Israel, Racism and Brutality

By Robert Fatina
Source

Saba Mahmoud Abu Arar 0c619

The savagery of the racist, apartheid Israeli regime continues to shock people with any sensitivity, despite its long record of brutality. The recent attack on the Gaza Strip, coming as a precursor to United States’ President Donald Trump’s so-called ‘deal of the century’, was no exception.

For reasons that defy any logic other than ugly racism, Israeli terrorist bombers targeted a private home resided in by a young family. Killed in the bomb were a one-year-old girl and her pregnant mother; two other children were seriously injured. That this is by design cannot be disputed. After the 2014 carpet-bombing of the Gaza Strip, what Israel calls ‘mowing the lawn’, some IDF soldier-terrorists wore shirts with the outline of a pregnant, Muslim woman on the front, in the crosshairs of a gun. The caption was: ‘One bullet, two kills’.

The U.S. has never been a friend to human rights anywhere, least of all to those of the Palestinians, and this situation has worsened under the cruel administration of Trump. He has cut funding for Palestinians, renounced international law that recognizes Jerusalem as a future, shared capital, and, like all his predecessors from Harry Trump to Barack Obama, finances and supports all Israel’s brutal, repressive actions, even those considered to be crimes against humanity. He apparently hopes that this will force the Palestinians to accept a ‘deal’ that gives Israel everything and Palestine nothing. The Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Riyad Mansour, commented on this on May 7 at United Nations headquarters, when he said this: “Some in the (Trump) administration, they think: ‘Yes, what will help peace is break the legs of the Palestinians, break one arm and five teeth, and when they are on the ground they will come crawling to you for anything you offer them’. Those who think that way don’t know the Palestinians.”

Some details of the ‘deal’ – which is no ‘deal’ at all, since one of the main parties to it had no input into it – have been leaked. It allows Israel to keep all of the land it has stolen since 1967; prevents Palestine from having any military, and requires Gaza to disarm. The West Bank disarmed several years ago, and the result has been constant, violent repression by Israel. Additionally, Israel will be responsible for ‘security’. If ever there was a case of the fox being given responsibility for the security of the henhouse, this is it.

According to other details ‘leaked’, if either party rejects the deal, it will lose all U.S. funding. Currently, under Trump’s brutal, racist administration, Palestine gets no U.S. funding, so it has nothing to lose. It is highly unlikely that Israel would reject the ‘deal’, since it gets everything it wants from it. So the U.S. administration is setting up Palestine for catastrophic disaster, by doing all in its power to destroy it, and then offering permanent, second-class human status to Palestinians. Whether or not they accept the ‘deal’, their repression will continue. Either way, they will lose a significant part of the West Bank. Additionally, the internationally-guaranteed right of return is not mentioned at all.

However, it must be remembered that the U.S. is not the world government. It can propose any ‘deals’ it wants to. When Trump announced the move of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, in violation of international law, the United Nations General Assembly condemned the move by an overwhelming margin. More recently, when the U.S. announced its support if Israel’s illegal annexation of the Golan Heights, United Nations spokesman Stephane Dujarric referred to the Security Council resolution of December, 1981, which called the Israeli annexation “null and void and without international legal effect”. He further said that Secretary-General Antonio Guterres adheres to all council resolutions, and that that position remains unchanged, despite any U.S. actions. The U.S. decreeing something doesn’t make it a fact.

The U.S. is, however, in a position to make things extremely difficult for the Palestinians, as it has thus far done. That will only worsen when this ‘deal’ is rejected by Palestine, as it is sure to be, if the information about it that has thus far been leaked is accurate. Israel will violently steal more land in the West Bank; it will react with brutal, deadly force to any resistance there or in Gaza, which often involves blatant violations of international law and crimes against humanity. The bombing of hospitals, homes, schools and United-Nations refugee centers, all crimes against humanity and all of which Israel routinely does, will continue and possibly increase. Israel will continue to withhold tax revenues that for some reason it is allowed to collect ‘on behalf’ of Palestine, causing the country to further cut the salaries of its employees.

There has been a major shift in the Democratic Party in the U.S. in the context of Palestine. Yes, Democratic Party officials still support Israel, proclaim it -bizarrely – to be a democracy, and talk about its right to exist. Yet they increasingly criticize its policies, something unheard of just a few short years ago. Two of the multitudinous candidates currently seeking to be the Democratic Party’s nominee for president in 2020 have actually called the brutal, murderous Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a racist. One freshman member of the House of Representatives has decried U.S. support for Israel that is based on political donations. These are conversations that weren’t being held until very recently.

Unfortunately, Trump still has two more years in office. And even should he be removed for any number of reasons, his vice president, Mike Pence, would only continue the U.S.’s fawning support for apartheid Israel. And to say that Netanyahu has been emboldened by Trump’s moves is an understatement; during his recent re-election campaign, he vowed to annex the West Bank.

It is not from the United States that justice for Palestinians will ever be established; the U.S. has never cared about human rights. The rest of the international community must act, before it is everlasting too late.

Advertisements

The ‘Deal of the Century’: Two Con Men’s Job

Image result for The ‘Deal of the Century’: Two Con Men’s Job

Elias Samo
May 5, 2019

Yes, you can ‘judge a book by its cover’, especially if the ‘book’ is the ‘Deal of the Century’ and the ‘cover’ lauds two con men, Trump and Netanyahu. Furthermore, when two con men are involved, ‘Deal of the Century’ is likely more akin to ‘Theft of the Century’.

The ‘Deal’, presumably a road map for peacefully settling the Palestinian problem, was drawn up, ironically, by a small group of American Zionists responsible for the formulation of American foreign policy. The group is led by Jared Kushner, Trump’s son in law and senior presidential adviser, with help from John Bolton, national security advisor, Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State and David Friedman, American ambassador in Israel. Anecdotally, it should be noted that Netanyahu is a close friend of the Kushner family and used to visit the family while in the US and stay overnight, at times in Jared’s bedroom; perhaps making Jared an unregistered foreign agent serving Israeli interests. With such strong pro-Israeli input in drawing up the ‘Deal’, what does one expect the ‘Deal’ to be except a right-wing, Likudist plan to establish a Great Israel from the River to the Sea.

A central question to this ‘Deal’ is, what does Trump have left in his pocket to offer the Palestinians? Historically, Palestinian maximum demand was the liberation of mandated Palestine. With the passage of time the Palestinians have lowered their demands to the minimum of three elements. First, a Palestinian state on the West Bank, (which David Friedman, the American ambassador no less, refers to it as Judea and Samaria). Second, East Jerusalem as its capital. Third, the return of the refugees. Trump has already given away or eliminated these three quintessential elements necessary for resolving the Palestinian problem peacefully. Trump has recognized united Jerusalem to be the eternal capital of Israel and moved the American embassy there. He has also acquiesced to Netanyahu’s declaration that he will annex the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and probably an eventual annexation of the entire West Bank. As to the Palestinian refugees, for Trump a Palestinian refugee is one who was alive when Israel was created in 1948, that is seventy one years old or more, which makes it very difficult to find many Palestinians still alive who qualify as refugees based on the criteria set by Trump. He furthermore severed political relations with the Palestinians when he ordered the closure of the PLO offices in Washington and imposed economic sanctions on the Palestinians when he stopped economic support to UNRWA.

Bearing in mind the fact that the ‘Deal’ was drawn up by Zionists in the Trump administration, it is only appropriate to expect that the ‘Deal’ will be everything Israel wants. Thus, a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian problem, in all probability, has become null and void in the foreseeable future; the ‘Deal’ offers nothing to the Palestinians and some prominent Palestinian officials have said so. Nabil Shaath, advisor to Mahmoud Abbas, noted that Trump’s ‘Deal of the Century’ will not bring peace to Palestine. Riyad Maliki, Palestinian Foreign Minister, said that the ‘Deal of the Century’ which seeks to find the ultimate solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will bring bad news to the Middle East. Saeb Erekat, chief Palestinian negotiator, elaborated further, noting that “Trump and Netanyahu are planning to terminate the Palestinian cause by removing Jerusalem from any solution, annexing major settlements and finding a capital for us on the outskirts of Jerusalem.” In view of the foregoing, Mahmoud Abbas has no choice but to reject the ‘Deal’, with the consequence of being condemned for sabotaging the peace process and for Netanyahu reverting to his mantra that there are no Palestinians to negotiate with.

ترامب ونتنياهو وحقيقة القرن: قلق الوجود على «إسرائيل»

ترامب ونتنياهو وحقيقة القرن: قلق الوجود على «إسرائيل»

نوفمبر 24, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– في الطريق إلى صفقة القرن وقع الثلاثة، الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب ورئيس حكومة كيان الإحتلال بنيامين نتنياهو وولي العهد السعودي محمد بن سلمان. والثلاثة آخر من تبقى من حلف المئة وثلاثين دولة الذين قادتهم واشنطن في إعلان الحرب على سورية بعد الفشل الذريع في هذه الحرب، والثلاثة تعاقدوا على صفقة شرعنة احتلال القدس وإعلانها عاصمة لكيان الاحتلال مقابل حلف خليجي إسرائيلي أميركي بوجه إيران عنوانه إنهاء القضية الفلسطينية، وبدون هذه الصفقة لا فوائد ترتجى من العقوبات على إيران ولا قيمة للانسحاب من التفاهم النووي معها. وبدون شريك فلسطيني لا قيمة لهذه الصفقة، وقد فشلت مساعي توليف هذا الشريك وانتهى الأمر. فالشعب الفلسطيني قال كلمته، مَن بوقع على بيع القدس مقتول مقتول مقتول.

– يواجه الرئيس ترامب بعد الانتخابات النصفية للكونغرس موجة صاعدة عنوانها، نهوض شبابي منح الحزب الديمقراطي أغلبية مجلس النواب بمشاركة زادت المقترعين بنسبة 40 محور مشاركتها أنها ضاقت ذرعاً بكل ما جلبه ترامب على أميركا، بلغته وخطابه وعنصريته وسياساته وسلوكه الفظ وعنجهيته، والأهم فشله في صناعة نصر خارجي أو إنجاز داخلي. ويعرف ترامب أن الموجة إلى تصاعد وسوف تكون بانتظاره بقوة أكبر مع الانتخابات الرئاسية. وطريق ترامب الوحيد للرهان على تغيير الموازين هو الانقلاب على شريكيه نتنياهو وإبن سلمان لولا أن السياسة العليا تمنعه من ذلك، فالتخلي عن السعودية تخلٍّ عن «إسرائيل»، وربما تسريع بسقوطها، كما قال ترامب.

– يواجه نتنياهو بعد فشل صفقة القرن المأزق الاستراتيجي الذي صنعته انتصارات المقاومة وثبته صمود سورية، حيث «إسرائيل» الكبرى ماتت مع زوال الاحتلال من جنوب لبنان، ودفنت مع زواله عن قطاع غزة، فما عادت أحلام التوسع العسكري ذات مكان، و»إسرائيل» العظمى القائمة على قوة الردع وفرض الإرادة ومقايضة الأمن بالاقتصاد، سقطت مع تآكل قدرة الردع منذ فشل جيش الاحتلال في حرب تموز 2006 وفشله اللاحق في حروب غزة، وفشله الأعظم في إعادة إنتاج قدرة الردع من بوابة الحرب على سورية، وجاءت تجربة غزة الأخيرة لتقول إن استعادة هذه القدرة أضغاث أحلام، وإن إسرائيل الصغرى التي بنيت على صفقة القرن كدولة يهودية عاصمتها القدس تواجه مأزق الوجود بعد فقدان الدور.

– شكّل سقوط صفقة القرن إيذاناً بسقوط الحلقة المحورية فيها وهو ولي العهد السعودي صاحب التعهد بتأمين التوقيع الفلسطيني، وهو الحلقة الأضعف بين حليفيه ترامب ونتنياهو، فجاءت قضية قتل جمال الخاشقجي تصنيعاً أو توظيفاً المدخل المناسب لبدء العملية التدريجية للتموضع الجديد للسياسات الأميركية. فالدور السعودي يفقد الوظيفة وهو كما قال ترامب الركن الذي تعتمد عليه السياسة الأميركية في حصار إيران وحماية «إسرائيل». وترابط الهدفين معلوم. فالحصار على إيران له قضية كبرى اسمها حماية «إسرائيل»، والسعودية ما عادت تنفع في كليهما.

– للمرة الأولى يتحدث بنيامين نتنياهو عن أن الكيان في وضع يشبه عشية حرب العام 1947 وهو يعلم أن لا جيوش تستعد للحرب على الحدود، لكنه يقصد بوضوح عودة القلق الوجودي ذاته الذي عاد للظهور، وللمرة الأولى يضطر الرئيس الأميركي، للإعلان أن دور السعودية في السياسات الأميركية هو حماية «إسرائيل»، لكنه يقول كلاماً خطيراً بإيجاز، رحيل «إسرائيل» بسقوط السعودية، محاولاً استنفار آخر نقاط مفاهيم الأمن لدى الأميركيين وعلاقتها بحماية «إسرائيل» لمنح الوقت لترتيب البيت السعودي بهدوء، لأن القلق على «إسرائيل» بات وجودياً بعد التسليم بنهاية الدور.

– «إسرائيل» الصغرى وقلق الوجود متلازمة القرن، بعدما كانت متلازمة القرن الماضي «إسرائيل» الكبرى و»إسرائيل» العظمى وتعاظم الدور، والفضل لشلال تضحيات وتراكم انتصارات من لبنان إلى سورية والعراق واليمن والأهم فلسطين، وفي الخلفية عمق استراتيجي اسمه إيران، وحليف صادق ونزيه اسمه روسيا.

Related Videos

Related Articles

A Big Step for a Greater Israel

By Eric S. Margolis
Source

Hardly anyone noticed. The Trump administration quietly changed America’s long-held position on Syria’s strategic Golan Heights while attention was focused on the raucous political carnival in Washington. Though barely noticed, the policy change had enormous importance and will lead the United States into a lot of future Mideast misery.

The Golan Heights is a volcanic plateau that abuts Syria, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon. The plateau rises abruptly from the plain of Galilee, providing dominance of the entire region. To the north, Mt Hermon rises to over 9,000 feet (2,814 meters); the plateau slopes down at its southern extremity.

Golan provides the headwaters of the Jordan River and 15-20% of Israel’s water from its snow-capped north. Israeli artillery atop Golan can hit Damascus and its airport. Electronic intelligence systems on Golan look down onto southern Syria, intercepting all communications and detecting troop movements.

The plateau is quite fascinating. I have walked most of the Israeli-held side, observing dug-in tanks, artillery and small forts surrounded by anti-tank ditches. Burned out wrecks of Syrian tanks and armor litter the countryside. I’ve also walked the Syrian side and explored the wrecked Syrian town of Kuneitra that was leveled by the Israelis in 1967.

Israel seized Golan in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War and annexed the plateau in 1981. Almost all of Golan’s Arab population was driven out by the Israelis. The UN and US demanded that Israel return Golan to its rightful owner, Syria. After 1981, Israel moved over 20,000 settlers onto Golan to cement its control of the strategic heights and its water sources.

During the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, Syrian forces came close to pushing Israeli forces off Golan. Both sides suffered heavy casualties. For still unknown reasons, the Syrian armored offensive abruptly halted just as it reached the western edge of the plateau overlooking northern Israel.

My understanding is that Soviet recon satellites saw Israel deploying its nuclear bombs and missiles from their cave shelters. Moscow warned ally Syria that it risked nuclear attack by Israel unless its forces halted their advance so the Syrian offensive stopped on the verge of tactical success. This allowed Israel to concentrate enough reserve armored divisions to successfully counter-attack and drive Syria from the heights.

Since 1973, America’s policy has been to demand Israel relinquish Golan while quietly allowing US tax deductible funds to expand Jewish settlements on the plateau. Israel even reportedly offered to return Golan in exchange for a peace deal with Syria, but the secret terms of the deal were too onerous for Damascus.

The Trump administration abruptly changed US Mideast policy. First, it announced the US Embassy would move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, meaning that it rejected the idea of a Palestinian state with its capital in the old city of Jerusalem. Now, the White House has quietly accepted permanent Israeli control of Golan, though it violates international law and past US policy.

It’s clear that US Mideast policy is firmly under the control of the neocons aligned to Israel’s expansionist far right parties. In fact, it is impossible to see any difference between the policies of Israel’s hard rightwing leader, Benyamin Netanyahu, and President Donald Trump. They are joined at the hip. A coterie of pro-Israel lawyers and property developers from New York City have completely taken control of Mideast policy.

More important, what the change in US Golan policy means is that Trump & Co are giving a green light to further Israeli territorial expansion. Now that Washington, which decries Russia’s much more justified annexation of Crimea, has approved the illegal annexation of Golan, what could be next? Likely further chunks of southern Syria, an invasion of Lebanon and annexation of its water resources.

Saudi Arabia and its little ally, the United Arab Emirates, have already been given a green light by Washington to carve out strongholds in Yemen and along the strategic Red Sea coast. This is the Mideast ‘peace’ settlement that candidate Trump promised; an increasingly close alliance with the Mideast’s most reactionary states, notably the murderous Saudi regime. This bodes ill for the United States.

 

The Plan: Why Israel Is Bent on Supporting Arab Division

By Elias Samo
Source

or-41729.jpg

During many meetings with senior members of the Syrian opposition in various European cities in 2013-2014, I would remind them that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United States, amongst others, host and finance the opposition due to their own self-interest and agendas; and not out of love for Syria. I would note that there is no disagreement among us Syrians about the brutality, corruption and exploitation of the Ottoman Empire during its four-century rule of Syria; we don’t want history to repeat itself. As for Saudi Arabia, I would remind the opposition of the contributions Syrian professionals made in the development of the Kingdom in past decades. We say to the Saudis “Blessed be your Wahhabism for you, but not for Syria”; Syria is a cultural and societal mosaic of ethnic, religious and sectarian components. As for the United States, we all agree that Washington supports Israel and views Syria as an adversarial state. However, Israel is a totally different matter. Since its creation, Israel has pursued aggressive and expansionist policy towards its neighbors in pursuit of two primary objectives: I – Great Israel and II – No Arab Unity And Support Arab Division.

I – Great Israel:

Great Israel from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Since the June 1967 War and the occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, Israel has been in control of the land between the River and the Sea. Thus, Great Israel exists in reality, though not legally or officially until it annexes the West Bank and declares the Jewish Great Israel with Jerusalem its capital.

II –Supporting Arab division:

There are numerous documents and publications to that effect for the Arabs to read. Unfortunately, and according to international surveys, Arabs are amongst the least reading people in the world. This reminds me of the late Moshe Dayan, the Israeli Defense Minister during the June 1967 War. After the war, Dayan published some Israeli military strategies and tactics during the war. His colleagues criticized him for divulging military secrets to the Arabs. His response was not to worry; the Arabs don’t read. This problem is further compounded by the Arabs lack of interest in research or translation. Jointly, these three components form critical foundations for the development of societies and civilizations.

In the 1990’s, I participated in numerous Track II Diplomacy meetings with Israelis regarding the Syrian-Israeli Peace Process. During one of those meetings, attended by some Egyptians and Palestinians in addition to the Israelis, I gave a presentation in which I noted that the Arab region is divided into four sub-regions: The Fertile Crescent, The Arabian Peninsula, The Nile Valley and North Africa. Unlike the other three sub-regions, the Fertile Crescent faces national security threats being surrounded by three powerful and hostile neighbors: Turkey to the North, Israel to the South and Iran to the East. To deal with this multiple and omnipresent security threats, Syria and Iraq must agree to some form of unity; a joint population of 40+ million people, educated and productive endowed with natural resources including substantial oil reserves, and a large army. I emphasized the point that the purpose of such a unity is not aggressive; but defensive. I had hardly finished my presentation when the late Ze’ev Schiff, the military editor of the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz in a loud voice said “Do you think we will let you do that?”; meaning that any Arab initiative for unity must receive a prior Israeli approval which of course is not forthcoming. Mr. Schiff had previously published an article in Haaretz in 6/2/1982 proposing a plan for a future Iraq, in which he wrote that the best thing to serve Israel’s interest would be “the dissolution of Iraq into a Shiite State, a Sunni State and the separation of the Kurdish part.”

There were more comprehensive plans to break up a number of Arab states. In 1982, the Israeli journalist Oded Yinon proposed a more elaborate plan entitled “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”, published in the Hebrew Journal Kivunim. The plan called for the dissolution of several Arab states into smaller states. The author starts with “Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces…” He continues “Breaking Egypt down territorially into distinct geographical regions…” Furthermore, “ The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as Lebanon…” His solution for the Palestinians is through “The termination of the lengthy rule of King Hussein and the transfer of power to the Palestinians…”

After Yinon, the neoconservatives in 1996 submitted a plan for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s consideration entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. Israel’s Western frontier is secured through the peace treaty with Egypt. The frontier with Syria could be secured “by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria.” As for Iraq, it starts with “removing Saddam Hussein from power…”

In 2007, General Wesley Clark, in an interview and a lecture, said that while visiting the Pentagon just a few days after 9/11, a General explained to him that a decision has been made “to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off with Iran.”

Iraq, the first on the Pentagon war list was invaded in 2003. The Israeli journalist Ari Shavit, in a Haaretz article on April 3, 2003, notes that “the belief in war against Iraq was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals…” Syria, next on the Pentagon war list, was “a ripe fruit ready for picking” However, the picking of Syria had to wait until the start of the so-called “Arab Spring”.

Had Syrians known what was planned for them by Washington and Tel Aviv, they might have avoided the death and destruction in Syria, for patriotism and wisdom call upon the various factions in the State to put aside their differences and confront the external threats.

Two-state hypocrisy

Imagine the following scenario: In response to the peaceful African-American civil rights movement in the United States, led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1960s, a large segment of white Americans figured that the best solution to the issue would be to form a new country on a small part of US territory in the north, where African-Americans would be segregated and live on their own.

Any of these African-Americans who lived for generations in the American South, but at some point had to flee to the American North (or to Canada or Mexico) because of violence and discrimination perpetrated against them, would not be able to return to their homes in the South. They would only be permitted to “return” to this new African-American state.

Any of the African-Americans already in the South could stay there, but would become second-class citizens, facing institutionalized discrimination in a country dominated politically, economically and socially by white Americans – much as was the case during the Jim Crow era following centuries of enslavement.

On top of this, any of the white Americans who recently colonized parts of African-American territory could stay and continue to exploit the natural resources, whether the African-American population liked it or not. This new country would also be demilitarized, landlocked (or denied a port) and would have no true sovereignty over its territory.

In other words, the fate of this predominantly African-American country would largely remain in the hands of the white American one.

Unless one is a racist or white supremacist, this scenario would sound preposterous not only to most Americans, but also to most people in the world. Sadly, this imaginary situation is very similar to the one that many Israeli, and more disappointingly, American Zionists would like to impose on Palestinians – the so-called two-state solution.

Leading to peace?

One might ask, what is the problem with a two-state solution, if it will lead to peace between Palestinians and Israelis?

For one, Israel is unwilling to fully evacuate from the West Bank territory that it seized during the 1967 war, despite its obligation to do so under UN Security Council Resolution 242. This is land that Palestinians would expect for their own state.

However, since 1967, Israel established more than 200 settlements on tens of thousands of hectares of Palestinian land in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, with a total population of more than 600,000Israeli settlers.

Due to these “facts on the ground,” Israel would demand to keep much of this occupied land in a two-state solution scenario. But according to international law, as outlined by the principle that territory cannot be acquired by force, Israel has no right to one square inch of Palestinian land in the West Bank.

In a two-state solution, Palestinians would expect their capital to be East Jerusalem, which was seized by Israel during the 1967 war. However, Israel considers the entire city of Jerusalem to be its “eternal and undivided” capital and it has remained firm on this position.

It has been reported that Israel would try to make the nearby neighborhood of Abu Dis the future Palestinian capital. This would be completely unacceptable to Palestinians as Jerusalem has tremendous religious, cultural and historical significance for them.

Neutered state

Another major problem with a two-state solution is that Israel would agree to a Palestinian state only under the condition that it is demilitarized. This has been emphasized by numerous Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Even former US President Bill Clinton proposed in 2000 that Israel be able to maintain some military facilities in Palestine and to deploy military forces in cases involving a “national security” threat to Israel. In other words, Palestine would be a neutered state with no true sovereignty, and Israel would always maintain significant control over Palestinians.

Last but not least, a two-state solution would almost certainly be the final nail in the coffin for the issue of the right of return for Palestinian refugees. This right is a cornerstone of the Palestinian struggle.

Palestinian refugees who were forced to flee, both in 1948 and in 1967, have an inalienable right to return to their homeland as do their descendants.

This right is enshrined in international law. The UN General Assembly in December 1948 adopted Resolution 194, and in June 1967, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 237, both of which call on Israel to allow the return of refugees.

Yet Israel continues to violate its obligations under international law. It has no intention of correcting its historic injustices that created the Palestinian refugee problem.

The right of return has been one of the key issues preventing a just settlement of the conflict. In the rare instances that Israel even considers Palestinian statehood, it regards the right of return as out of the question, save for return to a new hypothetical – and truncated – state of Palestine rather than to the areas where refugees once lived.

Inherently intolerant

The problems with a two-state solution mentioned above lead to an obvious question: Why not form one democratic state where both Palestinians and Israelis could live with equal rights?

This would be the most fair and equitable solution.

The answer to this question is quite simple. Zionism, the political ideology that is the basis of the state of Israel, is inherently intolerant of equality. Its main goal was to create a Jewish state in Palestine, where Jews would be the majority and dominate all others.

Jews would receive special rights and treatment. For example, a Jewish person from China who has no connection to Palestine has the right to emigrate there and become an Israeli citizen, while a Palestinian refugee whose family lived there for generations has no right to do so.

If that seems racist or discriminatory, it’s because it really is.

One might assume that such a prejudiced ideology is primarily espoused by a small segment of hard-line, right-wing Jews. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth.

A perfect example is J Street, which is a supposedly liberal lobbying organization that “mobilizes pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans who want Israel to be secure, democratic and the national home of the Jewish people.” The organization indicates that its policies reflect the views of the majority of American Jews.

But J Street is not shy about its support of the discriminatory philosophy of Zionism, as can be seen in its official policy regarding the two-state solution:

“With the Jewish and Arab populations between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea at near-parity, demographic trends preclude Israel from maintaining control over all of Greater Israel while remaining a democratic state and a homeland for the Jewish people. As then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in November 2007, ‘If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished.’”

It might seem unbelievable, but J Street is in fact stressing that equality for Palestinians and Israelis would spell disaster for Israel. It also adds that “there is no such thing as a ‘one-state solution,’ only a ‘one-state nightmare.’”

If this is the “liberal” Zionist position, and the position of Americans who theoretically should be more democratically minded, one can only imagine how bigoted the hard-line conservative Zionist view is. Indeed, hardcore right-wing Zionists would like nothing more than to permanently annex the West Bank and proceed with the “transference” of Palestinians to Jordan.

These people do support a one-state solution, but it is one that involves ethnic cleansing and no equality whatsoever.

Ironically, President Donald Trump made a remark that fittingly illustrates why Zionists are so opposed to a one-state solution. During a recent meeting in June, Trump half-jokingly told King Abdullah of Jordan that a one-state solution would lead to an Israeli prime minister named Muhammad.

This is the “demographic threat” that motivated Netanyahu to warn Israeli voters in 2015 that “Arab voters are heading to the polling stations in droves.” And this is the nightmare scenario that a former director of the Mossad, Israel’s foreign spy agency, referred to when he warned that the “Jewish and Palestinian populations in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are nearly equal, and Israel must act to separate itself.”

Zionism simply cannot stand the idea of equality between Jews and non-Jews.

The fact of the matter is that Israel was established at the expense of the non-Jewish indigenous Palestinian population – Muslims, Christians, and others – and it continues to subjugate and discriminate against them. This is precisely what Israel started in 1948, when at least 750,000 Palestinians were expelled and denied their right to return.

Since then, it has methodically engaged in the near starvation of Palestinians in Gaza, occupied and oppressedthose in the West Bank and Jerusalem, and imposed institutional discrimination against the Palestinian citizens of Israel. Through other tactics, such as the confiscation of Palestinian property and the demolition of homes, Israel has forced many Palestinians to emigrate, resulting in subtle ethnic cleansing.

As long as Israel remains committed to this racist, Zionist system, there will never be a truly just solution, no matter the number of states.

By Mohamed Mohamed
Source

Iran – Trump’s Broken Deal – Maneuver to War?

The Saker

May 11, 2018

by Peter Koenig for The Saker BlogIran – Trump’s Broken Deal – Maneuver to War?

Trump’s “Broken Deal”, his irrational decision to withdraw from the JCPOA, or simply called Iran’s Nuclear Deal, has hardly any other motives than again launching a provocation for war. The decision goes against all reason. Let’s not forget, that deal took 9 years of diplomatic efforts, a negotiation called “5 + 1” for the UN Security Council Members, plus Germany – and, of course, Iran. It was finally signed in Vienna on 14 July 2015.

A quick background: From the very beginning, way into Trump’s Presidential Campaign, he was against the deal. It was a bad deal, “the worst Obama could have made” – he always repeated himself, without ever saying what was bad about it, nor did he reveal who was the “bad-deal whisperer”, who for once didn’t get across to Obama with his unreasonable requests.

My guess is, Trump didn’t know, and he still doesn’t know, what was / is bad about the deal. Any deal that denuclearizes a country, is a deal for Peace, therefore a good deal, lest you forget the profit motive for war. The reasons Trump recently gave, when announcing stepping out of the Nuclear Agreement – Iran could not be trusted, Iran was a terrorist nation supporting Al-Qaeda and other terror groups, Iran’s ballistic missile system – and-and-and… were ludicrous, they were lies, contradictory and had nothing to do with the substance of the Deal – which frankly and sadly, Trump to this day probably doesn’t quite grasp in its full and long-range amplitude.

But what he does understand are his very close ties to Israel, or better to his buddy Bibi Netanyahu. And this not least, thanks to Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, who has long-standing business connections to Israel and is also close to Netanyahu. Even the mainstream media are not blind to this fact. But this is merely an added weight in Trump’s bias towards Israel, as the deep dark state that calls the shots on US Foreign Policy, is composed by the likes of Netanyahu. Survival, political or otherwise, Trump knows, depends on how well you follow their orders.

But back to reality: First, the Atomic Commission in Vienna has confirmed up to the last minute that Iran has no intention to start a nuclear arms program. They have confirmed their attestation 8 times since the signing of the deal. Second, the European allies – speak vassals – have so far strongly expressed their disagreement with Trump’s decision, especially the three “M’s” – May, Merkel and Macron. Their less noble reasons for doing so, may have to do with economic interests, as they have already signed billions worth of trade and technology-exchange contracts with Iran. Thirdly, even the more moderate and diplomatic Foreign Minister of the European Union, Ms. Federica Mogherini, said in no unclear tones – that there was no justification to abandon the Deal, and that the EU will stick to it. However, given past history, the EU has rather demonstrated having no backbone. – Have they now suddenly decided – for business reasons – that they will grow a backbone? – Would be nice, but so far, it’s merely a dream.

Of course, Russia and China, will stick to the Deal. After all, an international agreement is an international agreement. The only rogue country of this globe, and self-nominated exceptional nation, feels like doing otherwise. Literally, at every turn of a corner, if they so please. And like in this case, it doesn’t even make sense for the United States to withdraw. To the contrary. In theory, Iran could now immediately start their nuclear program and in a couple of years or sooner, they would be ready and equipped with nuclear arms.

But Iran is a smart and civilized nation. They have signed the Non-Proliferation pact and, at least for now, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani, has already pledged to stick to it. That could of course change, depending on how the Europeans will behave in the future. Will they eventually cave in to US pressure, or will they finally claim back their sovereignty and become an independent autonomous European Unit, able and willing to enter business relations with whomever they want and with whomever they deem is right, irrespective of illegal US sanctions. That would mean, of course, Iran, and normalizing relations with Russia, their natural partner for hundreds of years before the ascent of the exceptional nation. – Time will tell, whether this is a mere pipedream, or what.

What is it then that Trump and his handlers expect form this illegal decision of rescinding an international agreement? – A move towards “Regime Change”? – Hardly. They must know that with this undiplomatic decision, they are driving President Rouhani into the camp of the hardliners, this large fraction of Iranians who from the very beginning were against this Deal in the first place.

This decision is also a blow to the Atlantists or the “Fifth Column” which is quite strong in Iran. They see themselves abandoned by the west, as it is clear now, that Iran will accelerate the course they have already started, a move towards the East, becoming a member of the Eurasian Economic Union and formalizing their special status vis-à-vis the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), by becoming a regular member. Both are headed by Russia and China.

Plus, not to forget, President Xi Jinping was crystal clear when he recently said that Iran will be a crucial and vital link within the New Silk Road, or the BRI – Belt and Road Initiative, a Chinese socio-economic and cultural enterprise that will likely dominate the next few hundred years with trillions of investments in transport, industrial manufacturing, education, research and cultural infrastructure, connecting Asia from the very east with western Europe, Africa, the Middle East and even South America. The BRI is also being included in the Chinese Constitution.

There is a good reason why this gigantic Chinese Program is hardly mentioned in the western mainstream media. – The corporate oligarchs who control these media don’t want the world to know that the western fraudulent economy, built on debt and a pyramid monetary system (a large Ponzi scheme) is gradually declining, leaving all those that cling to it eventually abandoned and in misery.

Well, as in Chinese peaceful Tao tradition, President Xi is offering the world’s nations, to join this great socio-economic initiative – no pressure – just an offer. Many have already accepted, including Iran, India, Turkey, Greece … and pressure from business and politicians in Europe to become part of this tremendous project is mounting. The BRI is an unstoppable train.

What good will US-western sanctions do to an Iran detached from the west? And ever more detached from the western economy and monetary system? – None. As Mr. Rouhani said, Iran will hurt for a short while, but then “we will have recovered for good”. It’s only by hanging between east and west – a line that President Rouhani attempted to pursue, that western sanctions have any meaning. From that point of view, one can easily say, Trump shot himself in the foot.

But there is the other branch of the deep state – the military-security industrial complex – the multitrillion-dollar war machine – an apparatus which feeds largely on itself: It produces to destroy and needs to destroy ever more to guarantee its survival. That would explain how Obama inherited two wars and ended his Presidency with seven wars – which he passed on to Trump, who does his best to keep them going. But that’s not enough, he needs new ones to feed the bottomless war monster – which has become just about synonymous with the US economy, i.e. without war, the economy collapses.

Wars also make Wall Street live. War, like the housing market, is debt-financed. Except, war-funding is a national debt that will never be paid back – hence, the Ponzi scheme. New money, new debt, generated from hot air refinances old debt and will accumulated to debt never to be paid back. In 2008, what the General Accounting Office (GAO) calls “unmet obligations”, or “unfunded liabilities”, projected debt over the next five years, amounted to about US$ 48 trillion, or about 3.2 times GDP. In April 2018, GDP stood at about US$ 22 trillion as compared to unfunded liabilities of about US$ 140 trillion, nearly 6.5 times GDP. Ponzi would turn in his grave with a huge smile.

Since Washington’s foreign policy is written by Zionist thinktanks, it follows logic that more wars are needed. A big candidate is Iran. But why? Iran does no harm to anybody, the same as Syria – no harm to anybody, nor did Iraq, or Libya for that matter. Yet,
there is a distinct group of people who wants these countries destroyed. It’s the tiny little tail that wags the monster dog – for the resources and for greater Israel – as unofficial maps already indicate – stretching from Euphrates across the Red Sea all the way to the Nile and absorbing in between parts of Syria, Iraq, all of Palestine, of course, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt.

Resultado de imagen para map of greater israel
(source: globalsecurity.org)

Those who control the US thinktanks make sure that this target is enshrined in the minds of US decision makers. It would count as a major achievement in the course of global hegemony by the Chosen People (not to confound with the ‘exceptional nation’). Although, Iran is not within this picture, Iran would be the most serious and formidable opponent – enemy – of such a scheme.

By breaking the Nuclear Deal, Trump and his masters, especially Netanyahu, may have assumed a harsh reaction, now or later, by Iran. Or in the absence of such a reaction, launch a false flag – say a rocket lands in Israel, they claim it comes from Iran – and bingo, the brainwashed western populace buys it, and there is a reason to go to direct confrontation between Israel and Iran – of course, backed by Washington. This would make for war number 8, since Obama took over in early 2009. And it could account for a lot of killing and destruction – and most probably would involve also Russia and China — and – would that stay simply as a conventional war within the confines of the Middle East? – Or would it spread around the globe as a nuclear WWIII? – Would the commanding elite want to risk their own lives? You never know. Life in bunkers is not as nice as in luxury villas and on luxury boats. They know that.

That’s the dilemma most of those who stand behind the Trump decision probably haven’t quite thought through. Granted, it is difficult to think straight and especially think a bit ahead, when blinded by greed and instant profit – as the western neoliberal / neofascist doctrine dictates.

My hunch is, don’t hold me to it though, that this Trump decision, to “Break the Deal”, is the beginning of a disastrous and yet, ever accelerating decline of the western Global Hegemony Project.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; TeleSUR; The Vineyard of The Saker Blog; and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

%d bloggers like this: