Right Web

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

Netanyahu Conditions Denounced as “War” by Palestinians

Benjamin Netanyahu’s AIPAC speech demonstrates that he is not interested in a fair peace with Palestine.

Inter Press Service

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid out what he called his vision for peace with the Palestinians Tuesday, but listed a set of conditions the Palestinians immediately called "a declaration of war".

Speaking before a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress that capped five days of speeches by Netanyahu and President Barack Obama on the Middle East, Netanyahu insisted on a unified Jerusalem as Israel's capital, reiterated his rejection of the borders that existed before Israel began its occupation of the West Bank 44 years ago, and declared that Israel must maintain a military presence in the Jordan Valley.

Palestinians have repeatedly declared their desire to negotiate a two-state solution where Jerusalem would be the capital of both states, with borders based on the Jun. 4, 1967 lines with agreed and equivalent land swaps, and full sovereignty over the West Bank, of which the Jordan Valley is a large part.

Netanyahu was elaborating on some remarks he had made the previous day, before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a lobby group described by CNN as "a major force in U.S. politics". Obama had spoken to AIPAC the day before, and his speech was well- received by the audience and observers.

Obama stressed the importance of immediate movement on the peace process.

"There is an impatience with the peace process – or the absence of one," he told the AIPAC audience. "Not just in the Arab World, but in Latin America, in Europe, and in Asia. That impatience is growing, and is already manifesting itself in capitals around the world."

Consistent with his call in a speech three days earlier, Obama then outlined his vision for borders and security, which he had said should be the first two issues tackled.

"The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps… As for security, every state has the right to self- defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat… The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarised state."

The following day, Netanyahu and Obama met in the Oval Office, with the subsequent press briefing featuring comments from Netanyahu that many observers, including leading Israelis, saw as crossing the line.

"Netanyahu understood that he had broken a rule that an Israeli leader must not break – he had come between the two American parties in an election period," Nahum Barnea and Shimon Shiffer, two leading Israeli commentators, wrote in the leading Israeli daily, Yediot Ahronot.

Staunchly pro-Israel columnist Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic called Netanyahu's behaviour at the press conference "pedantic" and "shocking".

On Monday, Netanyahu struck a more conciliatory tone at AIPAC, stressing bipartisan support for Israel among U.S. citizens and in Congress.

He promised that, in his speech at Tuesday's joint meeting of Congress, he would "describe what a peace between a Palestinian state and the Jewish state could look like."

But his vision seemed only to make the stalemate with the Palestinians even more intractable, this time with the overwhelming enthusiasm of both Houses of Congress backing him.

"Rather than committing to a return to negotiations without preconditions, as he demands from the Palestinians, Netanyahu introduced his own preconditions," said Debra DeLee, president and CEO of Americans for Peace Now.

"Rather than extending his hand to the Palestinians to come back to the negotiating table, Netanyahu laid out unyielding positions which he knows cannot serve as the basis for, or be the realistic outcome of, negotiations. Such preconditions are a non-starter and such positions are anathema to reviving negotiations and to achieving real peace and security for Israel."

The speech was "a declaration of war against the Palestinians," said leading Palestinian official, Nabil Sha'ath. "This is an escalation and unfortunately, it received a standing ovation. We have nothing but to continue our struggle in the international arena and to continue building our state and to continue our popular struggle. We don't have a partner for peace."

Nabil Abu Rdainah, spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said, "What Netanyahu put in his speech before the U.S. Congress does not lead to peace, but puts more obstacles to the peace process. For us, peace must be the establishment of a Palestinian state on 1967 borders and East Jerusalem as its capital. We will not accept any Israeli presence in the Palestinian state, especially on the Jordan River."

But while many applauded President Obama's speech at AIPAC and his insistence on the 1967 borders as a starting point for negotiations, other observers blamed Obama for the failure to take a strong enough stand with Netanyahu.

"Obama did not call for a complete withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlers from occupied Palestinian territory," Professor Stephen Zunes, chair of the Middle Eastern Studies programme at the University of San Francisco, told IPS.

"Unfortunately, despite Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas agreeing to reciprocal territorial swaps… Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has refused to consider trading any land within Israel while simultaneously insisting on annexing large swathes of occupied Palestinian territory," he said. "How such 'mutually agreed-upon' swaps will take place without the United States exerting enormous leverage is hard to imagine.

"This raises serious questions regarding Obama's commitment to being an honest broker in resolving the conflict," Zunes said.

Despite the unanimous support Netanyahu's speeches received, at AIPAC and in Congress, both talks were disrupted by protesters.

Five protesters at AIPAC and one in Congress were removed from the proceedings after interrupting Netanyahu's speeches, shouting slogans in defense of Palestinian rights.

Rae Abileah, the protester arrested for her disruption of the Congressional meeting, is a 28-year old Jewish American of Israeli descent.

"Prime Minister Netanyahu says that the 1967 borders are indefensible," Abileah said. "But what is really indefensible is the occupation of land, the starvation of Gaza, the jailing of dissenters and the lack of equal rights in the alleged Israeli democracy. As a Jew and an American taxpayer, I can't be silent when these crimes are being committed in my name and with my tax money."

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share