The Israeli Raid in Jericho: The Background

Foreign Policy In Focus, By John Gershman, Stephen Zunes | March 17, 2006
The origins of the March 14 Israeli raid of a Palestinian prison in Jericho are rooted in another Israeli raid on a Palestinian city in 2001. On August 27 of that year, Israeli occupation forces assaulted the offices of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) with a U.S.-supplied helicopter gunship and missiles. Their target was PFLP leader Abu Ali Mustafa, who was killed instantly. The PFLP vowed to retaliate… [source]

The Hamas Victory: Another Side to the Story

Foreign Policy In Focus, February 6, 2006
By John Gershman, Stephen Zunes [source]
Lost amidst the predictably negative reaction to the victory by Hamas in the Palestinian parliamentary elections is the crucial role that the U.S. government had in bringing the radical Islamist group to power. Both Congress and the Bush administration are on record insisting that Hamas’ virulent anti-Israel stance and the history of terrorist activities by its armed wing, the Al Qassam Brigades, gives Israel the right to refuse to engage or negotiate with the Palestinians. However, Israel had already suspended peace talks nearly five years ago…

U.S. Undermines Israeli Doves in their Quest for Peace

National Catholic Reporter, Jan. 20, 2006, by Stephen Zunes [source]
With national elections scheduled for the end of March, much attention is being given to the political direction Israeli voters will take their country in the post-Sharon era. During Israel’s last election in January 2003, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon defeated Labor Party leader Amram Mitzna, who had pledged to support a withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from the bulk of the occupied territories in exchange for security guarantees on terms quite close to proposals made by the Palestinian delegation…

Don’t Blame Israel

Alternet January 14, 2006, by Stephen Zunes [source]
The official rationales for the U.S. invasion of Iraq are now widely acknowledged to have been fabricated: that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction threatening the national security of the United States and that the Iraqi government had operational ties to al Quaida. As the backup rationalization — bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq — loses credibility, increasing attention is being given as to why the U.S. government, with broad bipartisan support, made such a fateful decision. There are a number of plausible explanations…

The U.S. Invasion of Iraq: Not the Fault of Israel and Its Supporters

Foreign Policy In Focus, January 3, 2006
By John Gershman, Stephen Zunes [source]
Also in Alternet as “Don’t Blame Israel” January 14
As the official rationales for the U.S. invasion of Iraq—that Iraq possessed “weapons of mass destruction” which threatened the national security of the United States and that the Iraqi government had operational ties to al-Qaida—are now widely acknowledged to have been fabricated, and the back-up rationalization—of bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq—is also losing credibility, increasing attention is being given as to why the U.S. government, with broad bipartisan support, made such a fateful decision.

Democracy and Double Standards: The Palestinian “Exception”

Foreign Policy In Focus, December 22, 2005
By John Gershman, Stephen Zunes [source]
At a time of year when Jews and Christians are celebrating the spirit of justice and peace inspired by events in the Holy Land many centuries ago, Congress has been working to ensure that the Holy Land of today experiences neither. Just prior to the Christmas recess, a bipartisan resolution in the House of Representatives and a letter signed by 73 of 100 Senators put Congress on record that the U.S. government, despite rhetoric to the contrary, does not take Middle Eastern democracy too seriously…

Defense of Israeli Assassination Policy by the Bush Administration and Democratic Leaders

Foreign Policy In Focus, Oct. 2, 2005
By John Gershman, Stephen Zunes [source]
The U.S. veto of a proposed UN Security Council resolution criticizing Israel’s March 22 assassination of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin has once again placed the United States both on the fringe of international public opinion and in opposition to international legal norms. Despite the proposed resolution condemning “all attacks against civilians,” the United States once again was the lone dissenting vote, marking the 28 th time since 1970 that the U.S. has blocked a Security Council resolution criticizing the actions of its most important Middle Eastern ally…

The Peace Process Between Israel and Syria

Foreign Policy in Focus/Institute for Policy Studies,
October 4, 2005
, by Stephen Zunes [Source]
Key Points
* The U.S. role as a superpower with strong strategic and economic interests in the region often conflicts with its role as mediator in the Israeli-Syrian peace process.
* Syria has moderated its once-belligerent posture toward the Israelis and is now closer to accepting the existence of Israel and living in peace, particularly if the Palestinians are allowed a viable state alongside Israel.
* The United States has maintained its strong support for Israel’s negotiating position, even though Israel now takes a more hard-line posture than its autocratic neighbor.

The Release of Mordechai Vanunu and U.S. Complicity in the Development of Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal

Foreign Policy In Focus, Oct. 2, 2005
By John Gershman & Stephen Zunes [source]
The recent release on April 22 of Mordechai Vanunu from an Israeli prison provides an opportunity to challenge the U.S. policy of supporting Israel ’s development of nuclear weapons while threatening war against other Middle Eastern states for simply having the potential for developing such weaponry. Vanunu, a nuclear technician at Israel ’s Dimona nuclear plant, passed along photographs he had taken inside the plant to the Sunday Times of London in 1986. His evidence demonstrated that Israel had developed up to two hundred nuclear weapons of a highly advanced design, making it the world’s sixth-largest nuclear power…

Congress Overwhelmingly Endorses Ariel Sharon’s Annexation Plans

Foreign Policy In Focus, Oct. 1, 2005
By John Gershman, Stephen Zunes [source]
On Wednesday, June 23, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives, in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, endorsed right-wing Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon’s efforts to colonize and annex large sections of the Palestinian West Bank, seized by Israel in the June 1967 war. This was not just another “pro-Israel” (or, more accurately, “pro-Israeli right”) resolution, but an effective renunciation of the post-World War II international system based upon the premise of the illegitimacy of the expansion of a country’s territory by military force…

Israeli Human Rights Abuses and the U.S. Attack on the United Nations and the NGO Community

By Foreign Policy In Focus and Common Dreams, June 30, 2005
By Stephen Zunes [source]
The Bush administration, like its predecessors, has frequently taken advantage of the idealism and values of the U.S. citizenry to justify foreign policies that most Americans would otherwise find morally unacceptable. The recent emphasis on justifying Washington’s imperial goals in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East in the name of spreading liberty and democracy is a case in point. The fact that the United States is the world’s principal supporter of autocratic Middle Eastern regimes is conveniently overlooked…

The U.S. Role in the Breakdown of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process

Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, May 1, 2005 By Stephen Zunes
In the time since the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks at Camp David in the summer of 2000 and the subsequent Palestinian uprising, details have emerged that challenge the Clinton administration’s insistence—reiterated by leaders of both the Democratic and Republican parties as well as by much of the mainstream media—that the Palestinians were responsible for the failure to reach a peace agreement and for much of the violence that has engulfed Israel and Palestine since then…

Arafat Was the Excuse, Not the Reason, for the Failure of the Peace Process

Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, November 11, 2004
by Stephen Zunes source
While there are many negative things one can say about the late Yasser Arafat, he was not the primary reason for the breakdown in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. At most, he was the excuse. This is not to say that Arafat did not make quite a number of stupid and unethical choices in his lengthy career which set back hopes for peace and badly hurt the Palestinian cause. In recent years, however, the late Palestinian leader?s negotiating position regarding the outstanding issues of the peace process?such as the extent of the Israeli withdrawal, the status of Jerusalem, and the fate of the settlements?was actually more moderate, more consistent with international law, and more in line with UN Security Council resolutions, the positions of America’s leading allies, and the policies of previous U.S. administrations than the current Israeli or American positions…

Presidential Election Offers Little Choice for Israeli-Arab Peace

Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, October 26, 2004
By Stephen Zunes [source link is no longer available]
    Earlier this month, in a widely quoted interview in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Dov Weisglass–Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s senior adviser–acknowledged what most independent observers have known all along: that the Israeli government is not actually interested in a peace agreement with the Syrian government or the Palestinian Authority. Israel has occupied the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip and the Syrian Golan Heights since these territories were seized by the Israeli armed forces in 1967, expelling thousands of Arabs and then colonizing these territories with Jewish settlers in contravention of international law…

Attacks Against World Court by Bush, Kerry and Congress Reveal Growing Bipartisan Hostility to International Law

Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, August 17, 2004
[source is no longer available]
On July 9, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) determined that the Israeli government’s construction of a separation wall running through the occupied Palestinian West Bank was illegal. Among other things, the ICJ noted that the construction of the first 125 miles of the proposed 450-mile barrier “has involved the confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land and resources, the disruption of the lives of the thousands of protected civilians and the de facto annexation of large areas of territory.” The court called on Israel to cease construction of the wall, to dismantle what has already been built in areas beyond Israel’s internationally recognized border, and to compensate Palestinians who have suffered losses as a result of the wall’s construction. The vote was 14-1, a not-unexpected margin…

Bush Endorsement of Sharon Proposal Undermines Peace and International Law

Foreign Policy In Focus, April 27, 2004
by Stephen Zunes [source is no longer available]
President George W. Bush’s unconditional endorsement of right-wing Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon’s disengagement plan constitutes a shocking reversal of longstanding U.S. Middle East policy and one of the most flagrant challenges to international law and the integrity of the United Nations system ever made by a U.S. president. By giving unprecedented backing for Israeli plans to annex large swaths of occupied Palestinian territories in the West Bank in order to incorporate illegal Jewish settlements, President Bush has effectively renounced UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which call on Israel — in return for security guarantees from its Arab neighbors — to withdraw from Palestinian territories seized in the June 1967 war…

More ‘Right’ on Israel Than Bush

Alternet by Stephen Zunes, December 24, 2003 [source]
The moment images of Saddam Hussein’s capture flashed across TV screens around the world, John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman jumped on the opportunity to lash out at Howard Dean for not supporting the war on Iraq, even as they congratulated the Bush White House for a job well done. It was not, however, the first time that the two Democratic candidates have attacked the former Vermont governor for being too “liberal” on foreign policy. Nor is Iraq the only issue where the Democratic leadership — and its anointed heirs — have revealed an unmistakably rightwing agenda. It is a less-known fact that when it comes to the Israel/Palestinian issue, the Democratic establishment is virtually indistinguishable from the Bush administration…

Israelis and Palestinians Attempt to Jumpstart the Peace Process Despite Washington’s Support for Sharon

By Stephen Zunes, Posted December 3, 2003
[source]
The peace plan signed in Geneva December 1 by leading Israeli and Palestinian political figures represents an important step forward. Former president Jimmy Carter who was present at the ceremony may be correct in noting that ‘It’s unlikely we shall ever see a more promising foundation for peace.’ Contrary to initial reports at the time and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat’s inept diplomacy notwithstanding, then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak’s peace proposal at Camp David in July 2000 did not actually provide the Palestinians with a viable independent state. President Bill Clinton’s amended proposal that December was more reasonable, but still fell short of what even moderate Palestinians could accept…