America covers the war on Gaza with mercurial positions

By Abdul Wahab Badrakhan

At the moment of writing this article, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was repeating in another press conference that the President of the Palestinian Authority has not yet condemned the Hamas attack, and that this authority does not fight terrorism but rather funds it, and does not raise Palestinian generations for peace but rather to “remove Israel.” Therefore, this authority cannot return to Gaza and be relied upon to manage the Strip “unless it is changed.”

Moreover, Netanyahu went on to consider that allowing the Palestine Liberation Organization to return to Palestine was the “biggest mistake” committed in the “Oslo Accords.” The maximum position that President Mahmoud Abbas could declare was to condemn “the killing of civilians on both sides,” which is what most countries of the world have adopted and what could be proven in international resolutions or draft resolutions, after the occupation forces had begun bombing operations, deliberately mass killing civilians in the Gaza Strip, and not especially children and women, with the intention of disrupting hospitals and tightening the siege to deprive the population of water, food, medicine, electricity, the Internet and shelter.

Israelis do not have the right to talk about the “education” that Palestinian children receive, as they live the ongoing tragedy, generation after generation, throughout Palestine, and not all of them are involved in armed resistance. Rather, there is a generation of them who grew up hoping for a “normal life,” but they see with their own eyes brutality of the occupation's practices and crimes block their horizons. On the other hand, they see that all generations of the other people on his land are camped. When International Children's Day finally came (November 20, 2023), international reports said that five children were being killed every hour in Gaza, while a tape prepared for the occasion was broadcast of Israeli girls singing: “Israeli fighters are bombing, destruction, destruction / There will be nothing else left.” “We will eliminate them within a whole year.” The song was an expression of spreading hatred and what Israeli “education” instils in the minds of its children. Criticisms later prompted Israel to delete it from all websites.

Before Netanyahu appeared alone at the press conference, saying that his Defense Minister Yoav Galant did not want to appear with him, the US Vice President was giving a statement in Dubai (on the sidelines of her participation in the COP 28 conference) about what were considered the main goals of Washington upon the “end” of the war on Gaza. That is, the American administration continues to support the war and the Israeli goals, but it deceives international public opinion that it is trying to stop it through truces of exchanging prisoners and hostages, or perhaps it is trying to express its despair about the possibility of convincing Israel to “correct” this war to be “more respectful” of international humanitarian law. After the United States was quick to “absolutely support” Israel, it was late in trying to tame its brutality, assuming that it was sincere.

When Secretary Anthony Blinken said that the Israelis would make an effort to “avoid civilians,” he immediately added that America still supports “Israel’s right to defend itself,” and the second statement denies the first. Hours ago, the New York Times had revealed the existence of documents confirming that the plan for the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation was in the possession of the military and intelligence agencies a year before its implementation, wondering, of course, why this information was neglected. The moment Blinken was issuing his ambiguous “reassurances” to Gazan civilians, seven hundred of them had been killed or wounded with the collapse of the truce and renewed Israeli bombing. At the same time, the American media began announcing several things: 

First, that Washington had provided Israel with a shipment of penetrating bombs that it needed in its upcoming operations (so how will it spare civilians). 

Secondly, Israel intends to create a “buffer zone” in the Gaza Strip (this is a deduction from Gaza’s territory). 

Third, the genius of Ron Dermer (Netanyahu’s strategic advisor) came up with a plan to displace the Palestinians of Gaza by sea to other countries, as if he had been inspired by the biblical “Book of Exodus” or the incident of ships transporting European Jews (in 1947) to the land of Palestine.

What Blinken does not say explicitly is clarified by John Kirby (National Security Council spokesman), and from what he said is that the administration has not evaluated the Israeli military approach and that it is “in principle against reducing the territory of the Gaza Strip,” but it “supports Israel’s right to defend itself.” 

This insistence on supporting this “right” implies American disdain for everything that has been said over the past weeks about the contradiction between the occupation and its “right” to defend and expand the occupation. As for Vice President Kamala Harris, she used the same American cylinder and added that Israel has “a legitimate right to carry out military operations against Hamas, which launched attacks against it,” but “international humanitarian law must be respected.” However, she did not specify who (other than Washington) decided that it did not respect it. Most of the world said that it “exceeded that right” and “committed war crimes,” and Pope Francis was even quoted as saying that “what is happening has gone beyond war and has become terrorism,” that is, “state terrorism.”

No one in the American administration utters the word “occupation,” but what is important is that the Vice President presented what are supposed to be “principled” and “official” American positions with which Washington deals with all parties concerned with the crisis, with the exception of Israel. However, these are positions after the “end of the war,” and do not take into account that the war may lead to results that force Washington to change its positions, in the interest of Israel.

Harris said that the United States “urges Israel to make greater efforts to protect civilians” (knowing in advance that it has not and will not do so), and that it “demands that the combat zone be narrowed during any attack in southern Gaza and that safe areas be designated for civilians” (but just access to the south means impossibility of any safe area to exist). She also said that Washington “will not allow the forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank” (but no one sees the Israeli bombing as an encouragement for residents to stay, but rather as an insistence on uprooting them from their homes and forcibly displacing them), and that it “wants to see the West Bank and Gaza united under the Palestinian Authority.” After strengthening its security forces” (Netanyahu did not delay in responding, rejecting the return of authority to Gaza, and he already opposes the unification of the West Bank and Gaza)...

Which one can be believed here: the actual Israeli displacement or the American verbal rejection of displacement, and does Washington distinguish “forced displacement” (considered a war crime according to international law) from “voluntary displacement” to Arab or African countries so that it can then be presented as “more humane” than murder? This mercurial American stance aims only to cover up Israeli crimes, and it becomes clear every day that what is said about “disagreements” between Israel and Washington is just “nonsense,” as the latter is committed to supporting the war and it is not possible to pull Israel out of a criminal war like this and into a “peaceful political process.”

spource: Annahar