I never thought a day could come when I would agree with anything stated by Moshe Arens (three times an Israeli minister of defense, a one-time foreign minister, a former ambassador to the U.S. and, in my opinion, Zionism’s in-Israel equivalent of Richard “Prince of Darkness” Perle in America). But the day came.
On 31 August, in article for Ha’aretz with the headline Blame game on the horizon. Arens wrote the following about the nakedness of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as he was making his final preparations for the start of direct negotiations in Washington DC.
“He does not have the backing of all Palestinians, not even of most of them. As far as Hamas is concerned, he has no right to represent the Palestinians in the upcoming negotiations. Even in Judea and Samaria (the occupied West Bank to the rest of the world) the extent of the support he enjoys among Palestinians is questionable. But most important, he does not have the authority to carry out any agreement he might arrive at with Netanyahu. He is fully aware of this, and that is probably the explanation for his reluctance to enter the negotiations, to which he has been dragged, kicking and screaming every inch of the way, by the president of the United States… Abbas may or might not want to conclude a peace with Israel, but he cannot.”
That’s true but there’s much more to it. No Palestinian leader will ever be able to make peace with Israel on terms which do not provide for an end to its occupation of the West Bank (now in its 44th year) plus, of course, the ending of the blockade of the Gaza Strip.
On 30 August, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said he thought the most fundamental question of the moment was, “What kind of state does Mr. Netanyahu have in mind when he says ‘Palestinian state’?”
I assumed that was Fayyad’s way of saying, “We need to know the extent of withdrawal from our occupied land Netanyahu is prepared to make for peace.”
For me the most fundamental question of the coming days, weeks and months is what will President Obama do when it becomes clear that Netanyahu (or any likely successor) is not prepared to withdraw from all of the West Bank?
He, Obama, will have two options.
One will be to do what all American presidents with the exception of Eisenhower have always done and surrender to the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress and the mainstream media. In this event we could expect a statement from him to the effect that America can’t want peace more than the parties themselves. (I would be surprised if Obama did a Clinton and blamed the Palestinian leadership). And that would be game over, leaving Israel free to go on imposing its iron will on the occupied and oppressed Palestinians. In this scenario I think it is more likely than not that Zionism would resort to a final ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
The other option for Obama?
With the mid-term elections out of the way, he could be the first president to put America’s own best interests first and use the leverage he has to cause, or try to cause, Israel to be serious about peace on terms virtually all Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could accept.
Are there any reasons to believe that, at a point, Obama might repeat might be prepared to confront Zionism?
I can think of one in theory.
Obama himself and some of his top military commanders are aware and have said that peace in the Middle East is a “strategic priority” for America. Without peace on terms virtually all Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims everywhere could accept, there’ll be escalating conflict between the Western and Islamic worlds which America can no longer afford to finance. (In his address from the Oval Office announcing that the Iraq combat mission is over, President Obama seemed to be acknowledging that when he said: “We have spent over a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas… Now it is time to turn to pressing problems at home… It will be difficult to get the economy rolling again but doing so is our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as president.”)
On 30 August, Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad also said, “We are approaching a moment of reckoning.”
The question is – reckoning for whom? Obama and America or Zionism?
Footnote
In an op-ed article in today’s New York Times, Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak writes: “For both sides trust can be built only on tangible security. Security, however, cannot be a justification for Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian land, as it undermines the cardinal principle of land for peace.”
I agree but again there’s much more to it. Israel’s insistence that it must have guaranteed security before peace is a political ploy. You make peace in order to have security. If you get the security you demand before peace, you don’t need peace. (Dictionary definition of ploy: a procedure used to achieve a particular result. In Israel’s case the particular result is keeping occupied Arab land).
If you liked this post, then...
- Share it with others using this button:
- Comment on it using the form below.
- Subscribe to my blog via email or RSS to get "new post" alerts.
- Follow me on Twitter (@alanauthor).
You are right but he wont. He is a zionist through and through. He will not give up short of erzats Israel. That is, for a Zionist to give up on God's promise of the land to Abraham is to go against the very purpose of the ctreation. He may find a way to take smaller steps but he will never give up a yard of the land except as a temporary expedient. That is the essence of Zionism. The land is the promise and morality is based on getting it and keeping it by any means required.
That is my understanding of the essence of Zionism. Everything else follows.
Sir,
" With the mid-term elections out of the way "!
Wel there you have it.
If Obama had any intention to be 'an honest U.S. intermediary' using his U.S. Presidential Clout to the outmost in order to establish a true and lasting peace between the Palestinian People and Israel, HE WOULD HAVE WAITED TO COMMENCE THESE (so called) PEACE TALKS UNTILL THE MID-TERM ELECTIONS WHERE OUT OF THE WAY!
I wonder who (maby Rahm Emanuel?) set the agenda for this FARCE in the first place.
I've just read this eye-opener on the information clearinghouse site; " The State and Local Bases of Zionist Power in America.", by James Petras (Ph.D)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26283.htm
The false-hood of both Obama's and Netanyahu's intentions was and is very clear, considering Obama's affiliation with, and both the Republican and Democrat Party's submissive and corrupt behaviour towards AIPAC and the Neo-Con ilk, who shaped and programmed much of the U.S. Foreign-War-Political-Agenda since 1998. (PNAC, A New World Order, and so on)
Even here in the Netherlands it's becoming obvious (via newspapers, television and other media)that the Israeli-Zionist-Propaganda-Machine is gaining ground, and is in fact corrupting Dutch politicians (Maxim Verhagen, Mark Rutte and!! Geert Wilders) and with that, corrupting the Dutch Foreign Policies concerning the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian People.
No good whatsoever can come from the current farce they call peace talks, the 'Zionist-Great-Israel' agenda is set in stone a long time ago, and Obama is the mere AIPAC-PUPPET who plays along.
Peace, Jacob Roodenburg.
Very sharp observations, as usual. The idea of Israel settling for anything without massive outside pressure, which HAS to come from the USA, seemingly the ONLY country which has ever backed the illegal activities of Israel and prevented serious consequences of such activities. Israel has nothing to lose by indefinitely postponing the peace. Once the peace has been achieved Israel will have to settle with all it has, unless it wants to show the world the Real issue and grab more land without any excuses.
One of the things I have heard many times is that Israel is ".. changing the facts on the ground.." meaning that when a negotiation is happening the masses of settlements will be seen as immoveable. It's what they are doing now, acting all hurt and throwing arms up in mock exasperation at the idea they should evict and forcibly remove 600,000 settlers, while not accepting the responsibility for that.
In my mind, it seems as though a large number of Palestinians are taking a leaf from the acts of Ghandi and using peace to beat the violence. If Hamas were also to do this perhaps the agreement would come quicker, or perhaps Israel would be easier able to achieve their (originally) stated aims (to occupy all of the lands of 'Greater Israel' from the Nile to the Euphrates).
[...] met with them and Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan’s King Abdullah II. (In my last post I anticipated Obama saying at the point of his complete surrender that “America can’t [...]
Clearly a very complicated issue and the following simply reflect some of my thoughts.
Despite what many people think, Hamas remains the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people. America has to engage negotiations with Hamas, in order for there to be any future peace.
I think that the former Oslo accords provide truth, on this issue. It is a fact that Israel was the primary cause of its failure. I think that the main issues and conditions, on the part of the Palestinians, were flushed out and posited during these intense negotiations and of course rejected.
I do not see how the Oslo accords conditions would ever be accepted. The Geneva accord provide a solution and constitutes a Palestinian compromise, but have been rejected by Israel and the USA.
I think that if settlement building ceased and Israeli troops vacated, from the occupied territories, then that would be the start towards peace. The radical Islamic part of Hamas (the resistence) can only be eradicated, I think, when the Palestinians have equality, infrastructure, reasonable degree of freedom from Israeli military persecution, and respect for human rights among others. Certain fundamental democratic rights and security must be in place, for Palestinians, before peace can be afforded to Israel, in return.
As for the two state solution, one has to understand and respect the reality on the ground. Israel and the occupied territories appear to be inextricably linked and becoming more so as they expand. What potential is there for a two state solution on the basis of the international green line? Therefore, an Israel/Palestinian state, where equality is enforced, might be the only way forward.
I think that none of this can be achieved where America continues to pull the strings. Obama has the ability (his knowledge far exceeds his predecessors, on subjects of political science, law and history) but perhaps he does not have the backing of the Senate etc.
In short, both the large majority of Israelis and Palestinians deserve peaceful coexistence. They both have so much potential. As always, it is minority right wing military and political elite perpetuating problems that can be resolved through non-nationalistic means.
[...] he had met with them and Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan’s King Abdullah II. (In my last post I anticipated Obama saying at the point of his complete surrender that “America can’t want [...]
I do not see any success for the present "leadership" of Mahmoud Abbas as they have gained nothing by their compliance. The silent protests on the West Bank eg Bilin each Friday are met with Israeli violence,while occasional attacks on illegal settlers are splashed over Western media as "terrorism". Hamas is trying to get Israel to conform to international law, and despite comments to the contrary, are prepared to talk and accept pre-1967 Israel, but are denied a voice.