Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Dead Peace Process Could be “National Suicide” for Israel

The United States will once again block a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli expansion into the Occupied Territories, despite growing global opposition to the settlements.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

The U.N. Security Council is poised to vote this week on a new resolution condemning Israeli expansion into the Occupied Palestinian Territories and calling for an immediate freeze on settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, but the United States has already declared its intention to again deploy its veto power.

Backed by 122 nations, the proposed resolution comes in the wake of the exposure of what is being referred to in the media as the 'Palestine Papers', thousands of leaked documents laying bare the Palestinian Authority's compliant stance towards Israel's aggressive annexation of its meager remaining territory.

Speaking to the House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 10, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg said, "We have made very clear that we do not think the Security Council is the right place to engage on these issues. And we will continue to employ the tools that we have to make sure that continues to not happen."

Diana Buttu, a policy advisor to Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network, and a former advisor to Palestinian negotiators, told a teleconference organized by the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Wednesday that negotiations between the PA and the Israeli government have never been based on the precedent of international law, but rather on third parties pressuring Palestine to repeatedly make concessions.

These "lopsided negotiations" are further warped by the U.S.'s history of leveraging its veto power in the Security Council to block any resolution that comes close to granting some justice to the Palestinians.

"Seventy percent of U.S. vetoes have been used on Israel's behalf," Butto said. "Rather than bolstering those people who are committed to negotiations, the U.S. has systematically undermined them."

She added that the Palestinians need to start adopting isolationist strategies towards Israel.

"It does not make sense for the Palestinians to play into the image of negotiations, of the two sides meeting, shaking hands, kissing and hugging, if they want to get people to understand that what's really happening is colonization, ethnic cleansing and the destruction of Palestinian lives and their environment," Butto said.

Sayres Rudy, a professor of politics at Hampshire College, told IPS, "Zionist maximalism seeks a fundamental objective: to maximize the presence of Palestine and minimise the presence of Palestinians in Israeli life."

"This ultimate goal is achieved through partition, expulsion, containment, assassination, aggression to disrupt ceasefires, etc.," Rudy added.

"But for a century and a half it has also required the creation of elite Palestinian collaborators with the dispossession of the Palestinian people; from the Oslo period forward the Palestinian Authority (PA) has eagerly cooperated with the Israeli government in enforcing settlement expansion, suffocating Palestinian social movements, and creating a crude authoritarian patronage system with daily decreasing legitimacy," Rudy concluded.

Greater Israel – Democracy by Palestinian Majority Rule

Framed against the upheaval that successfully uprooted a 30-year-long dictatorship in Egypt last week, and amidst ongoing protests across North Africa and the Middle East, the U.S.'s decision to put its moral authority on the line for Israel yet again, while not unexpected, is drawing unprecedented criticism in light of the climate of the "people power" that is sweeping the world.

Surrounded by a host of increasingly hostile neighbors, Israel is now more vulnerable than ever before, having lost the bulwark of Turkey last year and more recently, Hosni Mubarak, in Cairo.

Without the lavish aid package it receives from the U.S. – three billion dollars annually – Israel could not hope to hold its head above the tempestuous waters in which it navigates.

"It's been the clearly stated policy of the Obama administration, since coming to office in January 2009, that the Israelis should stop building settlements and sit down with the Palestinians to negotiate a two-state settlement," John Mearsheimer, co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago, told a press briefing Wednesday.

"The only reason it won't happen is because the Israel lobby will insist that Obama veto the resolution. This brings up the question of where we are headed," he said.

"A conversation about the two-state solution is meaningless, there's not going to be one," Mearsheimer noted. "The Palestinians are never going to have their own state. Instead there is going to be a Greater Israel."

This Greater Israel, which will consume both Gaza and the West Bank and therefore include all the Palestinians therein, presents a unique opportunity for democracy, though it is still a far cry away from justice in Palestine.

"Whether Greater Israel comes in 20 years or 30, it is going to be dominated by the Palestinians and not by the Jews because Palestinian citizens will largely outnumber Jewish ones," Mearsheimer told the press. "In a democratic Greater Israel, Palestinians will have the power of the majority."

"By allowing this to happen, the U.S. is basically helping the state of Israel to commit national suicide," he concluded.

Harking back to the words of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Mearsheimer argued that unless it achieved a two-state solution, Israel was fated to become the apartheid South Africa of the 21st century.

"This has already happened," he said, "and it's about time Palestinians shut down the PA, take advantage of what's going on in the Arab world and capitalize on the fact that democracy is a cherished value, particularly in the United States."

"After Tunisia and Egypt, it's the perfect time to argue against apartheid and in favor of democracy," Mearsheimer concluded.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), former chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is a leading ”pro-Israel” hawk in Congress.


Brigette Gabriel, an anti-Islamic author and activist, is the founder of the right-wing group ACT! for America.


The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the more effective U.S. lobbying outfits, aims to ensure that the United States backs Israel regardless of the policies Israel pursues.


Frank Gaffney, director of the hardline neoconservative Center for Security Policy, is a longtime advocate of aggressive U.S. foreign policies, bloated military budgets, and confrontation with the Islamic world.


Shmuley Boteach is a “celebrity rabbi” known for his controversial “pro-Israel” advocacy.


United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.


Huntsman, the millionaire scion of the Huntsman chemical empire, is a former Utah governor who served as President Obama’s first ambassador to China and was a candidate for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

AIPAC has done more than just tolerate the U.S. tilt toward extreme and often xenophobic views. Newly released tax filings show that the country’s biggest pro-Israel group financially contributed to the Center for Security Policy, the think-tank that played a pivotal role in engineering the Trump administration’s efforts to impose a ban on Muslim immigration.


Print Friendly

It would have been hard for Trump to find someone with more extreme positions than David Friedman for U.S. ambassador to Israel.


Print Friendly

Just as the “bogeyman” of the Mexican rapist and drug dealer is used to justify the Wall and mass immigration detention, the specter of Muslim terrorists is being used to validate gutting the refugee program and limiting admission from North Africa, and Southwest and South Asia.


Print Friendly

Although the mainstream media narrative about Trump’s Russia ties has been fairly linear, in reality the situation appears to be anything but.


Print Friendly

Reagan’s military buildup had little justification, though the military was rebuilding after the Vietnam disaster. Today, there is almost no case at all for a defense budget increase as big as the $54 billion that the Trump administration wants.


Print Friendly

The very idea of any U.S. president putting his personal financial interests ahead of the U.S. national interest is sufficient reason for the public to be outraged. That such a conflict of interest may affect real U.S. foreign policy decisions is an outrage.


Print Friendly

The new US administration is continuing a state of war that has existed for 16 years.


RightWeb
share