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.

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

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.


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

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.


Falsely demonizing all Muslims, their beliefs, and their institutions is exactly the wrong way to make Americans safer, because the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones.


Division in the ranks of the conservative movement is a critical sign that a war with Iran isn’t inevitable.


Donald Trump stole the headlines, but the declaration from the recent NATO summit suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. Instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The fact is, NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force.


War with Iran may not be imminent, but neither was war with Iraq in late 2001.


Donald Trump was one of the many bets the Russians routinely place, recognizing that while most such bets will never pay off a few will, often in unpredictable ways. Trump’s actions since taking office provide the strongest evidence that this one bet is paying off handsomely for the Russians. Putin could hardly have made the script for Trump’s conduct at the recent NATO meeting any more to his liking—and any better designed to foment division and distrust within the Western alliance—than the way Trump actually behaved.


RightWeb
share