Skip to main content

ei: Why Obama's peace process is still going nowhere

ei: Why Obama's peace process is still going nowhere: "Much of the debate about US President Barack Obama's push for Middle East peace resembles the proverbial argument about whether the glass is half full or half empty. But even a full glass is not very useful if you need to fill an entire reservoir.

A common assumption is that earlier American administrations were insufficiently 'engaged.' Obama's early moves, including the appointment of former Northern Ireland mediator George Mitchell as his envoy, have therefore been widely welcomed.

The problem was never a lack of American engagement, but what kind. Indeed, the Bush administration took engagement to unprecedented lengths. It pushed for Palestinian elections, and then when Hamas defeated the US-backed Fatah faction, America attempted to overturn the result. The Bush administration helped arm and train Palestinian militias opposed to Hamas and vetoed a Palestinian 'national unity government.' It supported the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip and politicized financial aid to bolster Palestinian leaders whose legitimacy, as they have effectively become Israeli quislings, has all but vanished. At the same time, the United States and the Quartet imposed lopsided preconditions for dialogue that they well know Hamas cannot accept.

Absolutely none of this has changed under the Obama administration. Despite lip service about easing it, the United States continues to support Israel's criminal blockade of the Gaza Strip, and like the Bush administration, Obama has never criticized Israel's attack on Gaza despite incontestable evidence of atrocities and war crimes.

America continues to funnel arms and money to Fatah-controlled militias, encouraging them to attack Hamas in the West Bank, sabotaging the possibility of intra-Palestinian reconciliation.

And while the Obama administration and the British government prepare for negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan, they intransigently reject talks with Hamas despite that group's electoral mandate, its repeated offers of a reciprocal long-term ceasefire with Israel and its acceptance of a two-state solution.

The Obama administration has used up its first six months negotiating a settlement freeze with Israel (with little to show). At this rate, how long would it take to negotiate the core issues in the century-long conflict resulting from the Zionist effort to transform an almost entirely Arab (Muslim and Christian) country, into a 'Jewish state' with a permanent Jewish majority?

The constant focus on process and gimmicks -- like trying to get Arab states to normalize ties with Israel -- has obscured the reality that Obama's stated goal -- a workable two-state solution -- is almost certainly unachievable. The idea of separating Palestinians and Israelis into distinct ethno-national entities has become an article of faith within peace process circles, but rarely are its supporters asked to justify why a 'solution' that has eluded them for decades has any merit.

Today, as a result of natural growth, Palestinians form half of the population living in historic Palestine despite decades of expulsion and exile. Within a few years they will once again be the majority. A two-state solution as currently envisaged would leave Palestinians with a state on no more than a fifth of the land, with less of the water and no real sovereignty. Even if Palestinian refugees agreed to return to such a state, there would be no room for them.

Nor would repartition actually separate the populations: no one involved in the 'peace process' is talking about removing all, or even most of the half million Israeli settlers implanted illegally in the West Bank -- especially around Jerusalem -- since 1967. There is talk of compensating Palestinians for the land taken by settlers with 'equivalent' land elsewhere. But whoever can find land that can 'compensate' Palestinians for Jerusalem, would be just as likely to find land that could 'compensate' the British for London or the French for Paris.

As for the 1.5 million Palestinian citizens of Israel, a two-state solution would only make their situation worse. Already treated as second-class citizens, they face escalating racist campaigns and a raft of legislation proposing to ban them from commemorating Israel's near-destruction of Palestine in 1948, forcing them to take loyalty oaths, or even to sing the explicitly Jewish Israeli national anthem. If Israel remains an unreformed ultra-nationalist 'Jewish state,' its Palestinian citizens are more likely to face apartheid conditions at best or ethnic cleansing at worst, than be allowed to live as equal citizens in the land of their birth. Israel's foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman represents the growing number of Israeli Jews who think a Jewish state should be cleansed of non-Jews."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

ei: Pushing for "normalization" of Israeli apartheid

ei: Pushing for "normalization" of Israeli apartheid The Arab League proposed in 2002 what became known as the Arab Peace Initiative to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was an unprecedented, bold offer which promised Israel full normalization in exchange for a complete withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967 and the creation of a Palestinian state. The plan called for a "just settlement" to the Palestinian refugee issue. This, in practical terms, meant renunciation of the right to return, despite this being an individual right under international law of which no state or authority can forfeit on behalf of the refugees. The Arab Peace Initiative was based on what fallaciously became known as the "international consensus" for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that of "two states, for two peoples," championed by the Zionist left as well as Israel's patrons in the West. The plan represented a rare united front a...

   'The US is Not a Republic Anymore'   : Information Clearing House - ICH

   'The US is Not a Republic Anymore'   : Information Clearing House - ICH Press TV:We hear that Michael Mukasey is going to become the latest of the President's Attorney-Generals to be subpoenaed, this time over his conversations with Bush and Cheney - does this show that Congress is serious about calling the executive to account? Gore Vidal: No, Congress has never been more cowardly, nor more corrupt. All Bush has do is to make sure certain amounts of money go in the direction of certain important congressmen and that's end of any serious investigation. After all, one of the bravest members of Congress is Denis Kucinich who brought the article of impeachment in to the well of the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives must then try the president, and then after that it goes to the Senate for judgment. However, none of these things will happen because there's nobody there except for Mr. Kucinich who has the courage to take on a sitting president who...