Mideast team was led by prominent supporters of the settlements and maintained close ties to settlement leaders throughout his tenure."
EFRAT, West Bank (AP) — An aggressive Israeli settlement spree during the Trump era pushed deeper than ever into the occupied West Bank — territory the Palestinians seek for a state — with over 9,000 homes built and thousands more in the pipeline, an AP investigation showed. If left unchallenged by the Biden administration, the construction boom could make fading hopes for an internationally backed two-state solution — Palestine alongside Israel — even more elusive. Satellite images and data obtained by The Associated Press document for the first time the full impact of the policies of then-President Donald Trump, who abandoned decades-long U.S. opposition to the settlements and proposed a Mideast plan that would have allowed Israel to keep them all — even those deep inside the West Bank. Although the Trump plan has been scrapped, the lasting legacy of construction will make it even harder to create a viable Palestinian state. President Joe Biden’s administration supports the two-state solution but has given no indication on how it plans to promote it. The huge number of projects in the pipeline, along with massive development of settlement infrastructure, means Biden would likely need to rein in Israel to keep the two-state option alive. While Biden has condemned settlement activity, U.S. officials have shown no appetite for such a clash as they confront more urgent problems. These include the coronavirus crisis, tensions with China and attempting to revive the international nuclear deal with Iran — another major sticking point with Israel. At the same time, Israel will likely continue to be led by a settlement hawk. In the wake of yet another inconclusive Israeli election, either Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or one of his right-wing challengers is poised to head the government, making a construction slowdown improbable. Hanan Ashrawi, a veteran Palestinian spokeswoman, called the Trump administration a “partner in crime” with Netanyahu. She said Biden would have to go beyond traditional condemnations and take “very serious steps of accountability” to make a difference. “It needs a bit of courage and backbone and willingness to invest,” she said. According to Peace Now, an anti-settlement watchdog group, Israel built over 9,200 new homes in the West Bank during the Trump presidency. On an annual average, that was roughly a 28% increase over the level of construction during the Obama administration, which pressed Israel to rein in building. Perhaps even more significant was the location of the construction. According to Peace Now, 63% of the homes built last year were in outlying settlements that would likely be evacuated in any peace agreement. Over 10% of the construction in recent years took place in isolated outposts that are not officially authorized, but quietly encouraged by the Israeli government. “What we’re seeing is the ongoing policy of de facto annexation,” said Hagit Ofran, a Peace Now researcher. “Israel is doing its utmost to annex the West Bank and to treat it as if it’s part of Israel without leaving a scope for a Palestinian state.” Israel has also laid the groundwork for a massive construction boom in the years to come, advancing plans for 12,159 settler homes in 2020. That was the highest number since Peace Now started collecting data in 2012. It usually takes one to three years for construction to begin after a project has been approved. Unlike his immediate predecessors, who largely confined settlement construction to major blocs that Israel expects to keep in any peace agreement, Netanyahu has encouraged construction in remote areas deep inside the West Bank, further scrambling any potential blueprint for resolving the conflict. Settler advocates have repeatedly said that it would take several years for Trump’s support to manifest in actual construction. Peace Now said that trend is now in its early stages and expected to gain steam. “2020 was really the first year where everything that was being built was more or less because of what was approved at the beginning of the Trump presidency,” said Peace Now spokesman Brian Reeves. “It’s the settlement approvals that are actually more important than construction.” Israel captured the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip — territories the Palestinians want for their future state — in the 1967 Mideast war. It withdrew from Gaza in 2005 but has cemented its control over east Jerusalem — which it unilaterally annexed — and the West Bank. Nearly 500,000 Israeli settlers live in some 130 settlements and dozens of unauthorized outposts, according to official figures. That amounts to roughly 15% of the total population in the West Bank. In addition, over 200,000 Jewish Israelis live in east Jerusalem, which is also home to over 300,000 Palestinians. The Biden administration says it is opposed to any actions by Israel or the Palestinians that harm peace efforts. “We believe, when it comes to settlement activity, that Israel should refrain from unilateral steps that exacerbate tensions and that undercut efforts to advance a negotiated two-state solution,” State Department spokesman Ned Price said this month. Continued settlement growth could meanwhile bolster the case against Israel at the International Criminal Court, which launched an investigation into possible war crimes in the Palestinian territories last month. Israel appears to be vulnerable on the settlement issue because international law forbids the transfer of civilians into lands seized by force. Israel and its Western allies have rejected it as baseless and biased. Israel is not a member of the court, but any potential ICC warrants could put Israeli officials at risk of arrest abroad. ___ UNPRECEDENTED SUPPORT The settlements are scattered across the West Bank, running the gamut from small hilltop clusters of tents and mobile homes to full-fledged towns with residential neighborhoods, shopping malls and in one case, a university. Every Israeli government has presided over the expansion of settlements, even at the height of the peace process in the 1990s. The Palestinians view the settlements as a violation of international law and an obstacle to peace, a position with wide international support. Israel considers the West Bank to be the historical and biblical heartland of the Jewish people and says any partition should be agreed on in negotiations. The two sides have not held serious talks in more than a decade, in part because the Palestinians view the continued expansion of settlements as a sign of bad faith. Trump took unprecedented steps to support Israel’s territorial claims, including recognizing Jerusalem as its capital and moving the U.S. Embassy there. His Mideast plan, which overwhelmingly favored Israel, was adamantly rejected by the Palestinians. Trump’s Mideast team was led by prominent supporters of the settlements and maintained close ties to settlement leaders throughout his tenure. He remains popular in Efrat, a built-up settlement in the rolling hills south of Jerusalem that is expanding toward the north into the outskirts of the Palestinian city of Bethlehem. “You keep using the term settlement,” said Moti Kellner, a retiree who has lived in the area since 1986. “Walk around, does this look like something that’s a camp, with tents and settling? It’s a city!” He described Trump’s policies as “very good, if they’re not overturned.” Efrat’s mayor, Oded Revivi, says Trump’s legacy can be seen more in the increased approval of projects than in actual construction. “When Trump got elected, the table was basically empty, with no building plans which were approved,” he said. More importantly, he credits Trump with accepting the legitimacy of settlements, “instead of battling with the reality that has been created on the ground.” ___ THE FEAR OF LOSING YOUR PLACE Thousands of Palestinians work in the settlements, where wages are much higher than in areas administered by the Palestinian Authority, and on a personal basis, many get along well with their Jewish employers and co-workers. “We do know how to live alongside one another, we do know how to build a peaceful relationship,” says Revivi. But most Palestinians view the growth of settlements as a slow and steady encroachment — not only on their hopes for a state, but on their immediate surroundings. As the years roll by, they watch as the gated settlements spill down hillsides, roads are closed or diverted, and terraced olive groves and spring-fed valleys come to feel like hostile territory. Most Palestinians in the West Bank live in cities like Ramallah, Bethlehem, Nablus and Hebron, which are administered by the Palestinian Authority under interim peace agreements signed in the 1990s. Those cities are all largely surrounded by settlements, settlement infrastructure and closed military zones. Hebron has a Jewish settlement in the heart of its Old City. Palestinians know to steer clear of settlements. Farmers who tend lands near them risk being beaten or pelted with rocks by the so-called Hilltop Youth and other Jewish extremists. Rights groups have documented dozens of attacks in recent months and say the Israeli military often turns a blind eye. Palestinians have also carried out attacks inside settlements, including the killing of a mother of six who was out jogging in December. Around a kilometer (mile) north of Efrat, in an area administered by the PA, is a cultural and historical site popularly known as Solomon’s Pools, a network of spring-fed stone reservoirs and canals with ruins dating back more than 2,000 years. Every few months, dozens of settlers — escorted by Israeli troops — break into the site and force out Palestinian visitors or renovation workers, according to George Bossous, CEO of the company that manages the site and an adjacent convention center. “You always fear that you are losing more and more of your place,” he said. “To live together means you need to take care of everyone and give rights for all.” Fatima Brijiyah heads the local council in al-Masara, a Palestinian village southeast of Efrat. The 70-year-old grandmother remembers wandering its hills in her youth, when she and her brother would ride on their father’s donkey when he went to fetch water from a nearby well. The well is still there, but she says it’s too close to the settlement for Palestinians to visit it safely. “You feel the pain of not being able to go there now, even just to look,” she said. “You feel that everything about the occupation is wrong.” ___ POINT OF NO RETURN? Some critics say the U.S. focus on managing the conflict instead of resolving it has led to a point of no return. They say that there are so many settlements across the West Bank that it is impossible to create a viable Palestinian state. Others argue that Israel has become a single apartheid state in which millions of Palestinians are denied basic rights afforded to Jews. Peace Now says that — at least in a logistical sense — a partition deal remains possible. Under a two-state solution based on past proposals, up to 80% of the settlers could stay where they are. Many of the largest settlements are close to the 1967 lines and could be incorporated into Israel in mutually agreed land swaps. That means at least 100,000 Jewish settlers, and likely more, would have to relocate or live inside a Palestinian state. Some 2 million Palestinians live inside Israel, where they have citizenship, including the right to vote. “From a logistical standpoint, it’s very possible,” Reeves said. “From a political standpoint, that’s where the trick is.” Most experts agree that a negotiated two-state solution would require an Israeli government with a mandate to make historic concessions, a united Palestinian leadership able to do the same and a powerful external mediator like the U.S. that could strong-arm both sides. None of those three elements exist now or will in the foreseeable future. Israelis are deeply divided over Netanyahu’s leadership, but a strong majority appears to support the settlements and are opposed to a Palestinian state. Those voters back right-wing parties that won 72 seats in the 120-member Knesset last month. The Palestinians are geographically and political divided between the Western-backed Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and the Islamic militant group Hamas ruling the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians have not held a vote in more than 15 years, and elections planned for the coming months could be called off. The last five U.S. presidents have tried and failed to resolve the conflict. The Obama administration scolded Israel over its settlements, while Trump unabashedly supported them. Neither made any headway in resolving the conflict with the Palestinians. Biden, who has devoted much of his nearly 50-year political career to foreign policy, knows this well. His administration has signaled it hopes to manage the conflict, not resolve it. “The question is, can there be momentum? There won’t be peace, but can there be momentum in these next four to eight years?” Reeves said. “If there is, then I think a two-state solution is very much alive. If there’s not, and there’s another 100,000 settlers added, it just makes it that much harder to make peace.” ___ Associated Press writers Jon Gambrell in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Moshe Edri in Efrat Settlement and Jelal Hassan in al-Masara, West Bank, contributed.
-- Salon mailing list Salon@listserve.comhttps://mlm2.listserve.net/mailman/listinfo/salon
Salon mailing list
Salon@listserve.com
https://mlm2.listserve.net/mailman/listinfo/salon
|