A STUDY IN HYPOCRISY

Perhaps the biggest story in the world this week has been that of heightening tensions, or so it appears, between Israel and the US.
One might say that it all began a couple of weeks ago when US Vice President Joe Biden visited Israel and authorities there, quite embarassingly so for the staunch pro-Israel Biden, announced expansion of settlement plans in Jerusalem. Although Israel tried to diffuse the situation, unconvincingly admitting that Jerusalem authorities had erred in giving that statement, the situation has not gotten any better.
Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu has been in Washington trying to deflect the criticism, but reportedly left an unhappy man after a 90-minute closed door meeting with Obama on Tuesday. It was of course the same Netanyahu who had earlier rebuffed Washington and anti-settlement sentiments saying bluntly before the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee that "Jerusalem is not a settlement. It's our capital".
Netanyahu was also in the news proclaiming that peace in the Middle East could not be imposed from outside.
Hilary Clinton warned Israel against any further Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory as it undermined prospects for Middle East peace negotiations. She also had what she hoped were strong words for Israel saying "As Israel’s friend, it is our responsibility to give credit when it is due and to tell the truth when it is needed."
The truth was that new construction in East Jerusalem or the West Bank undermined "mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks (between Israel and Palestine) that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides want and need."
Clinton also regretted that the settlements undermined "America's unique ability to play an essential role…in the peace process."
For those that have known the US and their Western relations for their "noble" intentions and their disinclination to spare the rod for erring nations of the world, the Clinton/Netanyahu subplot rather gives more than lessons enough in Western hypocrisy.
Forget for a moment that the US has protected the Apartheid State for over half a century since Israel was created on Palestinian soil and apparently won the right to become the regional bully.
The truth that is needed, which Clinton or any pretender of her kind was not saying is that in building settlements on occupied land Israel is behaving criminally, compounding its decades-old apartheid criminality.
Another home truth is the fact that America itself has no credible role, less so an essential one, as Clinton would have it, to play mediator between Israel and Palestine. It has been party to the criminal subjugation and bullying of not only the latter, but also the whole region especially countries like Lebanon, Syria and Iran. As a matter of fact, Clinton who has diabolically threatened to wipe Iran off the face of the earth, told Aipac that the US was working towards the imposition of sanctions that would bite, according to reports.
That does it: Clinton is not only a liar but also a hypocrite, and that grotesque evil is emblematic of Western unipolarism. l In a word, the Obama administration pseudo-anger at Netanyahu and his company of rightists is just a public relations makeover.
One could equate that to Britain’s so-called spat with Israel over the use of cloned British passports by Israeli intelligence to eliminate a Hamas leader in Dubai. In their view, there seems to be nothing wrong about the nefarious acts of building on occupied land or killing a Palestinian freedom fighter.
Only that in public light, which is critical for a modicum of decency, the two did not appear noble. Juxtapose Israel and Zimbabwe and the hypocrisy of America and her allies is quite evident.
While the US says it has the "responsibility for giving credit where it is due", which they think they have done in half a century of Israeli bullying and apartheid, the US and its allies have actually bullied Zimbabwe at a time when the rest of the world have supported it.
On the other hand, while the West continues with a punitive economic sanctions regime in Zimbabwe, saying that the GPA is yet to be fulfilled, it is a slap on the wrist for Israel when the latter undermines and endangers the peace initiative.
Just as it complements the oft criminal Israeli State by threatening to annihilate its opponents, the US supports overthrow politics in Zimbabwe and discourages its neighbours from helping it.

It is in light of this that the continued efforts of South Africa in particular and Africa at large, are critical in resolving the challenges Zimbabwe faces, which have largely been created and abetted by the West.
There is a compelling basis for this.
Just as Netanyahu would say the key to Middle East peace lies in the region and not from outside, African problems are best left to Africans.
The reason is simple: we share a lot in common to understand each other well. Some of these coefficients are our languages and culture and the struggle against Western imperialism.
Thus any Zimbabwean could understand the revolutionary Ayesaba amagwala (The cowards are afraid), and the "Shoot the Boer, shoot the killer…/Shoot the racist" lyrics chanted by young Malema. For whatever outcry, most of it unwarranted, this is statement enough that African people are averse to oppression, exploitation and racism. South African involvement in Zimbabwe stems from this background and it is up to Zimbabwe to complement this brotherly intervention and overcome problems at home and turn their attention to the outside enemy.
Here is hoping that, in the words of a particular politician this week, "the demon of darkness will not visit our negotiators" during the ongoing deliberations to find closure of GPA issues.
Zimbabwe has bigger issues to confront, and the dyspareunia in the threesome act called the inclusive Government is, though somewhat understandable, as unfortunate and better gone.

It is encouraging to note that our principals seem to share a lot in common by the day.
On Thursday it was PM Tsvangirai adding his voice to that of President Mugabe against the so-called "gay rights".
It had been the fear of course that his party could be used to smuggle this unpalatable issue of homosexuals/ngochani or istabane into the supreme law of the land.
Agreed, there is absolutely no reason why a man should dream of breathing in the ear of another man when there are a lot fairer beings around.
We also strongly note PM Tsvangirai’s stance on the illegal sanctions imposed on the country.
He told Norwegian State Secretary on Thursday: "The response from the international community is one which confirms the scepticism about Zimbabwe but its high time we move away from that scepticism by rewarding the progress made by the inclusive Government."
Well meaning but rather poorly said.
It appears PM has unfortunately internalised that the West, by which he meant by "international community", should police events in Zimbabwe and ‘‘reward’’ or punish our leaders.
The truth of the matter is that Zimbabwe does not need any paternalistic intervention from the West much less illegal sanctions designed to scuttle indigenous ownership of resources.
Western paternalism, which borders on racism, is the root of the ills that Africa currently faces and the sooner Africans, including PM Tsvangirai, learn to condemn it the better.
Meanwhile, we hear that PM has summoned Minister Chombo over MDC-T’s rogue councillors in Chitungwiza.
Interesting, is it not?
How could the premier for his avowed love for the rule of law want to subvert the same by bringing his party issues to Government?
Looks like we are missing something, but we surely did not see any inquiries before the "corrupt" officers were dismissed en masse last month?
Yet the newfound usefulness of Chombo by the premier does not seem to be informed by the best of intentions.
One can imagine the cries of blue murder if Chombo had taken the initiative.

There is no doubt about the hope that has been raised by the coming to life of ZMC.
We even notice that in anticipation of the return of the belligerent Daily News, Nyarota’s Zimbabwe Times Internet outfit has been re-christened "The Daily News."
And we had a feel of what freedom of speech is like in those who in the name of plurality and freedom of speech support the likes of Daily News.
Said someone in response to a story on the site: ‘‘My advice to you is, DON’T post anything to this site on Zimbabwe UNLESS you see things from MDC-T’s perspective, lest you be eaten alive.
Any analysis of Zimbabwean politics on this site MUST be concluded with praise for the MDC-T, AND bashing of ZANU-PF and Robert Mugabe if one is not going to be subjected to verbal abuse, like you’ve just received for this post…"

We were not surprised the British Parliament's so-called Africa All-party Group said in its latest report, "Land in Zimbabwe: Past Mistakes, Future Prospects", claimed that Britain never made nor betrayed any promises on land reform made at Lancaster House.
The group says "The narrative that Britain ‘betrayed’ its promises at Lancaster House plays not only an active role, but an actively destructive role in the present politics of Zimbabwe" We are told the group consulted widely and "some of the most interesting evidence of all" came from Zanu-PF and the Zimbabwean embassy in London to the effect that there was no deal that the UK would provide funds to pay for land reform.
"It is true that both Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo sought commitments on land reform...but the UK had to broker a deal between Ian Smith and his regime’s military on the one hand and the liberation movements on the other hand, and there was no agreement on land," the "researchers" said in the report presented in Parliament by Hugh Bayley, Labour (Please Note) MP for City of York.
We are told that the All-Party Parliamentary Group had chosen to investigate this subject because the violence from farm invasions has destroyed the livelihoods of 200 000 farm workers and halved the commercial agricultural output of Zimbabwe, and because of concern that UK policy is misunderstood in Africa as the UK having reneged on its promise made during the Lancaster House talks.
The group concluded that Zimbabwe’s fast-track land reform is illegal and that Britain ‘‘therefore need to bring back legal stability and a proper legal process to land ownership in countries such as Zimbabwe, to enable investment for the future so that productive capacity can be restored."
Fine words, but underlain with dishonesty.
First and foremost, is the fact that Britain DID undertake to fund land reform in Zimbabwe, which they duly did until Claire Short’s letter renouncing that obligation, saying that for her part, her country was once a British colony.
Her New Labour Government, where Bayley hails from, distanced itself from the previous administration’s undertakings.
The Lancaster House talks only succeeded when Britain and USA promised explicitly to fund land reform in Zimbabwe — under the so-called willing buyer/willing seller — cognisant of the fact that land was the primary cause for war of liberation.
That is reflected in the offshoot constitution and the resultant bona fide actions of the governments, only to be reversed by Labour.
As a matter of fact, what APPG did was just another Claire Short hypocritically seasoned with lies about concerns for farm workers and productivity.
We are also not lost to the central characters in the attempt at rewriting of history, the Royal African Society.
We know specifically that this group has been instrumental in Britain’s imperialist designs in Zimbabwe, among other things holding consultations for the removal of President Mugabe and their part in the launch of the MDC in 1999 for that purpose.

first appeared in: The Herald