Open Letter to Dr. Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to UN
This is in reaction to
the New York Times report on Feb. 19, A 4 entitled “Lone ‘No’
Vote by U.S. Blocks Security Council Censure of Israeli Settlements”
Summarily, the Obama administration vetoed a UN Security Council resolution
calling for a halt to Israeli settlement building in occupied territory and
condemning the settlements as illegal, choosing not to alienate Israel over
the resolution.
To: Dr. Susan E. Rice, United
States Ambassador to the United Nations
From: Professor Daniel C. Maguire, Marquette University
Date: February 25, 2011
Dear Dr. Rice:
A criticism and a comment:
"Settlement" is, as you know, a euphemism for expropriation of Palestinian
property. Your casting that vote to veto the Security Council Censure of these
ongoing ethnic cleansings when all other members of the Council voted for it
and when there were 100 co-sponsors among other nations is not a vote you will
remember with pride. It is also not a vote that serves American interests. Yours
is the latest in a long line of American officials bowing to Israeli and AIPAC
pressure and sacrificing the national interest of the United States.
The price we pay for that subservience is high. As the Congressional report
on 9/11 said, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed cited our biased support of Israeli policies
as a motive for the 9/11 attack. That is a high price to pay and Homeland Security
experts say we will pay it again. Even Dick Cheney has cited our kind of support
of Israel policies as one of the "true sources of resentment" against
us, a point also made by General Petraeus. Your vote endangered us and our soldiers.
Resignation before casting such a vote would be honorable.
Your vote also does not serve Israel's interests since it breeds more resentment
against both Israel and the United States. That resentment will certainly find
violent expression in an age where non-state actors enjoy the trinity of advantages
of guerillas: invisibility, versatility (in micro-weaponry etc.), and patience.
To see your vote in context, do read University of Texas historian Geoffrey
Wawro's encyclopedic book QUICKSAND; AMERICA'S PURSUIT OF POWER IN THE MIDDLE
EAST (Penguin, 2010)
A constructive suggestion: your office, in responding to current movements for
reform in the Middle East, including in Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem,
should note the power of non-violent resistance, as opposed to merely decrying
violence. In Gene Sharp's trilogy he chronicles 198 examples of the successes
of non-violent resistance. Professor Walter Wink notes that "nonviolent
general strikes have overthrown at least seven Latin American dictators."
India was freed by Gandhi nonviolently at a loss of only eight thousand lives:
Algeria was freed from the French violently at a cost of one million lives.
Do the math. If you don't cite the effectiveness and track record of nonviolent
resistance you suggest that the choices are between violence and passivity.
I fully suspect that if I made these points about our one-sided uncritical support
of Likud ambitions to you or to President Obama in private you would both agree.
That saddens me. When courage is wed to ingenuity, marvels can occur. I look
for that.
Professor Daniel C. Maguire
Marquette University
daniel.maguire@marquette.edu