Israel/Palestine & global warming, two catastrophes in-the-making: What do they have in common?
If I was a prime minister or a president, I would say the following in a broadcast to my nation: “Our world is in the mess it is today because of the short-sighted and stupid way it has been managed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution – by the few, for the few, at the expense of the many. We can’t go on like this. If we want our children and their children to have even the prospect of a future worth having, we must change, starting now, the way we think and live.”
The truth our leaders ought to tell us about the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel can also be simply stated.
It has remained beyond the reach of diplomacy because Zionism’s political and military leaders are not interested in peace on terms virtually all Palestinians and most Arabs and other Muslims everywhere could accept. From the Zionist perspective, and as Israel’s one-eyed warlord Moshe Dayan once said, “It’s them or us”.
It follows that peace based on an acceptable amount of justice for the Palestinians and security for all needs one thing above all others – an unambiguous statement from the major powers, led by America, that Israel must withdraw to its borders as they were on 4 June 1967 in exchange for a full and final peace.
The assumption here is that prior to such a statement being made, those making it would have sought and obtained an irrevocable commitment from the Arab and wider Muslim world to recognise Israel and normalize relations with it as soon as the withdrawal was completed.
What if Israel still said, “We’re not interested”?
That would call for a second unambiguous statement from the major powers led by America. The message would be to the effect that the governments of the world were then prepared to use all the leverage at their disposal – boycott, sanctions, the lot – to oblige Israel to end its occupation and live in accordance with international law.
On both fronts, global warming and Israel/Palestine, our leaders could say and do what I have suggested, but they won’t unless and until enough of us citizens demand that they do.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Mary:
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:57 am
Alan, this is an extraordinarily astute piece especially timely in this so-called “season of giving,” and I thank you for your eloquent words in describing both the issues of global warming and the Palestine-Israel conflict.
I see them both as products of a western mentality also heartily adopted and endorsed by the Zionists, that of course being the belief that if something exists, we are automatically entitled to take it. This belief applies to everything from fossil fuel and clean water to land and the lives of people who are not as politically powerful as we. As the planet is crushed under a population it cannot sustain, the scientists funded by government money are looking on other planets for basic resources such as water. By the same token, the Zionists are perpetually coming up with ways to eliminate opposition to their agenda of ethnically cleansing Palestine of Palestinians, and their successes have as much to do with ideology as they do with military aggression.
The inherent greed of Zionist ideology is what makes it acceptable to the West; after all acquisitiveness is a characteristic of capitalism and is one of the building blocks of the western world. Take it before someone else does; get it while the gettin’s good. Disguise your greed as “need” by putting forth the argument that “natural growth” requires new settlement building; issue an open invitation to the world’s Chosen People to emigrate and there you have it: justification for the continuation of theft and deception.
Interestingly, the material acquisitiveness of the west has triggered its decline much as the same catalyst caused the fall of the Roman Empire. In the basic equation of life, it is obvious that one cannot continue to take, and take, without putting something back. There is a bill that comes due. This is also an essential belief in Native American spirituality and in Islam, which also take it a step further by advising us that a person’s wealth lies not in how much he gets, but in how much he gives.
When one thinks about it, this is a very important lesson. It is applicable in everything from politics to farming, and it is certainly applicable now more than ever.
kim petersen:
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Why choose 1967 borders for a “full and final peace”? Is this a just peace? Is it more just than 1947? And is two states just? It is for Palestinians to decide, but I submit that a two state-solution is unjust and would stand as a lesson that colonial land theft, dispossession, racism, and war crimes are doable.
Further, it does not address the right of return, reparations, and an end to apartheid.
Sorry, but this appears to be a grand appeasement of Zionism.
Mary:
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:18 pm
The idea of the 1967 borders includes the right of return and the evacuation of all settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
admin:
December 23rd, 2009 at 4:28 am
@Kim
Suppose that the governments of the international community led by the one in Washington DC did use the leverage they have, and that by using it they got Israel back to its borders as they were on 4 June 1967; also
Suppose that a sovereign Palestine state was then established on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with either East Jerusalem its capital or Jerusalem an open, undivided city and the capital of two states; also
Suppose that in the name of pragmatism, the government of the Palestinian state accepted (as Arafat and his senior leadership colleagues did accept in principle) that the Palestinian right of return had to be limited to return to the Palestinian state with financial compensation for those who wanted to return and for whom there was no space; also
Suppose that on the basis of the above the governments of the entire Arab and wider Muslim world declared the conflict with Israel to be over – i.e. that (still in the name of pragmatism) the conditions for a full and final peace had been met.
I agree with you, Kim, that such a peace would NOT be a just one. I have said so a number of times in articles on this site. (My own view, represented in a headline to one article, is One State or Catastrophe for All – http://www.palint.org/article.php?articleid=5).
So you have a point when you say that a two-state solution based on 1967 lines would amount to a “grand appeasement of Zionism”.
But…
In principle/theory it’s the best deal the Palestinians are ever likely to get.
In reality they are not going to get it. In my view, stated explicitly a number of times on this site, the most likely scenario is not an end to Israeli occupation of all Arab land grabbed in 1967 (in a war of aggression not self-defense), but Zionism’s final ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
What do you propose that is realistic?
Mary:
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:30 am
Alan, even as we see your proposal as shortchanging the Palestinians, I agree that it’s the best deal they would ever get; unfortunately, Israel is not even inclined to agree to these terms. It seems that they just simply cannot keep their eyes off East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and the precious water they would no longer be able to fill their swimming pools and water their golf courses with. This is what I mean by taking and not giving back, and that grotesque idea of taking something before someone else can get it.
Brad Brzezinski:
January 13th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
While we’re at it, both Americas should be cleared of non-aboriginals. Britain needs to get out of the Falklands and the Saint Helena Dependencies (including Gough Island). Norway relinquishes Bouvet Island. Pakistan goes back to India. A more comprehensive list is being compiled; meanwhile, discuss amongst yourselves.
kim:
January 14th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
@ Alan,
As I stated in my first comments: “It is for Palestinians to decide.”
As far as realism goes, at this point in time, the Palestinians are likely to only get more misery heaped on them. Even discussing a two-state solution, I believe, is unrealistic, and the course of recent history supports this. There is no intention on either the American government or Israeli government’s side to agree to two states.
Lastly, I do not see why a two-state solution is more realistic than a one-state solution.
Therefore, I respectfully submit that since your scenario is appeasement to Zionist genocidaires, and since it also unrealistic, what is the purpose of discussing the unrealistic, especially insofar as it moves any Palestinian startpoint in negotiations to an unacceptable maximum?
mary:
January 14th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
I personally think that people who deny global warning are the equivalent of flat-earthers. There is a mountain of evidence pointing to global warming caused by industrial pollution and natural events, but relatively little to refute it. Even if global warming were a “hoax,” we still should be paying attention to implementing the many proposed changes in how the world works, including its dependence on fossil fuel. For too long, the US played the part of a flat-earther, refusing to discuss the future of the planet in favor of continuing to cater to the oil industry.
As for the “non-Aboriginals,” that statement is so nonsensical as to justify being utterly ignored.