Netanyahu's Genocidal War Is Costing Israel The Support Of U.S. Public

The chart above reflects the results of the New York Times / Siena College Poll -- done between September 22nd and 27th of a nationwide sample of 1,313 registered voters, with a 3.2 point margin of error. 

The Israeli Government Is Turning Their Nation Into A Pariah Nation

A couple of days ago, Israel attacked a Gaza hospital full of starving children with a drone bombing. A second drone attack on that same hospital a short time later, killing rescue workers and at least four journalists, showed the attack was not a tragic mistake - it was intentional.

This follows other violations of international law by the Israeli government. For nearly three months, it refused to allow any food or medical supplies into Gaza as it continued to attack the citizens there. Then, even after inadequate food supplies were allowed to enter, Israeli soldiers fired on and killed Gaza's trying to access that food numerous times.

None of this was necessary for the defense of Israel. Israel has long ago destroyed Hamas as a fighting force. The continuing attacks on Gaza citizens now seems to have two purposes - to allow Netanyahu to stay in power and to permanently take over Gaza.

The Netanyahu government seems to think it can do whatever it wants and still retain the support of the world. They are wrong. The genocidal war crimes they are committing is turning the world against them and making their country a pariah among nations. And it is even causing them to lose support among their most reliable supporters - the people of the United States.

A recent poll showed that when asked if they supported Israel or the Palestinians, the American public was virtually equal in support for Israel and Palestine and those who said they supported both. This shows a remarkable loss of support for Israel. Traditionally, the U.S. public has overwhelmingly supported Israel over the Palestinians.

Israel is a tiny nation, and it needs the support of the world - especially the United States. It is not likely to lose the support of Donald Trump, since Netanyahu has shown the ability to play Trump as effectively as Putin has. But Trump won't be in power forever, and without the support of the American public, Israel could be in trouble when he is gone.

Israel has the right to exist, but so do the Palestinians. The world wants a two-state solution and peace in the Middle East. The Netanyahu government has squandered much of the world's good will by their actions in Gaza. It must stop the war crimes or it will soon stand alone. 

Israel Is Losing The Support Of U.S. Voters

 

The charts above reflects the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between August 15th and 18th of a nationwide sample of 1,408 registered voters, with a 3.2 point margin of error.

Israel Created And Is Maintaining The Famine In Gaza

 

By cutting off all food supplies from entering Gaza for about three months, the Israeli government intentionally created the current famine in Gaza. And they continue to refuse to allow enough food to enter to stop the famine.

Netanyahu and his right-wing supporters have a purpose in doing this. They want to kill off or force out the residents of Gaza so they can take over and annex Gaza. And when they complete that, the West Bank is next.

Israel doesn't want a two-state solution. They want all of the Palestinian territories. It's why they have refused to negotiate a two-state solution.

This is a war crime. And Donald Trump is allowing them to do it. In fact, Trump will make sure the United Nations can do nothing to stop it!

U.S. Public Sees Little Hope For Lasting Peace Between Israelis/ Palestinians

The chart above is from a survey by the Pew Research Center -- done between September 16th and 22nd of a nationwide sample of 9,680 adults, with a 1.3 point margin of error.

Only 16% think there is a chance for lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians, while a whopping 66% don't think that is likely.

Netanyahu/Hamas Want The Same Thing - ALL Of Palestine

 

Note the top image. In November, most Americans approved of the Israeli military action in Gaza. In March, that has reversed. Now only 36% approve while 55% disapproves. Why? I believe it is because people are starting to understand that Netanyahu is conducting an illegal and horrifying genocide of Palestinians.

This should not really surprise any of us. Most Americans understand that only a two-state solution can solve the Mideast situation - with Israel being free of terrorism and a Palestinian state being free of Israel oppression. Most Americans also believe that its Hamas that has been the main obstacle to any peace talks. But most also don't realize that Netanyahu has been just as big an obstacle.

We hear the phrase "from the river to the sea", and we rightly identify it a Hamas' belief that they should control all of Palestine (including the part that is now the state of Israel). That is true. But it is just as true that the statement could also apply to Netanyahu. He also wants to control all of Palestine (making the West Bank and Gaza a part of Israel). Neither Hamas nor Netanyahu want a two-state solution.

Netanyahu has refused to negotiate with Palestinians for a two-state solution. He has refused because doing so would mean he would have to stop building Israeli settlements on Palestinian land, and would likely have to give back some of the settlements already built. That's not acceptable to him because his policy is to expand the borders of Israeli - not find any other solution.

A year before the October attack on Israel by Hamas, Netanyahu was told by Israeli intelligence that Hamas was planning the attack. He didn't increase Israeli defenses. Why? I don't think he realized the attack would be as effective as it was, but I do believe he wanted the attack to happen. He wanted the attack to happen so he would be justified in attacking Gaza in revenge.

Now he is not only slowly encroaching on the West Bank with more and more settlements, but he is waging a genocidal war on Gaza - bombing innocent citizens and denying them food, shelter and medical aid. It has become obvious that he wants to force the Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank so he can complete his expansion of Israel.

Hamas is wrong in its desire to control all of Palestine, but so is Netanyahu. And as long as both remain in power, there will be no peace.

Bernie Sanders" Solution For Peace In The Middle East

Senator Bernie Sanders has written an excellent op-ed for The New York Times. Here is just a small part of it, where he offers what is necessary for a solution: 

Mr. Netanyahu has made clear where he stands on these critical issues. So should we. If asking nicely worked, we wouldn’t be in this position. The only way these necessary changes will happen is if the United States uses the substantial leverage we have with Israel. And we all know what that leverage is.

For many years, the United States has provided Israel substantial sums of money — with close to no strings attached. Currently, we provide $3.8 billion a year. President Biden has asked for $14.3 billion more on top of that sum and asked Congress to waive normal, already-limited oversight rules. The blank check approach must end. The United States must make clear that while we are friends of Israel, there are conditions to that friendship and that we cannot be complicit in actions that violate international law and our own sense of decency. That includes an end to indiscriminate bombing; a significant pause to the bombing so that massive humanitarian assistance can come into the region; the right of displaced Gazans to return to their homes; no long-term Israeli occupation of Gaza; an end to settler violence in the West Bank and a freeze on settlement expansion; a commitment to broad peace talks for a two-state solution in the wake of the war.

Over the years, people of good will around the world, including Israelis, have tried to address this conflict in a way that brings justice for Palestinians and security for Israel. I, and some other members of Congress, have tried to do what we could. Obviously, we did not do enough. Now we must recommit to this effort. The stakes are just too high to give up.

Palestinians Seen More Favorably - Especially Among Young

 

These charts are from a survey done by the Pew Research Center -- done between March 7th and 13th of a nationwide sample of 10,441 adults, with a 1.5 point margin of error.

Netanyahu Will Annex The West Bank (No 2-State Solution)

The map above shows the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank (Palestinian land), and more are being built all the time.

The myth here in the United States is that it is the Palestinians that have been the obstacle to peace in the Mid-East, by refusing to negotiate with Israel -- and that Israel is willing to negotiate a two-state solution that would create a Palestinian nation. That is simply not true.

It is Israel that has been blocking the negotiations by continuing to build settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank. They obviously have no intention of ever giving up these settlements and allowing the Palestinians to control their own land. Now, finally, an Israeli politician has been honest about Israel's intentions.

Prime Minister Netanyahu (who is running for re-election) has openly stated that when he is re-elected he will annex the West Bank -- making it an official part of the nation of Israel. This comes as no surprise to honest viewers of the situation in the Mid-East. This has long been the unspoken desire of the Israeli government. Why would they continue to build these settlements if they had any intention to one day give them up?

They wouldn't. They have never intended to allow the Palestinians to create a nation of their own (composed of the West Bank and Gaza). Netanyahu's desire to annex the West Bank is not different from the desires of other Israeli politicians -- he's just a bit more honest about Israeli intentions.

Here's what he said:

"A Palestinian state will endanger our existence and I withstood huge pressure over the past eight years, no prime minister has withstood such pressure. We must control our destiny."

"Will we move ahead to the next stage? Yes. I will extend sovereignty but I don't distinguish between the settlement blocs and the isolated ones, because each settlement is Israeli and I will not hand it over to Palestinian sovereignty." 

"I will not divide Jerusalem, I will not evacuate any community and I will make sure we control the territory west of Jordan." 

Trump Cuts Humanitarian Aid To Palestine

(This photo of a Palestinian family is from nacoesunidas.org.)

The "great negotiator" has developed a new policy to encourage negotiations between Palestinians and Israel. Of course, it's not a fair policy. Trump wants to force Palestinians to comply with whatever Israel wants.

In the last three weeks, Trump has cut humanitarian aid to Palestine. Three weeks ago, Trump cut $300 million in aid to Palestine for humanitarian aid and development. Two weeks ago, he cut another $200 million in aid for schools and health clinics. Last week, he cut an additional $25 million in aid destined for sic East Jerusalem hospitals that serve Palestinians.

He says he cutting the money to make the Palestinians come back to the negotiating table. He completely ignores the fact that Israel is the biggest obstruction to continuing negotiations. If they negotiate, they would have to stop stealing Palestinian lands to build new Jewish settlements -- and they might even have to give that land back. They are not going to do that -- and the easiest way to do that is make unreasonable demands on the Palestinians to negotiate -- which they have effectively done for years now.

Trump's policy might make sense if he had cut the aid to BOTH SIDES to bring them to the negotiating table. But he didn't do that. The U.S. continues to send Israel about $3.1 billion in aid -- and Trump has said he wants to increase that to $3.3 billion in 2019.

All Trump's action has done is show that the United States is no longer a fair broker in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Trump wants whatever Israel wants -- and he's willing to starve the Palestinians and deny them medical care to accomplish that.

Trump's action is shameful, unfair, and immoral. That shouldn't surprise us, since he is a shameful, unfair and immoral person.

U.S. Abstains From Security Council Vote On Israel

The map above (from antiwar.com) is of the West Bank -- land that belongs to the Palestinian people. But, through the continued building of illegal settlements and building of a wall, Israel now controls most of the land (brown areas on the map). It is obvious that Israel has no intention of allowing a "two-state solution" which would require them to give this land back to the Palestinians. Instead, they are boldly and illegally attempting to steal this land and increase the size of their country.

The world knows this (with the exception of right-wing Israeli apologists in the United States) and has attempted many times to condemn this in the United Nations. The United States has always vetoed those resolutions (thereby becoming an accessory in Israel's land theft).

That changed a few days ago. A Security Council resolution condemning the illegal building of settlements passed on a 14 to 0 vote. It passed because the United States, for the first time, did not veto it. Instead, they simply abstained. Finally, the United States felt a moral obligation to stop defending the building of the illegal settlements.

After the U.N. vote, Secretary of State John Kerry gave an important speech that laid out U.S. policy. You can read a full transcript of that speech in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, but I have posted some interesting excerpts from it below:

Throughout his administration, President Obama has been deeply committed to Israel and its security, and that commitment has guided his pursuit of peace in the Middle East. This is an issue which I’ve worked on intensely during my time as Secretary of State for one simple reason: because the two state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It is the only way to ensure Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state, living in peace and security with its neighbors. It is the only way to ensure a future of freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people. . . .

Regrettably, some seem to believe that the US friendship means the US must accept any policy, regardless of our own interests, our own positions, our own words, our own principles -- even after urging again and again that the policy must change. Friends need to tell each other the hard truths, and friendships require mutual respect. Israel’s permanent representative to the United Nations, who does not support a two-state solution, said after the vote last week: “It was to be expected that Israel’s greatest ally would act in accordance with the values that we share” and veto this resolution. I am compelled to respond that the United States, did in fact vote "in accordance with our values," just as previous U.S. administrations have done at the Security Council. They fail to recognize that this friend, the United States, that has done more to support Israel than any other country, this friend that has blocked countless efforts to delegitimize Israel, cannot be true to our own values -- or even the stated democratic values of Israel -- and we cannot properly defend and protect Israel -- if we allow a viable two state solution to be destroyed before our eyes. And that’s the bottom line: the vote in the UN was about preserving the two state solution. . . .

On this point, I want to be very clear. No American Administration has done more for Israel’s security than Barack Obama’s. The Israeli Prime Minister himself has noted our unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation. Our military exercises are more advanced than ever. Our assistance for Iron Dome has saved countless Israeli lives. We have consistently supported Israel’s right to defend itself, by itself, including during actions in Gaza that sparked great controversy. Time and again we have demonstrated that we have Israel’s back. We have strongly opposed boycotts, divestment campaigns and sanctions targeting Israel in international fora, whenever and wherever its legitimacy was attacked, and we have fought for its inclusion across the UN system. In the midst of our own financial crisis and budget deficits, we repeatedly increased funding to support Israel. In fact, more than half of our entire global Foreign Military Financing goes to Israel. And this fall, we concluded an historic 38 billion dollar Memorandum of Understanding that exceeds any military assistance package the U.S. has provided to any country, at any time, and that will invest in cutting edge missile defense, and sustain Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge for years to come. . . .

Despite our best efforts over the years, the two state solution is now in serious jeopardy. The truth is that trends on the ground –violence, terrorism, incitement, settlement expansion and the seemingly endless occupation – are destroying hopes for peace on both sides and increasingly cementing an irreversible one-state reality that most people do not actually want. Today, there are a similar number of Jews and Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. They have a choice. They can choose to live together in one state, or they can separate into two states. But here is a fundamental reality: if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic – it cannot be both –and it won’t ever really be at peace. . . .

Allies of both sides are content to reinforce this “with us or against us mentality” where too often anyone who questions Palestinian actions is an apologist for the occupation and anyone who disagrees with Israeli policy is cast as anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic. That’s one of the most striking realties about the current situation: This critical decision about the future – one state or two states -- is effectively being made on the ground every day, despite the expressed opinion of the majority of the people. The status quo is leading towards one state and perpetual occupation, but most of the public either ignores it or has given up hope that anything can be done to change it. . . .

Let’s be clear: settlement expansion has nothing to do with Israel’s security; many settlements actually increase the security burden on the IDF. And leaders of the settler movement are motivated by ideological imperatives that entirely ignore legitimate Palestinian aspirations. Among the most troubling illustrations of this point has been the proliferation of settler outposts that are illegal under Israel’s own laws. They are often located on private Palestinian land and strategically placed to make two states impossible. There are over 100 of these outposts, and since 2011, nearly one third have been – or are being – legalized, despite pledges by past Israeli governments to dismantle many of them. Now, leaders of the settler movement have advanced unprecedented new legislation that would legalize most of the outposts. . . .

Now you may hear that the settlements are not an obstacle to peace because the settlers who don’t want to leave can just stay in Palestine, like the Arab Israelis who live in Israel. But that misses a critical point: the Arab Israelis are citizens of Israel, subject to Israel’s laws. Does anyone really believe the settlers will agree to submit to Palestinian law in Palestine? Likewise, some supporters of the settlements argue that the settlers could just stay in their settlements, and remain as Israeli citizens in their separate enclaves in the middle of Palestine, protected by the IDF. There are over 80 settlements east of the separation barrier, many located in places that would make a contiguous Palestinian state impossible. Does anyone seriously think that if they just stay where they are you could still have a viable Palestinian state? . . .

How would Israel respond to a growing civil rights movement from Palestinians demanding a right to vote, or widespread protests and unrest across the West Bank? How does Israel reconcile a permanent occupation with its democratic ideals? How does the U.S. continue to defend that and still live up to our own democratic ideals? Nobody has ever provided good answers to those questions because there aren’t any. . . .

Common interests in countering Iran’s destabilizing activities and fighting extremists as well as diversifying their economies have created real possibilities. I have spent a great deal of time with key Arab leaders exploring this, and there is no doubt that they are prepared to have a fundamentally different relationship with Israel. That was stated n the Arab Peace Initiative, and all my recent conversations have confirmed their readiness, in the context of Israeli-Palestinian peace, not just to normalize relations -- but to work openly on securing that peace with significant regional security cooperation. Many have shown a willingness to support serious Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and to take steps on the path to normalization of relations – including public meetings -- providing there is meaningful progress towards a two state solution. That is a real opportunity that should not be missed. . . .

In the end, we could not in good conscience protect the most extreme elements of the settler movement as it tries to destroy the two state solution. We could not in good conscience turn a blind eye to Palestinian actions that fan hatred and violence. It is not in U.S. interests to help anyone on either side create a unitary state. We may not be able to stop them, but we cannot be expected to defend them. And it is certainly not the role of any country to vote against its own policies. . . .

We must not lose hope in the possibility of peace. We must not give in to those who say what is now must always be, that there is no chance for a better future. Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to make the difficult choices for peace – and if they are, we can all help. And for the sake of future generations of Israelis and Palestinians, for all the people of the region, and for the United States, let’s hope they are prepared to make those choices now.

It's Time For The U.S. To Show Israel Some "Tough Love"

(The image above was found at Eine Kleine Nichtmusik.)

The nation of Israel is very popular with citizens in this country, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has used that to his advantage for years now. Under his leadership, Israel has basically operated two giant concentration camps in Gaza and the West Bank, engaged in the theft of Palestinian land by continuing to build Israeli settlements on that land (settlements they have no intention of giving up), and refused to negotiate a two-state solution to end the crisis in the Middle East.

Netanyahu claims all of this is necessary to protect Israel, and sadly, Americans have bought that lie for far too long now. The truth is that the Netanyahu government doesn't want to negotiate a settlement, because that would stop their theft of Palestinian land. And he made that clear to Israeli voters in the recent election -- assuring them that there would be no two-state solution as long as he was in power.

Now that he has been re-elected, he is trying to walk back that statement -- saying he actually does support a two-state solution. That is a lie. His assurances during the election, and his past actions, both show he is opposed to negotiating a two-state solution (or ceasing to steal Palestinian land). His recent statements are just to try and placate the United States government -- who have been protecting Israel in the United Nations, and continue to give them billions of dollars of foreign aid.

Israel has gone far beyond just defending itself. Under Netanyahu, it has become an international criminal state -- and it is time for the United States to show them some "tough love". The United States should stop vetoing United Nations resolutions condemning Israel's criminal behavior, and it needs to severely cut (or eliminate) the foreign aid it sends. It needs to do both until Israel ceases it criminal theft of Palestinian land and its obstruction of peace talks leading to a two-state solution.

Israel has a right to exist, but it does not have the right to be an international pariah under the guise of self-defense. With the re-election of Netanyahu, Israel has clearly shown it has no intention of curbing their criminal behavior. It is time for the United States to act.

Israel No Longer Inhabits The Moral High Ground

After World War II, most nations were shocked at what had happened to the jewish people in Europe (and embarrassed by their failure to act on that earlier). And to make up for that, they voted in the United Nations to partition Palestine to create Israel. For many years, the state of Israel occupied the moral high ground -- providing a home for their people and making an attempt to get along with their neighbors in the area.

Unfortunately, that is no longer true. At some point in the recent past, Israel changed. Their government decided it could get more by delaying the peace process, while stealing Palestinian land and forcing that population into an ever shrinking area where they deny rights and control movement. And every now and then they attack that shrinking area in the name of "self-defense". They have given up the moral high ground in favor of violent, oppressive, and thuggish behavior -- and they are doing that so they can continue to steal the Palestinian's land.

The maps above make this perfectly clear. Note that the green areas (Palestinian land) has been radically shrunk, and this continues to happen as they build more permanent settlements of that land.

The United States must share at least some of the blame for this. We continue to send large amounts of money and arms to Israel, and we protect Israel from being punished for its theft and thuggish behavior (even though most civilized nations have demanded that Israel stop this. It is time to change this, and it must be done before that map ceases to have any green on it at all.

Chomsky On The Failure To Solve Israeli/Palestinian Crisis

The picture at left is of Professor Noam Chomsky (Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology). The photo is by Duncan Rawlinson, and was found on Wikipedia.

Last Tuesday, Professor Chomsky gave a speech to 800 people in the United Nations General Assembly hall. That speech was about the Israeli-Palestinian situation -- and it was the best explanation of what has been happening over there that I have ever read or seen. If you really want to know what is happening there, and why peace seems impossible, then I urge you to go over to Democracy Now and read or listen to the whole thing.

Here is some of what Professor Chomsky had to say:

Many of the world’s problems are so intractable that it’s hard to think of ways even to take steps towards mitigating them. The Israel-Palestine conflict is not one of these. On the contrary, the general outlines of a diplomatic solution have been clear for at least 40 years. Not the end of the road—nothing ever is—but a significant step forward. And the obstacles to a resolution are also quite clear.

The basic outlines were presented here in a resolution brought to the U.N. Security Council in January 1976. It called for a two-state settlement on the internationally recognized border—and now I’m quoting—"with guarantees for the rights of both states to exist in peace and security within secure and recognized borders." The resolution was brought by the three major Arab states: Egypt, Jordan, Syria—sometimes called the "confrontation states." Israel refused to attend the session. The resolution was vetoed by the United States. A U.S. veto typically is a double veto: The veto, the resolution is not implemented, and the event is vetoed from history, so you have to look hard to find the record, but it is there. That has set the pattern that has continued since. The most recent U.S. veto was in February 2011—that’s President Obama—when his administration vetoed a resolution calling for implementation of official U.S. policy opposition to expansion of settlements. And it’s worth bearing in mind that expansion of settlements is not really the issue; it’s the settlements, unquestionably illegal, along with the infrastructure projects supporting them.

For a long time, there has been an overwhelming international consensus in support of a settlement along these general lines. The pattern that was set in January 1976 continues to the present. Israel rejects a settlement of these terms and for many years has been devoting extensive resources to ensuring that it will not be implemented, with the unremitting and decisive support of the United States—military, economic, diplomatic and indeed ideological—by establishing how the conflict is viewed and interpreted in the United States and within its broad sphere of influence.

There’s no time here to review the record, but its general character is revealed by a look at what has happened in Gaza in the past decade, carrying forward a long history of earlier crimes. Last August, August 26th, a ceasefire was reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. And the question on all our minds is: What are the prospects for the future? Well, one reasonable way to try to answer that question is to look at the record. And here, too, there is a definite pattern: A ceasefire is reached; Israel disregards it and continues its steady assault on Gaza, including continued siege, intermittent acts of violence, more settlement and development projects, often violence in the West Bank; Hamas observes the ceasefire, as Israel officially recognizes, until some Israeli escalation elicits a Hamas response, which leads to another exercise of "mowing the lawn," in Israeli parlance, each episode more fierce and destructive than the last. . .

The pattern is very clear. And so far, at least, it appears to be continuing. The latest ceasefire was reached on August 26th. It was followed at once by Israel’s greatest land grab in 30 years, almost a thousand acres in the Gush Etzion area near what’s called Jerusalem, Greater Jerusalem, about five times the size of anything that Jerusalem ever was, taken over by Israel, annexed in violation of Security Council orders. The U.S. State Department informed the Israeli Embassy that Israeli—I’m quoting it now—"Israeli activity in Gush Etzion undermines American efforts to protect Israel at the United Nations," and urged that Israel shouldn’t provide ammunition for "those at the [United Nations] who would interpret [Israel’s] position as hardening." Actually, that warning was given 47 years ago, in September 1967, at the time of Israel’s first colonization, illegal colonization, of Gush Etzion. Israeli historian Gershom Gorenberg recently reminded us of this. Little has changed since, in the last 47 years, apart from the scale of the crimes, which continue, without a break, with constant U.S. support.

Well, as for the prospects, there is a conventional picture. It’s repeated constantly on all sides—Israel, Palestine, independent commentators, diplomats. The picture that’s presented is that there are two alternatives: either the two-state settlement, which represents an overwhelming international consensus, virtually everyone, and if that fails, there will have to be one state—Israel will take over the West Bank, the Palestinians will hand over the keys, as it’s sometimes said. Palestinians often have favored that. They say then they will be able to carry out a civil rights struggle, maybe modeled on the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, fight for civil rights within the whole one state controlled by Israel. Now, Israelis criticize that on the grounds of what is called "the demographic problem," the fact that there will be too many non-Jews in a Jewish state—in fact, pretty soon a majority. Those are the alternatives that are presented, overwhelmingly, hardly an exception.

My own opinion, which I’ve written about repeatedly—without convincing many people, apparently, but I’ll try to convince you—is that this is a total illusion. Those are not the two alternatives. There are two alternatives, but they’re different ones. One alternative is the international consensus on a two-state settlement, basically the terms of January 1976. By now, it’s virtually everyone—the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic States, includes Iran, Europe, Latin America—informally, at least, about everyone. That’s one option. The other option, the realistic one, is that Israel will continue doing exactly what it is doing right now, before our eyes, visible, with U.S. support, which is also visible. And what’s happening is not a secret. You can open the newspapers and read it.

Israel is taking over what they call Jerusalem, as I mentioned, a huge area, maybe five times the area of historic Jerusalem, Greater Jerusalem, big area in the West Bank, includes many Arab villages being dispossessed, destroyed, bringing settlers in. All of this is doubly illegal. All the settlements are illegal, as determined by the Security Council, advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. But the Jerusalem settlements are doubly illegal, because they’re also in violation of explicit Security Council orders going back to 1968, with the U.S. actually voting for them at that time, barring any change in the status of Jerusalem. But it continues. That’s Greater Jerusalem. There are then corridors extending to the east. One major corridor extending from Jerusalem almost to Jericho, virtually bisecting the West Bank, includes the Israeli town of Ma’ale Adumim, which was built largely during the Clinton administration, Clinton years, with the obvious purpose of bisecting the West Bank—still a little contested territory, but that’s the goal. There’s another corridor further to the north including the town of Ariel, partially bisecting what remains. Another one further to the north including the town of Kedumim. If you look at the map, these essentially break up the West Bank into pretty much cantons. It looks, from a map, as though a large territory is left, but that’s misleading. Most of that is uninhabitable desert. And that’s separate from what I mentioned before, the slow, steady takeover of the Jordan Valley to the east—again, about a third of the arable land, the country.

Israel has no official policy of taking it over, but they’re pursuing the policy in the way that has been carried out now for a hundred years, literally—small steps so nobody notices, or at least people pretend not to notice, establish a military zone. The Palestinians who live there have to be displaced because it’s a military zone, no settlement allowed, and pretty soon there’s a military settlement, Nahal settlement, and another, then, sooner or later, it becomes an actual settlement. Meanwhile, dig wells, dispossess the population, set up green zones—a large variety of techniques which have, by now, reduced the Arab population from about 300,000 in 1967 to roughly 60,000 today. As I mentioned, that essentially imprisons what’s left.

I don’t think Israel has any intention of taking over the Palestinian population concentrations, which are left out of this, these plans. There are analogies often made to South Africa, but they’re quite misleading. South Africa relied on its black population. That was 85 percent of the population. It was its workforce. And they had to sustain them, just like slaveowners have to maintain their capital. They tried to sustain the population. They even tried to gain international support for the bantustans. Israel has no such attitude toward the Palestinians. They don’t want to have anything to do with them. If they leave, that’s fine. If they die, that’s fine. In standard neocolonial pattern, Israel is establishing—permitting the establishment of a center for Palestinian elites in Ramallah, where you have nice restaurants and theaters and so on. Every Third World country under the colonial system had something like that.

Now, that’s the picture that’s emerging. It’s taking shape before our eyes. It has so far worked very well. If it continues, Israel will not face a demographic problem. When these regions are integrated slowly into Israel, actually, the proportion of Jews in Greater Israel will increase. There are very few Palestinians there. Those who are there are being dispossessed, kicked out. That’s what’s taking shape before our eyes. I think that’s the realistic alternative to a two-state settlement. And there’s every reason to expect it to continue as long as the United States supports it.

Israel Shows It Is Not Interested In Peace

(Image is from a 5/25/2009 edition of The Telegraph.)

Once again, the Israeli government is showing it is not really interested in the success of peace talks with the Palestinians. They are just using the peace talks to keep Europe and America off their backs while they continue to expand their country by stealing Palestinian land.

The Israeli government has just published it latest list of more than 600 towns and areas that need (and will get more money from the government) -- and the list includes 91 illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian areas. That's six more settlements than were included in the last report, and shows the Israeli government is not really interested in peace (since the last peace talks were discontinued for this same kind of settlement expansion).

The settlements are illegal according to international law. And they expose the real policy of the Israeli government -- to expand their country by building settlements in captured and occupied areas. And they are not willing to even negotiate giving any of the land back (for a Palestinian state) that their settlements are on. Israel doesn't want any two-state solution (which might lead to peace). They just want to expand their country's size.

This is nothing but outright theft of lands that do not (and should not) belong to Israel. The western nations, including the United States, should stop all aid to Israel until it alters this policy of land theft. Is there really any difference between Israel's seizure and annexation of Palestinian lands and Saddam's seizure and attempt to annex Kuwait? How can the United States let the first happen, while it went to war to prevent the other? Isn't it more than a bit hypocritical to turn a blind eye when our friend's do what we would not let other nations do?

Obama's U.N. Speech Is Disappointing

The United Nations has started a new session, and without a doubt the most important (and most politically sensitive) item on this session's agenda is a Palestinian state. Palestinian leaders have asked the United Nations to recognize the Palestinian Territories as a state and give them a seat in the United Nations General Assembly. They are hoping that such a move will force Israel back to the negotiating table to finally agree to a two-state solution.

The Israeli government is opposed to the U.N. granting statehood and membership to the Palestinian Territories. Such a move by the U.N. would further marginalize the position Israel has taken in refusing to negotiate, and would put more pressure on Israel to stop stealing Palestinian lands by building illegal settlements -- settlements they have no intention of giving up in any future peace agreement.

The Obama administration has tried to keep the Palestinians from bring this proposal before the United Nations (even though they have been unsuccessful in convincing Israel to negotiate a peace settlement). They have threatened to cut off foreign aid to the Palestinian Territories and even said they might veto the plan when it comes before the Security Council.  But, so far, Obama's threats have not persuaded the Palestinians to abandon their U,N, proposal.

Yesterday President Obama spoke to the United Nations. The world was waiting to hear what the United States is going to do about the Palestinian proposal, but the president side-stepped the issue. Here is what he did say about this issue:

Now, I know, particularly this week, that for many in this hall, there's one issue that stands as a test for these principles and a test for American foreign policy, and that is the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

One year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine. I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. Faced with this stalemate, I put forward a new basis for negotiations in May of this year. That basis is clear. It’s well known to all of us here. Israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances for their security. Palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state.
 
Now, I know that many are frustrated by the lack of progress. I assure you, so am I. But the question isn’t the goal that we seek -- the question is how do we reach that goal. And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations -- if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians -- not us –- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem.
 
Ultimately, peace depends upon compromise among people who must live together long after our speeches are over, long after our votes have been tallied. That’s the lesson of Northern Ireland, where ancient antagonists bridged their differences. That’s the lesson of Sudan, where a negotiated settlement led to an independent state. And that is and will be the path to a Palestinian state -- negotiations between the parties.
 
We seek a future where Palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own, with no limit to what they can achieve. There’s no question that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long. It is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and so much effort in the building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can deliver a Palestinian state.
 
But understand this as well: America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. Our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring. And so we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that Israel faces every single day.

Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied.

The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two-state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine.
 
That is the truth -- each side has legitimate aspirations -- and that’s part of what makes peace so hard. And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in the other’s shoes; each side can see the world through the other’s eyes. That’s what we should be encouraging. That’s what we should be promoting.

This body -- founded, as it was, out of the ashes of war and genocide, dedicated, as it is, to the dignity of every single person -- must recognize the reality that is lived by both the Palestinians and the Israelis. The measure of our actions must always be whether they advance the right of Israeli and Palestinian children to live lives of peace and security and dignity and opportunity. And we will only succeed in that effort if we can encourage the parties to sit down, to listen to each other, and to understand each other’s hopes and each other’s fears. That is the project to which America is committed. There are no shortcuts. And that is what the United Nations should be focused on in the weeks and months to come.

While the president did not say what the United States will or will not do to the Palestinian proposal in the United Nations, he did reveal once again what drives U.S. policy in the region -- holocaust guilt. Don't get me wrong. I do not deny the holocaust. It happened, and it was one of the most horrible cases of genocidal activity in world history -- and it should not be forgotten. I further believe that both the United States and other Western nations could have done more to stop it earlier.

But that was more than 60 years ago. Must we let the guilt of our fathers and grandfathers continue to drive our foreign policy in that region of the world? Must we continue to pay for the sins of a past generation by turning over our Mideast policy decisions to the Israeli government?

Israel has a right to exist, and its citizens have a right to live in peace and safety. We should do everything in our power to see that is a reality. But this does not justify current Israeli actions, whether it is building illegal settlements on Palestinian land, refusing to negotiate a two-state peaceful solution, or the abhorrent blockades of the West Bank and Gaza (which is nothing more than an effort to starve millions of people into submission, and a majority of those people are women and children -- innocent victims).

There is little doubt that even though the president did not come out and say so, the United States will veto the Palestinian proposal in the Security Council. It shouldn't do it, but it will. If the United States cannot support the proposal, what they should do is step aside and let the world's nations vote on it. But they will veto it because that is what the Israeli government wants.

The really crazy part of this mess is that a majority of the people that live in that region support the Palestinian proposal -- both Palestinians and Israelis. The Jerusalem Post has reported that a joint survey (done by the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah) has found this to be true.

Although 77% of Palestinians and 79% of Israelis believe that the United States will veto the proposal, majorities of both groups believe it is not the right thing to do. Around 83% of Palestinians and 69% of Israelis feel the proposal should be accepted and new talks to work out a negotiated peace should be started.

It is time for the United States to do the right thing -- and the right thing would be to allow the vote to proceed in the U.N. without a veto, and then pressure the Israeli government to return to the negotiating table.  

Will Saudi Arabia Turn Against The U.S. ?

Israel has been delaying any peace negotiations with the Palestinians for many years now. They are primarily doing this because with each month they delay they can steal more Palestinian land for Israeli settlements -- land they have no intention of ever parting with in negotiating a Palestinian State. In an effort to stop the stealing of their land and force a final settlement resulting in a country of their own, the Palestinians are taking their case to the United Nations this month.

They are asking the United Nations to recognize the Palestinian state as a country and give them a seat at the United Nations. Most of the countries in the Middle East support this, as do many other countries around the world. The nations of Europe are mostly on the fence, and haven't decided how they would vote in the General Assembly. But there is one country that stands as a roadblock to keep this from happening -- the United States. The United States has not only asked Palestine not to proceed with this, but they have threatened to cut off aid for them and to veto the measure when it makes it to the Security Council.

The United States may have thought they were operating from a position of power while making these threats, but it now looks like these moves (if the U.S. follows through with them) could cost the U.S. a powerful ally in the Middle East -- Saudi Arabia. Prince Turki al-Faisal, former head of Saudi Intelligence and former Saudi ambassador to the U.S. and a member of the royal family, has written a scathing editorial in the New York Times. In it he says the U.S. could lose Saudi Arabia as an ally if it stops the statehood question in the United Nations. Here is some of what he had to say:

The United States must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world. If it does not, American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region.


Moreover, Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America in the same way it historically has. With most of the Arab world in upheaval, the “special relationship” between Saudi Arabia and the United States would increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, who demand justice for the Palestinian people.


Saudi leaders would be forced by domestic and regional pressures to adopt a far more independent and assertive foreign policy. Like our recent military support for Bahrain’s monarchy, which America opposed, Saudi Arabia would pursue other policies at odds with those of the United States, including opposing the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Iraq and refusing to open an embassy there despite American pressure to do so. The Saudi government might part ways with Washington in Afghanistan and Yemen as well.


The Palestinian people deserve statehood and all that it entails: official recognition, endorsement by international organizations, the ability to deal with Israel on more equal footing and the opportunity to live in peace and security. . .


The Obama administration has had ample opportunities to lead Israelis and Palestinians into bilateral peace talks, but American policy makers have unfortunately been more preoccupied with a deteriorating domestic economy and a paralyzed political scene than with finding a workable solution to this epic injustice. Because Washington has offered no viable new proposals, the least it can do is step aside and not hinder Saudi, European and moderate Arab efforts to advance Palestinian rights at the United Nations. . .


Although Saudi Arabia is willing and able to chart a new and divergent course if America fails to act justly with regard to Palestine, the Middle East would be far better served by continuing cooperation and good will between these longstanding allies.


American support for Palestinian statehood is therefore crucial, and a veto will have profound negative consequences. In addition to causing substantial damage to American-Saudi relations and provoking uproar among Muslims worldwide, the United States would further undermine its relations with the Muslim world, empower Iran and threaten regional stability. Let us hope that the United States chooses the path of justice and peace.

Although he doesn't mention it specifically, Saudi Arabia could effectively end the era of cheap oil for the United States. Some of you may think that oil is already expensive, but it could get much worse if the Saudi's decide to punish the U.S. by playing games with the price and supply of oil -- and they have the power to do it. Without Saudi Arabia as a cheap supplier of oil and as a moderating influence on other Arab nations, the U.S. could find itself in a much worse position -- both in the Middle East and at home.

Will the United States government pay heed to this warning? Probably not. Our foreign policy in the Middle East has been dictated by Israel for far too long. The U.S. will probably exercise that veto, and then things could get very messy.

U.S. Mid-East Policy Still Biased

There is no doubt that when George W. Bush was president the United States was biased toward Israel. That is why there was no progress in Mid-East talks during his administration. A solution to the crises would require both the Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate and compromise -- neither of which Israel wants to do (since they are currently busy stealing Palestinian land and building settlements). But Bush would put no pressure on Israel. Whatever Israel wanted was OK with him.

When President Obama was elected, I was hoping it would result in a more even-handed approach to the Mid-East crises -- that we would pressure Israel to accept a two-state solution while guaranteeing the existence and protection of Israel. But I'm afraid that hope was in vain. Recent actions by the United States confirms that U.S. Mid-East policy is still being dictated by Israel. And Israel is still refusing to go to the negotiating table (or stop building the illegal settlements). Israel also refuses to lift its illegal and inhumane blockade of Palestinian territory.

Since the Israelis won't agree to allowing the Palestinians create their own free and independent nation (a nation not under the control of Israel), the Palestinians are trying something a bit different. They are taking their case to the United Nations -- probably in September of this year. They will ask the United Nations to recognize them as a country (something quite a few nations, especially in Latin America, have already done) and give them a seat in the United Nations. This would put serious pressure on Israel to stop their refusal to negotiate and illegal actions.

But the United States is having none of it, since they still get their marching orders from the Israeli government. Daniel Rubinstein, U.S. General Consul in Jerusalem, has told Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat that the United States will veto any action taken by the Security Council to recognize Palestine. In addition, if Palestine follows through on its promise to go to the United Nations the United States will cut off its economic aid to them (making a desperate situation much worse).

This is inexcusable. The Palestinians should have the right to take their case to the U.N. with reprisals from the United States. This clearly shows that the Obama administration is just as biased toward Israel as the Bush administration was.

The United States needs to re-think its foreign policy regarding Israel. We are still operating from a holocaust guilt (because we did not do enough to prevent the "final solution" in World War II). I can understand the guilt, but that was a long time ago. It should not be guiding our current policy. Israel has a right to exist and be protected, but it does not have the right to abuse other peoples or nations (and that is what's currently happening).

U.S. Vetoes Mideast Peace

Most people in the United States don't understand the real causes blocking peace in the Mideast. They have bought the old Israeli argument that the peace talks can't be held because the Palestinians won't agree that Israel has a right to exist. The problem is that's an outrageous lie. It's not the Palestinians that are blocking peace talks by their actions -- it's the Israelis.

All of the relevant Palestinian groups have either said they recognize Israel's right to exist, or that they are willing to negotiate that. That should have cleared the way for peace talks, but it didn't. It didn't because the Israelis are not ready for peace talks -- they haven't finished stealing Palestinian land. Ever since they took East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, the Israelis have been spreading out into that territory by building settlements -- in violation of international law.

Israel has no intention of holding peace talks -- talks that could result in a Palestinian nation and a true peace, because the day that happens they can no longer steal any more land. It is obvious that they have no intention of ever giving up any of the Palestinian land they have stolen, and the longer they can delay peace talks the more land they can steal.

George Bush encouraged this illegal action by the Israelis, which is why no progress was made toward peace during his eight-year term. It was hoped that President Obama would be more neutral with the opposing parties, and thus be able to mediate a road to peace. At first it looked like that may be true, since he joined other world leaders in asking Israel to stop building settlements on Palestinian land. Unfortunately, the Israelis didn't take Obama seriously and continued to build.

Now it looks like the Israelis had correctly assessed the situation (and President Obama). The Obama administration has made it clear they are backing the illegal Israeli actions. The president has had several opportunities to punish the Israelis for not stopping the building, but has done nothing. Aid money could have been cut (or at least threatened to be cut), but Obama has made no move to do that.

Now the Obama administration has gone even further in defending the illegal settlement building. For a while now, a resolution has been making its way through the United Nations that would condemn Israel for continuing to build the settlements even though it has been made clear to them that it is a violation of international law. Last month a "number of prominent scholars, activists, and former U.S. diplomats" sent the president a letter asking him to support the U.N. resolution. They warned that a U.S. veto would "severely undermine US credibility and interests, placing us firmly outside of the international consensus, and further diminishing our ability to mediate this conflict."

But the president didn't listen. He destroyed what little credibility this country had as a neutral mediator and seriously damaged any hope of Mideast peace any time soon. He instructed the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. to veto the resolution when it became apparent it would be easily passed. Any hope of peace talks have been set back indefinitely.

Now neither side wants to come to the peace table. The Israelis aren't through stealing land, and the Palestinians can't trust us to be a fair mediator.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said the veto didn't mean the U.S. was in favor of the Israeli settlement building, and that they were afraid the resolution would have resulted in increased building. That is not just ridiculous -- it may be the most outrageous lie told by the Obama administration to date. If the Obama administration really opposed the continuing building of the settlements, they would have joined the rest of the world in condemning the Israeli actions.

Once again the United States has taken a stand in defense of illegal activity, to the consternation of the rest of the civilized world. This is incredible -- and very wrong.

Does Israel Want To Negotiate ?

It has become obvious to everyone in the civilized world that there will never be peace in the Middle East until there is a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is mutually acceptable to all sides.   Everyone, except Israel, that is.   It's starting to look like Israel is happy with the status quo.

President Obama has made it clear the Israel must stop building new settlements on the West Bank, because these settlements are an impediment to the peace process.   The European Union agrees, and they've been putting pressure on Israel this week during Netanyahu's European visit.

Netanyahu has refused to just stop the building of new settlements.   Instead he has said he is working toward a compromise.   The compromise would let Israel continue to build settlements already approved, while not approving any new settlements.

That's not really a compromise, but instead is an Israeli victory -- for a couple of reasons.   The watchdog group Peace Now says Israel could go on building indefinitely just using plans that have already been approved.   There are already 300,000 Israelis living in the West Bank and more are moving there every day.   

It's obvious what Israel is trying to do.   The longer they delay and the more settlements they build, the easier it will be for them to argue that at least part of the West Bank should remain a part of Israel -- even if a two-state solution is finally reached.   In a word, they're trying to steal Palestinian land by delaying and building.

Israel could negotiate a real peace if they wanted to right now.   If they pulled all Israelis out of the West Bank, and let a Palestinian state be set up in the West Bank and Gaza (a real Palestinian state not under Israel's control), I think peace could finally come to that part of the world.   It is achievable and the Palestinians are ready to negotiate.

The real impediment to the peace process is Israel itself.   They have America's guarantee to defend their existence, and also the opportunity to expand their territory by building on Palestinian land.   There is no real reason for them to negotiate right now.

Maybe it's time for the United States to give them a reason to negotiate.   The United States should suspend all foreign aid directed to Israel until they stop building settlements and start negotiating.   Otherwise, we'll just see more delay and land theft by Israel.