Selective criticism and ulterior motives

Israel’s recent demolition of five Palestinian dwellings near South Hebron, three of which were funded by the European Union, seems to have attracted a sliver of international attention, particularly in Washington. Given the increase in retaliatory practices against the people of Palestine, it is highly likely that the prominence attached to this human rights violation is due more to EU funding of the structures, rather than genuine concern about the 27 Palestinians displaced by Israel’s criminal action.

In its communication about the incident, the US State Department deemed the demolitions to be “provocative”. Spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau used a departmental briefing to declare, “We remain concerned about the increased demolition of Palestinian structures in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which reportedly have left dozens of Palestinians homeless, including children.”

Euractiv, which published Trudeau’s comments, also referenced B’Tselem, which stated that the 27 displaced Palestinians had been subjected to previous home demolitions. According to the organisation, 740 Palestinians have been displaced since the start of this year.

Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah added his voice to the criticism by regurgitating his demand for “the international community to step in and stop Israel’s ongoing violations of international law.” Like those before it, his plea fell on deaf ears.

It is clear that selectivity continues to direct US criticism of Israel. In this case, it was only the identity of the donor — the EU — which prompted the US to issue a statement against the demolitions. The reaction is reminiscent of the short-lived indignation created by the “Squandered Aid” report issued by the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor; that also detailed Israeli contempt for EU funding, as well as Europe’s complacency in the wake of destruction.

Hence, it is not only the reluctance to hold Israel accountable, but also the imperialist narrative in directing criticism that leads to intentionally-flawed decision-making. If one takes into consideration that Israel’s existence is predetermined and sustained by external impositions, it follows that US criticism serves as a veneer for both EU and Israeli prominence with regards to their contribution towards the human rights violations of Palestinians.

The EU’s construction of dwellings, especially in light of the report which clearly portrayed the cycle of exploitation and abuse, should be read as nothing other than cannon fodder for Israel. Any talk of alleviating Palestinian misery in this regard is erroneous. The constructed dwellings provided Palestinians with a brief period of shelter and the EU with a veneer of benevolence. For the US, the repetitive cycle constitutes an opportunity for perfunctory criticism, diverting attention away from other political issues such as the country’s military aid to Israel and the latter’s continued colonial expansion.

So heightened are the repercussions of alienation, with headlines reporting US criticism of Israel as something resembling a milestone, that there is no effort to even mediate an illusion about Israel’s ongoing settlement building. Rather than raise the issue from a historical perspective at an international level, the media has opted to facilitate ambiguity. International attention has followed suit, bolstered as always by the separation between the early colonisation manifestations and 1967.

The issue is not how the US has increased its hypocrisy by criticising Israel in order to draw attention to the EU’s slighted generosity rather than Palestinian suffering. It is the collective effort initiated by the US in terms of misplacing political attention and solidarity, to the extent that the 27 displaced Palestinians are perceived as a consequence, rather than an integral component of Palestine’s ongoing dispossession.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.