Israel/Palestine: the settlements are unsustainable, and Netanyahu knows it
Posted on Wednesday 17 March, 2010
Filed Under Israel
ISRAEL’S announcement of plans for 1,600 new settler housing units in illegally occupied Palestinian territory has triggered both stern condemnation from Washington and rioting on the streets of East Jerusalem. And just to highlight their heartfelt regret over these adverse reactions, the Israeli authorities have today confirmed their desire to build 300 more.
It is difficult to interpret such intractable obstinacy as anything other than deliberate provocation, and not just in respect of the timing. As Netanyahu is well aware, substantial withdrawal is the sine qua non for the two-state policy increasingly pressed on his government by the rest of the world.
Yet his evident determination to scupper this outcome is so deep that he is willing quite literally to try and build his way out of his impasse. Not only can he not be allowed to succeed; he cannot succeed, even within his own terms.
Netanyahu’s hardline position puts him directly at odds with majority opinion in his own country. Most Israelis do not regard preservation of settlements in Palestinian territory as a fundamental objective of the state, and do not believe that the interests of settlers take priority over those of the population in general.
Still the administration pushes on with colonisation, either oblivious to – or more likely perfectly conscious of – the consequences. But in either eventuality, it is equally culpable. Yet in the long run, the economic, demographic, diplomatic and political realities that will ultimately culminate in the establishment of a Palestinian state render the practice unsustainable.
The argument is sometimes advanced that any Israeli government calling for the abandonment of even a single settlement would run the risk of civil war. It is indeed the case that some isolated communities are home to potentially terrorist elements inspired by the ideas of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane.
But these groups lack sufficient wider support to mobilise mass backing for any resistance to an order to withdraw. There is also the precedent of Yamit, an Israeli-built town in northeast Sinai, which was evacuated in 1982 under the terms of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty.
Ultimately the settlements are an obstacle in the way of a settlement, and that is why the construction work – tellingly, employing mostly Palestinian labour – is being stepped up. But they are not enough of an obstacle to do anything more than delay the inevitable cave in to reality.
<<Go back
Comments
70 Responses to “Israel/Palestine: the settlements are unsustainable, and Netanyahu knows it”
Leave a Reply
Let us simplify:
There can be NO real peace until and unless the Israelis withdraw from at least 90% of Judea and Samaria; we can consider East Jerusalem a separate issue to be argued over street by street and building by building.
However, the settler voters of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem and their various nationalist-secular-minded and religiously-minded allies in the area of pre-1967 Israel have enough votes, and Knesset seats, to make any withdrawal all-but-impossible unless – improbably – they had absolute confidence in Arab good faith.
The Golan is a separate Israel – Syria issue and need not concern us here.
Whenever rightwing Israelis have suggested redrawing the map so that Arab-majority areas of Israel – and Israeli Arabs are 20+% of the Israeli population and increasing numerically and proportionally with every passing year – become part of a new Palestinian national entity, the proposal is met with howls of dismay and outrage from the Arabs of Galilee, the Negev [and so on] because they prefer being second-class citizens of a First World country like Israel to the prospect of full citizens of an oppressive and corrupt sh*thole like the lovely New Palestine would / will undoubtedly become within a few months or years.
In Jordanian eyes, the Arab citizens of Israel are the “Fat Arabs,” people whose welfare and health – even as second-class citizens – compares brilliantly with the living standards of most ordinary Arabs in the wider Arab world.
Few normal Jewish citizens of Israel trust Arab promises further than they can spit; all Israelis over thirty remember just how duplicitous the vile Arafat proved to be.
Wikipedia is NOT the voice of God / Allah / Jehovah but it’s a good starting place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs_in_Israel
Anyone who can be bothered to do so might care to compare the infantile and maternal mortality rate among the Arab population of Israel with that of other Middle Eastern countries.
On the other hand, future prospects…”Moderate Isreali public opinion” etc. It’s still Mad Melanie-Land…blood on the tracks is surely a coming.
“Nearly half of Israel’s high school students do not believe that Israeli-Arabs are entitled to the same rights as Jews in Israel, according to the results of a new survey released yesterday….The survey, which was administered to teenagers at various Israeli high schools, also found that close to half of all respondents – 48 percent – said that they would REFUSE orders to evacuate outposts and settlements in the Palestinian territories… The complete results of the poll will be presented today during an academic discussion hosted jointly by Tel Aviv University’s School of Education and the Citizens’ Empowerment Center in Israel” ~ Hareetz News agency 12/3/2010.
Despite being treated undeniably badly – by the standards the West claims to set itself – the Arabs of Israel are in no hurry either to leave or to have a new border redrawn around them:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1156293.html
Note that Haaretz is left-of-centre; the roughly-opposite opinions can be found on the ‘Jerusalem Post’ website.
There’s some good thoughtful stuff in the ‘Jerusalem Post’ but many here would find it disagreeable:
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=171197
Dave- You misunderstand Israeli opinion on Jerusalem. Few Israelis are willing to compromise on this issue. At most Israel will cede a few outlying districts of eastern Jerusalem but there is no way that Israel will hand over what is referred to as the ‘holy basin’ to Palestinian soveriegnty.
Ramat Shlomo is not controversial in Israeli public opinion. Its a Haredi district with a phenomenal birthrate hence the need for new apartment blocks. Most Israelis expect to retain this disctrict as part of a peace agreement.
Obama has already shown that he prefers to shit all over Israel than to make a constructive contribution to peace-making. netanyahu’s brother-in-law has some interesting thinsg to say over on Jpost.
“netanyahu’s brother-in-law has some interesting thinsg to say over on Jpost.”
Yes, he says that Obama is an anti-semite. Still, he is doubtless sincere, and we know that Zionists do not lightly cast charges of anti-semitism, and to say that they do is in itself anti-semitic.
“there is no way that Israel will hand over what is referred to as the ‘holy basin’ to Palestinian soveriegnty”
Well thanks for giving is the views of a hard core Israeli leftist, Stephen. Such a relief from all those dreadful rightwingers.
Thanks, Pharisee. I just wondered if anybody wd challenge the oh-so-reasonable, defend -the -indefensible, nakedly racist guff on here today. Tar again.
Did someone mention the Haredi birth rate?
http://www.meirpanim.net/campaign/2010/pesach/clean.htm
It always comes as a mild shock to look at this ad; are there really so many ill-clad and hungry Jewish children in Israel?
It’s amusing to note that one contributor here has seen fit to yell “racist” rather than say anything at all. Well done!
As for Obama, it is utterly amazing – stupefying – that The One did not pick up a ‘phone and call Credit Card Joe back to Washington at once after the deliberate and calculated snub inflicted on Obama’s understudy by Lieberman’s buddy; perhaps the Lieberman gang had bets among themselves as to whether The One would howl with fury or simply shrug in indifference.
Derek Conway MP chairs a brilliant show on Press TV called EPILOGUE
I recommend it to your collective attention
And yes I prefer PRESS TV and AL JAZEERA to BBC and bloody dire boring Euronews
Israel is entitled to build on its land if houses are required. Jerusalem is part of Israel historically. All those Palestinian supporters that draw the line under 1948 need to get real. Israel knows the end game for the Islamists is its destruction.
Jimmy is sorely mistaken in assuming Islamists to be the only irreconcilables; the secularists of the PA/PLO and all the factions all feel Israel ought to be erased from the map:
http://www.palwatch.org/
Bill. I am well aware others would erase Israel including some pretend Scottish socialists that claim they are not anti-semetic!
Israel know their enemies. That is why they still have a State. Only those prepared to fight can survive. All this talk about a settlement and a two state solution is crap.
“Jerusalem is part of Israel historically” (Glesga) in the same sense that London is part of Italy “historically” since it was once inside the Roman Empire.
Trying to justify present-day annexations on the basis of ancient, and largely mythological history, won’t do. The clock cannot be casually turned back, and the reality is that East Jerusalem was not part of the Israeli state formed in 1948, but was grabbed in 1967.
Both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital, so it seems inevitable that in any eventual settlement the city will have to be partitioned. New building in East Jerusalem merely makes matters more complicated, and will eventually cause more suffering, not least for the Jewish families who move into the new housing and, in a few years time, may have to move out again.
Happy to oblige, Annie. I would respectfully submit that somebody who approvingly quotes Bibi’s more right wing brother in law to the effect that Obama is an anti-semite, and who defends the invasion, conquest and annexation of a territory against the wishes of its occupants on the grounds that it is “sacred” to the invaders, is not a “hardcore leftist” but a little racist shit. So I think the reason why you feel uncomfortable or tearful or whatever with leftists, Stephen, is that you are hostile to their fundamental values (incidentally,I have spent far too much time with Palestinian students who have had to suffer relentless harassment from racist – and yes, mendacious – Zionist hoodlums to feel much pity for the tears of the latter when some nasty man from the SWP upsets them).
I second that Pharisee.
Yes, thirded
pharisee,
Well as for your own conduct, given that you usually sneer at the discussion (see previous threads) of anti-Jewish racism in Britain then I suspect you calling yourself antiracist is a bit of a joke too.
Not that you will see that not too subtle point.
Oh, for the love of God’s holy fucking bendy massive cock! This sodding issue seems to dominate everyone’s lives in the fucking blogosphere. I can’t remember the last time a popular left blog actually addressed a genuine issue – starvation, war in DRC, deaths in childbirth, deaths from cooking on open fires, access to clean water, sanitation. Shit me, no, they’d rather yack their fucking gobs off ad nauseum about a cocking border dispute.
Red Deathy is hereby condemned to write a series of opinion pieces on active and dormant border disputes; there are many from which to choose.
Start with the Tacna-Arica dispute and work westwards to Arunachal Pradesh!
On nationalism and propaganda:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/news/is-boudicca-a-poster-girl-for-intolerance-and-british-nationalism-1922122.html
A border dispute! For the fucking holy bendy titwank of all titwanks!
Let me change my list
Modernity – Never says anything about the actual topic unless it concerns anti Semitism
Jim Denham – A drunken arse-best ignored.
Red Deathy – A stupid twat.
Sorry but David Osler’s posting here is inaccurate and unfair on Israel.
Apart from anything else, Ramat Shlomo, where the new building will be, is an established Jewish neighourhood in NE Jerusalem between two other Jewish neighbourhoods (French Hill and Ramot) and all peace plans hitherto that I’m aware of have taken it as a given that it will remain part of Israel, if and when Jerusalem is divided as part of a final peace deal.
Furthermore, just after Biden’s visit, the supposedly moderate PA renamed the main public square in Ramallah after a terrorist, Dalal Mughrabi, who murdered 38 Israeli civilians in 1978 – and there’s hardly a squeak of protest from the US, EU, or the Western media. Compared to that, Israel’s building announcement in E Jerusalem while Biden was visiting was a diplomatic blunder but no more; it seems to me that it’s the US govt that’s making it into a crisis.
Indeed, much as I would probably have voted for Livni or Barak if I were Israeli, the reality as far as I can see is that no recent Israeli government of the left or right has done more to clamp down on settlement expansion than Netanyahu’s coalition.
Jerusalem is excluded, of course, because all recent Israeli governments view it as Israel’s undivided capital until such time as final negotiations with the Palestinians conclude otherwise. (And, of course, offers to divide Jerusalem were made by Barak in 2000/1 and Olmert in 2008 as part of comprehensive peace deals that were rejected by Arafat and Abbas).
Nonetheless, by stating that Israel will accept a two-state solution (which inevitably means vacating settlements on the Palestinian side of a future final border), will not allow new settlements to be established, will not allow existing settlements to expand beyond current boundaries, and will freeze settlement building within existing settlements in the WBank for 10 months, Netanyahu has gone further than any previous Israeli PM that I can think of. As Ari Shavit said a while ago in Haaretz, Netanyahu has effectively positioned himself to the left of Rabin (www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1132436.html).
On the current fracas over Jerusalem specifically, moreover, it’s worth citing Barry Rubin:
“For more than four months the U.S. government has been celebrating Israel agreeing to stop construction on settlements in the West Bank while continuing building in east Jerusalem as a great step forward and Israeli concession deserving a reward. Suddenly, all of this is forgotten to say that Israel building in east Jerusalem is some kind of terrible deed which deserves punishment.
Israelis are used to this pattern: give a big concession and a few months later that step is forgotten as Israel is portrayed as intransigent and more concessions are demanded with nothing in return…
Meanwhile, even though the Palestinian Authority has refused to negotiate for 14 months; made President Brack Obama look very foolish after destroying his publicly announced September plan to have negotiations in two months; broke its promise not to sponsor the Goldstone report in the UN; and rejected direct negotiations after months of pleading by the Obama White House, not a single word of criticism has ever been offered by any administration official regarding the PA’s continuous and very public sabotage of peace process efforts.
Can people please point out that there’s a bit of a contradiction here?”
(http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-quick-they-forget-short-history-of.html)
Johnno,
If you and others cease to act in a juvenile and sectarian fashion, then people might have a desire to engage in discussion with you.
But there is a salient point here, if people can’t get their head around anti-Jewish racism then they won’t be able to see other matters clearly.
Of course, if you and other “anti-imperialists” were serious about discussing these issues then you would probably lay off the invective and tone down your natural sectarian tendencies, but you don’t, for your own reasons.
If you want to find my views on Netanyahu then you just have to type
Netanyahu modernityblog the Daily (maybe) into google.
For more than four months the U.S. government has been celebrating Israel agreeing to stop construction on settlements in the West Bank while continuing building in east Jerusalem as a great step forward
Of course what actually happened was that it initially insisted that all settelment construction on occupied teritory must stop but then rowed back on it.
Meanwhile, even though the Palestinian Authority has refused to negotiate for 14 months
Because the settlement building programme continued?
broke its promise not to sponsor the Goldstone report in the UN;The bastards sponsored a report by an internationally respected jurist into Israeli war crimes?Pah!
Can people please point out that there’s a bit of a contradiction here?
There is JG, but not as you know it.
It should be pointed out that the defintion of what is Jerusalem has expanded greatly since 1967.
I recall George W.Bush calling for the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 & 338 which call for the return of the whole of the West Bank, only to retreat and insist that the largest settlement blocks would have to stay.
I’m not sure Dave is right to think the settlements unsustainable. Short of the Americans pulling the plug on their support, the Israelis can continue to use the opposition generated by their actions to justify failing to come to any sort of equitable peace agreement.
paul fauvet. My point was that some people use dates to suit themselves and the cause. The later point I made is you only get what you are prepareed to fight for as history has shown. You mentioned the perfect example the Roman Empire. Jerusalem could quite easily become a World Open City because of its historical significance. Suggest that to the Islamists!
Historical falsification is an industry in its own right:
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=495
Let’s not get started about oppressive Prods [settlers] and oppressed Taigs [aboriginals] in Norn Iron / The “Occupied Six Counties” …
In the late Peter Simple’s ‘Way of the World’ column, there was a self-identified Aztec minority in the Greater Strechford Conurbation demanding special favours and subsidies.
“Of course, if you and other “anti-imperialists” were serious about discussing these issues then you would probably lay off the invective and tone down your natural sectarian tendencies, but you don’t, for your own reasons.”
Do me a favour. Unless people agree with your position then they are juvenille, studentist, sectarian etc etc etc. I attempted to have a grown up debate with you on the Falklands issue and you reduced it to some moronic tired game.
Forgot one from my list
Modernity – Never says anything about the actual topic unless it concerns anti Semitism.
Jim Denham – A drunken arse-best ignored.
Red Deathy – A stupid twat.
DBC Reed – All the worlds problems can be solved by a Land value tax.
JG Campbell said,
“Israelis are used to this pattern: give a big concession and a few months later that step is forgotten as Israel is portrayed as intransigent and more concessions are demanded with nothing in return…”
Palestinian territory gets smaller and smaller and its people are reduced further and further into poverty and you say Israel gives concession after concession. Please are you taking us for a bunch of idiots or do you imagine we all think like Modernity!
See the incredibly shrinking Palestine map at the following link:
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3608544-israeli-settlements-the-red-button-that-could-detonate-and-destroy-the-peace-process/image/34979787
Israel has systematically used the mechanism of border closures to undermine the Palestinian economy. Between 1967 and 1993 movement in and out of the territories was relatively free. From March 1993 all Palestinians wanting to enter Israel or East Jerusalem have been required to obtain a permit. In addition Israel has increasingly often simply closed the border and refused to let Palestinians in or out of the Occupied Territories.
In a number of cases Israel has applied a policy of ‘internal closure’, effectively trapping the entire Palestinian population in Palestinian towns and villages by sealing off roads between urban areas. Meanwhile Israel continues to pump exports into its captive markets, as the author of a UN study notes:
“Border closures are applied asymmetrically: Palestinian goods are largely prevented from entering Israel, while Israeli goods continue to flow into Palestinian areas”
Savage collective punishments are imposed on the families of Palestinian suspects, including sealing up the family home with concrete and curfews on whole towns. Thousands of people, mainly young men, have been held in detention without charge or trial, and dozens more have been shot at check-points or during street protests.
I really could go on and on and on and on.
It was once a necessity to write articles such as Israel and the myth of the peace process, the truth is now that Israel no longer even has to pretend it wants peace. This is why supporting the boycott is so crucial.
And remember folks JG Campbell regards himself as a moderate Israeli!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m this minute watching Gorgeous George Galloway on Press TV; he’s a firm believer in a single United State of Palestine with liberty and peace and justice for all.
Look! Look! A flying pig!
Here is N-R-O, a maverick right-of-centre source:
http://article.nationalreview.com/428221/peace-later/clifford-d-may
Johnno,
Disagree with me all you like, but do it in an adult fashion, that’s all I ask.
Bill Corr. Gorgeous will say anything that is popular with anyone in his own mind.
Sorry, Skidmarx, but I pretty much disagree with everything you say. For what it’s worth, here are a few comments in response to yours.
JGC (quoting Rubin): For more than four months the U.S. government has been celebrating Israel agreeing to stop construction on settlements in the West Bank while continuing building in east Jerusalem as a great step forward
SKIDMARX: Of course what actually happened was that it initially insisted that all settelment construction on occupied teritory must stop but then rowed back on it.
JGC: No, the point is that Israel & the US administration publicly agreed on a compromise on the issue according to which Israel would freeze new settlement expansion in the WBank, something no Israeli PM has agreed to before, while leaving Jerusalem to be tackled later in negotiations. The US appears to have reneged on that agreement and Israelis across the mainstream left, centre and right can’t be blamed for concluding that the current US administration is either incompetent or untrustworthy.
JGC (quoting Rubin): Meanwhile, even though the Palestinian Authority has refused to negotiate for 14 months
SKIDMARX: Because the settlement building programme continued?
JGC: Well, previous Palestinian leaderships have been willing to negotiate without a precondition on this issue, and in any case Israel has shown it is willing and able to evacuate settlements and leave territory when the circumstances are right. Unfortunately, the US administration initially made the resumption of negotiations dependent on demands on Israel that could never be met, especially when no major concessions were being demanded in the same way of other parties to the dispute. As a result, the Palestinians themselves have now effectively taken up a more entrenched position than before – making negotiations, let alone a peace deal, less likely now than a year ago.
JGC (quoting Rubin): broke its promise not to sponsor the Goldstone report in the UN;
SKIDMARX: The bastards sponsored a report by an internationally respected jurist into Israeli war crimes?Pah!
JGC: Sorry but Goldstone is an extremely biased report written according to a highly biased UNHRC mandate by a team that openly stated its bias against Israel before its investigation began. It doesn’t engage in legitimate criticism of Israel’s military action in Gaza of the sort that might be leveled at, say, Britain and the US in Afghanistan and with which one might agree or disagree. Rather, it makes the entirely false accusation that Israel intentionally set out to kill civilians in Gaza, something that is as ridiculous as it is libelous, while more or less ignoring the fact that it was Hamas that deliberately fired on Israeli civilians while using its own civilians as human shields.
JGC (quoting R): Can people please point out that there’s a bit of a contradiction here?
SKIDMARX: There is JG, but not as you know it.
JGC: No, the contradiction is that many people, apparently including the US administration at present, are criticizing Israel unfairly while turning a blind eye to the words and deeds of other parties to the dispute which are far worse.
SKIDMARX: It should be pointed out that the defintion of what is Jerusalem has expanded greatly since 1967.
JGC: But there’s never been any doubt about that. The point is that Israel has offered to re-divide Jerusalem as part of recent peace talks in 2000/1 and 2008 and would presumably do so again in the context of serious negotiations. But there have to be negotiations and it’s the Palestinian leadership, not the Israeli one, which is currently putting obstacles in the way of entering into talks, egged on it would seem by the US administration.
SKIDMARX: I recall George W.Bush calling for the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 & 338 which call for the return of the whole of the West Bank, only to retreat and insist that the largest settlement blocks would have to stay.
JGC: No, Resolutions 242 and 338 make multilateral demands of all the parties to the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War, not just Israel which cannot in fact fulfill them unilaterally. Moreover, the resolutions do not require Israel to give up the whole of the WBank since the Green Line was seen as an indefensible border over which Israel had suffered unprovoked attacks by aggressive neighbours on several occasions, as was explained at the time by those who framed the wording of 242. What that probably means in the current context is that Israel will keep a small percentage of the WBank, with land swaps with Israel proper elsewhere to compensate the new Palestinian state that will hopefully eventually emerge.
SKIDMARX: I’m not sure Dave is right to think the settlements unsustainable. Short of the Americans pulling the plug on their support, the Israelis can continue to use the opposition generated by their actions to justify failing to come to any sort of equitable peace agreement.
JGC: Sorry but every time there has been an equitable agreement on the table, the Israeli leadership has said Yes while the Arab and/or Palestinian leaderships have said No, most recently in 2000/1 and 2008. Even Netanyahu, of whom I can assure you I am no great fan, stated last year that there needs to be a Palestinian state and that Israel must be willing to make painful compromises for the sake of a peace deal. All the Palestinians have to do is enter negotiations and call his bluff!
JOHNNO
If you’d bothered to read what I wrote properly you’d see that I’m not actually an Israeli, though, like most Israelis, I am a moderate who wants to see a two-state solution and who no longer sees Israel as the main obstacle to that goal.
More importantly, what you write about Israel is a mixture of half-truths, key factual omissions, exaggerations, and falsehoods.
Most of the commenters commenting here are fash cunTs.
double wot red deathy said.
http://www.davidosler.com/2010/03/israelpalestine-the-settlements-are-unsustainable-and-netanyahu-knows-it/#comment-27848
All these issues have been chewed over so often that it seems hardly worth adding this:
If – a big IF here – a ‘Peacenik’ Avnery-type government were to come to power in Israel and proposed a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, what would the Palestinian leadership do:
A Accept with decency and good manners.
B Scream “The Jews are beaten ! They’re on the run! One last big push will drive them into the sea! Prepare for the struggle! Prepare for martyrdom! We can reconquer the whole land of Palestine!”
C Say A in public and to the Western Media and B to the Arab world [as MEMRI has often noted, Arafat and his various successors are dab hands at saying nice things for Western consumption and vile things in Arabic at one and the same time]
My bet would be C
Will and Red Deathy want to talk about the DRC (I presume they are talking about Congo). Well I have been raising the DRC on numerous occasions on this site and have been shouted down by the professional pro imperialists.
Maybe Red Deathy and Will can explain why when our ruling classes invaded Iraq to ‘free’ the poor oppressed Iraqis did they allow carnage to take place in the DRC at the exact same time?
Seems to me that no matter what the topic some people just want to deflect the debate away from the iniquities of imperialism.
Dean –
In an unguarded moment even Alan Greenspan – who bloody well ought to know much more than the Great Brains of the SWP and the War-Stoppers and the Guardianistas – managed to mention “war” and “Iraq” and “oil” in the same sentence. Curiously, this passed almost unnoticed at the time [maybe some starlet had a wardrobe malfunction and occupied the headlines for the crucial few days.]
Belgian Congo – Congo Kinshasa – Zaire [etc.,]
Two points about this trainwreck of a ‘country’ are obvious:
-1-
Pretty well everyone except for the silly French have to all intents and purposes given up on Black Africa, with its Conqueror of the British Empire [Uganda], Redeemer [Ghana], Teacher [Tanzania], Emperor [Cental Africa] and Unique Miracle[Equatorial Guinea.]
-2-
The DRC is not sitting on known reservoirs of easily-tapped hydrocarbons. If and when it is found that, say, Goma is situated on a vast and easily-tapped oilfield, you may be certain that Western – and Chinese – interest will quicken.
Bill Corr,
the DRC is sitting on plenty of mineral resources, which have fuelled Rwandan, Ugandan, Zimbabwean, etc. imperialism over the last ten years.
Dean,
I referenced the DRC because more people suffered horribly and died there over the last year – in horrific circumstances – and yet we hear nary a peep about it from pro or anti imperialists. For my part, it illustrates the importance of doing something on a global scale against the warfare system, rather than concentrating on one petty dispute.
Then again, starvation dwarfs DRC’s death toll by many times over.
Red Deathy, in all decency and innocence, talks blithely of “doing something on a global scale…” about the grievous wrongs of the various begging-bowl despotisms of the Third World.
I knew an Irishwoman in Oman whose party piece after a few drinks was a side-splitting parody of Mary Robinson in full spate:
“Oi t’ink dat all the EU taxpayers’ money ought to be spent on dem starving piccaninies of de Upper Limpopo. D’ye know dat? …”
Bill,
I’m talking about common ownership of the world.
I’d point out that the burden of taxation doesn’t fall on the working class, so I care not a jot what tax payers money is spent on.
JG Campbell:
“More importantly, what you write about Israel is a mixture of half-truths, key factual omissions, exaggerations, and falsehoods.”
Still way ahead of your outright lies, zero facts, subjective Israeli viewpoint and disregard for neutral organisations. You see my facts come from bodies like the UN, whereas your OPINIONS come from the Israeli racist, lets ignore legality and make up our own law state. So you talk about Jerusalem as if no UN resolutions had ever been passed. You just decide that what the Israeli government decide is truth. I know you are not an Israeli but it is important to highlight that you see yourself as a moderate and I presume from your views that you move around in Zionist circles so are able to judge your opinions against other Zionists. When it comes to Zionism moderate is somewhere very close to extreme. More reason to support the boycott.
So by ignoring the facts from independent sources and basing your opinions on the ideology of the Israeli state you create a state of denial. A concept you really need to think carefully about.
Red Deathy Wants to combat the global warfare system but ignore injustices created by it. No more than that he wants us to play down some of its most obscene realities. So Israel/Palestine isn’t seen in the context of global events but as a localised petty dispute. Good look with building that movement.
Johnno,
seen in perspective of global events, Israel/Palestone is a sideshow and a gross distraction. Do you treat measels by prodding the spots?
“seen in perspective of global events, Israel/Palestone is a sideshow and a gross distraction”
Maybe in your strange world.
You treat measels by using a vaccine, once you get it you just take medicine and lie in bed until it goes away. Not really relevant to revolutionary socialism when you think about it.
Apologies to Dave for the length of this comment but Israel’s Green MK Gershon Baskin has an interesting take on the background which is worth a bit more than the hasbara drivel being parotted by some on this thread;
What next – from crisis to progress?
Gershon Baskin
March 19, 2010
The crisis in relations between Washington and Jerusalem is not necessarily a bad thing in terms of being able to move a peace process forward. There is no doubt that the crisis poses one of the most serious challenges to the Obama administration in its foreign policy agenda in general and potentially could shape and influence the policy of the US in the region for years to come.
It is quite important to map out all of the policy options within the US diplomatic tool box now in order to be able to develop a positive outcome. The facts of what really transpired are not completely known to the public. There are rumors and only limited clear facts really known. The following is what I have been able to piece together – with a clear reservation that if this scenario is incorrect then the projections may also be incorrect; however, if it is correct the situation is in fact the most serious crisis in Israel-US relations, perhaps, ever.
Prior to the decision of the Arab League to support the launching of the proximity talks, the PLO presented Mitchell with a three page document with questions and firms positions regarding the beginning of the negotiations. The Palestinian paper included: negotiations will be based on the green line, the negotiations should begin where the Olmert proposal to Abbas ended, the negotiations must include all of the permanent status issues and there must be a total settlement freeze, including Jerusalem, throughout the course of the negotiations. I was told by someone who is usually a reliable Palestinian source that Senator Mitchell gave Abbas a paper with the US responses include US assurances that the Israeli building in East Jerusalem would be frozen during the period of the negotiations. If this is true, I can only assume that Netanyahu agreed to it, although he probably also agreed that there would be no Israeli announcement of this policy. Again, if this is true, then advancing the planning process of the 1600 units in Ramat Shlomo and other plans that were advanced in the District and Local planning committees at the same time is a direct breach of trust with the US and is therefore, much more serious than a bureaucratic mishap or a simple decrease in trust between the parties prior to negotiations. The depth of the breach also determines to a certain extent the depth of the policy options.
Certainly Netanyahu’s announcement in the Knesset in front of the Brazilian President that regardless of the mishap, Israel would continue to build in all parts of East Jerusalem is a clear sign of the decision of this government to go head-to-head with President Obama. Netanyahu’s announcement followed the Clinton-Netanyahu 43 minute phone call reported in depth by Clinton and by the State Department spokesperson to the world. Clinton include three demands to Israel: (1) the withdraw the plan for the 1600 units in Ramat Shlomo, (2) to provide serious gestures to the Palestinians such as a prisoner release and checkpoint removals; and (3) to announce that all permanent status issues would be on the table during the negotiations. Netanyahu’s statement that the building in Jerusalem would continue following the US demands is a direct frontal attack on the Obama administration and cannot be viewed in any other terms.
As I read the Israeli political map, Netanyahu, in coordination with his allies in Congress, AIPAC, and other US Jewish organizations have made a decision that President Obama will be, as far as they are concerned, a one term President. In this respect, they seek to weaken the President, regardless of the repercussions in the international community. Mid-term Congressional elections are only eight months away and the strategic map of key Congressional races has been mapped out with the goal of winning those races in Congress with the most pro-Obama members that are vulnerable.
The challenge to the President by the Israeli government on the issue of building in East Jerusalem is one that will largely determine if the President is perceived in Israel, the region and the world as weak or strong. If the US administration gives in to the Government of Israel after making this such a pinnacle issue, the prestige, power and reputation of the President will be severely damaged. Ironically, Israel needs a strong US President to take on the international community vis-à-vis Iran and the Israeli challenge could in fact weaken the President and the United States. The Government of Israel does not perceive that it is the party that has climbed high up the ladder. In fact, I have been asked in the past 2 days, by the Israeli national Security Advisor and the Director of the Policy Planning Research department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Israel “what will bring the Palestinians down from the top of the tree?”
Why did Netanyahu make the challenge? One, because this is his ideological position. Two, because of the coalition pressure, especially from Lieberman and Shas who have turned the issue of Israel standing up against the world in to the new Israeli worldview. Lieberman says it everyday, we will no longer give into to any international pressure, we will make the world respect Israel! And with a not to distant leadership crisis in Shas, Eli Yishai is building his leadership around the issue of Jerusalem as the Jewish Protector of Jerusalem. Three, there is the scenario spelled out above of a determined course to weaken the President and to ensure that he will not have a second term.
With the current Israeli coalition, there is no chance at all of moving forward on the peace process with the Palestinians. It is not at all sure that it is possible to move forward as long as Netanyahu is at the head of the government. There is hope, however, that the same dynamic that has influenced other Israeli leaders to radically change their positions could also happen to Netanyahu – as Rabin, Sharon and Olmert all stated: what you see from here is different than what you see from there.
What would be in the interest of the US and what can the US do?
1. Backing down is not an option. If the US were to give into Israeli pressure, the US administration would be perceived as weak, inconsistent with their own policies, and ineffectual. The prestige of the Office of the President would be compromised and Obama as an individual would be seen as a push-over which would have deep repercussions for the US foreign policy throughout the world and especially in the Middle East. US backing down would also strengthen the myth of the power of the Jewish Lobby in the United States and would probably lead to a direct rise in anti-Semitism throughout the world. So it is essential for the President that at least the three demands issued by Secretary Clinton are met by Israel. It is likely that Secretary Clinton’s position will be strengthen from the Quartet principles meeting in Moscow today.
2. An Israeli government shuffle could be a positive outcome of the crisis. A government made up of Likud (27), Kadima (28) and Labour (13) with 68 seats, even with some trouble making back-benchers in Likud and Kadima could, in principle, move faster than the current coalition. Moving Lieberman, Shas, United Torah, and Habayit HaYehudi into the opposition (there is a chance that United Torah with their 5 seats would remain in the coalition) would enable Netanyahu a lot more domestic room to maneuver into a real peace process (if he wanted to, of course). There is a possibility for the US to have influence in bringing about such a scenario through behind the scenes contacts, first, perhaps with leaders of Kadima and with others in the Likud including a direct conversation with the Prime Minister. Of course, US fingerprints on this should be completely invisible. To the best of my understanding the US has already been advancing this scenario.
3. Another possible outcome could be the opening of a secret back channel for negotiations – but only if Netanyahu was serious about moving forward. In fact, this would be recommended even if the official proximity talks do get underway. The question is how to break the current deadlock. Here I would propose the idea which I already presented months ago – an imposed process – not an negotiation on the process. In other words, the US would issue a document, in public or in secret, that would outline the negotiations process, the parameters of what the sides will talk about and the mechanism for the talks – either proximity or direct talks or a process of moving from proximity to direct talks. Those parameters would include statements such as: the negotiations will be conducted for a permanent status agreement between Israel and the PLO on the basis of previous agreements that would bring about the complete cessation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and be based on the two-states for two-peoples formula. The negotiations will lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state next to Israel. The territorial dimensions of the agreement will be based on the 1949 armistice green-line with agreed upon territorial swaps on a 1:1 basis. All permanent status issues will be on the table including Jerusalem, borders, refugees, security, water, economic relations, etc. The United States will serve as a mediator in the talks and when deemed necessary by the mediator, will submit bridging proposals to the parties for their consideration. The United States is commitment to a positive outcome to these talks and see their successful conclusion as a major policy objective of the Obama Administration. The letter of invitation to the first round of talks is issued by President Obama himself. Let’s see if Netanyahu or Abbas will refuse to show up. (It is essential that the US impress upon the parties the consequences of not showing up before the invitation is issued.
4. The is also the Thomas Friedman option – leaving the parties to stew in their own juice. This may very well be the preferred option of the Administration. It requires the least amount of effort and perhaps has the smallest damage on the President’s prestige, but it is also the most dangerous of options. There is a grass-roots campaign all over the West Bank to launch the “white intifada” of massive civil disobedience and direct confrontation with the occupation. It is very unlikely that such a new intifada would remain non-violent and it more than certain that the IDF will respond with a massive amount of force. The entire project of Salam Fayyad’s government would be at risk and all of the achievements of the past two years would disappear over night. The right wing in Israel would grow in strength and there would be increasing alienation between the US and Israel.
5. There is another US policy option which is to embrace the Fayyad plan and government even more strongly than currently done. There are ways for the US to support the Fayyad plans economically and politically that would send a very clear message to Israel and to the world and would continue to advance regardless of the lack of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The US could exert pressure on Israel to transfer more parts of area C to the Palestinian Authority and to work with the rest of international community in preparing Palestine for Statehood. This could also have international consequences such as not vetoing a Resolution for granting Palestine UN membership in the Security Council.
There is no option for the US to do nothing. It would be advised that whatever the US does, it should be done in coordination and in full collaboration with the full Quartet.
Gershon Baskin is the Co-CEO of IPCRI – the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information (www.ipcri.org) and an elected member of the Israeli Green Movement Political Party.
On resolution 242:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/13/comment.paulfoot
It would assist matters greatly if those so willing to discuss the Middle East with their entrenched and ideological opinions were remotely familiar with the contents of 242, directly:
The UN has a copy as a PDF
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/242%20(1967)&Lang=E&Area=RESOLUTION
As everyone has access to the Internet here, there is no excuse for ignorance on this topic.
PS: Stephen Marks, thank you for that, Gershon Baskin make some very good points and comes over as politically shrewd.
Yes Stephen Marks has certainly done us all a favour by focussing on the actual topic. Though with this topic the wider issues will inevitably be touched upon.
One point from Baskins ideas:
“The question is how to break the current deadlock. Here I would propose the idea which I already presented months ago – an imposed process – not an negotiation on the process. In other words, the US would issue a document, in public or in secret, that would outline the negotiations process, the parameters of what the sides will talk about and the mechanism for the talks – either proximity or direct talks or a process of moving from proximity to direct talks.”
I am not convinced that the US should be in a position to impose a solution onto both parties given their bias and history in this conflict. It would set a rather dangerous precedent. You can’t just wait for some mildly liberal president to be voted in and then come up with a blueprint. Yes we should argue what the US position should be and how they should approach the peace process but I think the UN would be better as the chief negotiator in light of an imposed settlement. If the US would agree to this then we could start to make some progress.
And it should also be noted that what may seem like issues that Baskin regards as for the table, “Jerusalem, borders, refugees, security, water, economic relations” are a little more significant than that for the Palestinians. It is dangerous to start dictating what is fundamental and what isn’t.
Sad to say, one has to accept that Resolution 242 is a dead letter.
To take just one issue: the [utterly impossible] right of return of the refugees of the 1940s – and their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren – would be noted elsewhere.
Are the Finns of Viipuri to return home, too? And the Germans of Memel, Koenigsberg, Danzig and Marienbad? The Italians of Istria and the Japanese of Karafuto? The Egyptian and Iraqi Jews?
We need not mention the Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos; the appropriate parallel would be with the former inhabitants of Tower Hamlets.
Far from dictating, Gershon Baskin is suggesting that many issues are opened up, rather than close down by the Netanyahu government, the full quote is:
“The negotiations will lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state next to Israel. The territorial dimensions of the agreement will be based on the 1949 armistice green-line with agreed upon territorial swaps on a 1:1 basis.
All permanent status issues will be on the table including Jerusalem, borders, refugees, security, water, economic relations, etc. “
The key word in there is “All permanent status issues”, and both sides know what that really means, even if some in the West are not familiar with the terminology.
“The key word in there is “All permanent status issues”, and both sides know what that really means, even if some in the West are not familiar with the terminology.”
That may be the correct assumption. However, when he says these are on the table, I read that as on the negotiating table. But this was also in the context of an IMPOSED process (see no.3) so I was making the point that some of these table issues should form part of the imposition and not the negotiation.