Obama’s Cave-in to Israel

Letter suggests US not honest broker

The disclosure of the details of a letter reportedly sent by President Barack Obama last week to Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, will cause Palestinians to be even more sceptical about US and Israeli roles in the current peace talks.  

According to the leak, Obama made a series of extraordinarily generous offers to Israel, many of them at the expense of the Palestinians, in return for a single minor concession from Netanyahu: a two-month extension of the partial feeze on settlement growth.  

A previous 10-month freeze, which ended a week ago, has not so far been renewed by Netanyahu, threatening to bring the negotiations to an abrupt halt. The Palestinians are expected to decide whether to quit the talks over the coming days.  

Netanyahu was reported last week to have declined the US offer.  

The White House has denied that a letter was sent, but, according to the Israeli media, officials in Washington are privately incensed by Netanyahu’s rejection.  

The disclosures were made by an informed source: David Makovsky, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a close associate of Dennis Ross, Obama’s chief adviser on the Middle East, who is said to have initiated the offer.  

The letter’s contents have also been partly confirmed by Jewish US senators who attended a briefing last week from Ross.  

According to Makovsky, in return for the 60-day settlement moratorium, the US promised to veto any UN Security Council proposal on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the next year, and committed to not seek any further extensions of the freeze. The future of the settlements would be addressed only in a final agreement.  

The White House would also allow Israel to keep a military presence in the West Bank’s Jordan Valley, even after the creation of a Palestinian state; continue controlling the borders of the Palestinian territories to prevent smuggling; provide Israel with enhanced weapons systems, security guarantees and increase its billions of dollars in annual aid; and create a regional security pact against Iran.  

There are several conclusions the Palestinian leadership is certain to draw from this attempt at deal-making over its head.  

The first is that the US president, much like his predecessors, is in no position to act as an honest broker. His interests in the negotiations largely coincide with Israel’s.  

Obama needs a short renewal of the freeze, and the semblance of continuing Israeli and Palestinian participation in the “peace process”, until the US Congressional elections in November.  

Criticism by the powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington may damage Obama’s Democratic party unless he treads a very thin line. He needs to create the impression of progress in the Middle East talks but not upset Israel’s supporters by making too many demands of Netanyahu.  

The second conclusion — already strongly suspected by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and his advisers — is that Netanyahu, despite his professed desire to establish a Palestinian state, is being insincere.  

The White House’s private offer meets most of Netanyahu’s demands for US security and diplomatic assistance even before the negotiations have produced tangible results. For Netanyahu to reject the offer so lightly, even though the US was expecting relatively little in return, suggests he is either in no mood or in no position to make real concessions to the Palestinians on statehood.  

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported last Friday that senior White House officials were no longer “buying the excuse of politicial difficulties” for Netanyahu in holding his right wing governing coalition together. If he cannot keep his partners on board over a short freeze on illegal settlement building, what meaningful permanent concessions can he make in the talks?  

The third conclusion for the Palestinians is that no possible combination of governing parties in Israel is capable of signing an agreement with Abbas that will not entail significant compromises on the territorial integrity of a Palestinian state.  

One US concession — allowing Israel to maintain its hold on the Jordan Valley, nearly a fifth of the West Bank, for the forseeable future — reflects a demand common to all Israeli politicians, not just Netanyahu.  

In fact, the terms of Obama’s letter were drafted in cooperation with Ehud Barak, Israel’s defence minister and leader of the supposedly left wing Labor party. When he was prime minister a decade ago, he insisted on a similar military presence in the Valley during the failed Camp David talks.  

Ariel Sharon, his successor and founder of the centrist Kadima party, planned a new section of the separation wall to divide the Jordan Valley from the rest of the West Bank, though the scheme was put on hold after American objections.  

Today, most Palestinians cannot enter the Jordan Valley without a special permit that is rarely issued, and the area’s tens of thousands of Palestinian inhabitants are subjected to constant military harassment. B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights group, has accused Israel of a “de facto annexation” of the area.  

But without the Jordan Valley, the creation of a viable Palestinian state – even one limited to the West Bank, without Gaza — would be inconceivable. Statehood would instead resemble the Swiss-cheese model the Palestinians have long feared is all Israel is proposing.

Jonathan Cook, based in Nazareth, Israel is a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). Read other articles by Jonathan, or visit Jonathan's website.

17 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. bozh said on October 4th, 2010 at 7:51am #

    I am much jaded reading anything about ‘negotiation’ between christo-talmudic evil alliance and pal’ns.
    Expecting only worsening form them and not at home but also in iraq, afpak, iran, and elsewhere.
    In add’n, we cannot afford to think that israeli-palestinina conflict is a separate issue needing separate or special solution.

    Such thinking will not produce any positive results. Nor is it of much help [in fact it may be vitiating to solely to think-write about one,two,three or several issues– we need to study all of it: Expansionism, belittlement of people world-wide, oppression, torture, use of money, structure of governance, schooling, private ownership, healthcare, etc.

    In short, on issues that wld not divide us into left and right. After all, good 80% of people have same needs. Let’s work to obtain such needs for them and the left and right disappear or do not matter that much. tnx

  2. wjmartin said on October 4th, 2010 at 10:01am #

    Anyone who thinks Obama is more knowledgeable on the issue of Israel/Palestine than his predecessor George W Bush mistaken. Obama had zero knowledge and zero experience of either foreign policy or Middle east policy. No one has accused him of inexperience because the nation watch him deliver a good speech to the Democratic Convention in 2004, and he has an intelligent competent sounding way of speaking, simply as a result of lawyerly training. Carter, by contrast, had been a member of the Trilateral Commission, a Naval Officer, a submarine commander, yet he was always accused of inexperience. He is the only president since Eisenhower to have stood up to Israel.

    Obama has no more than a pedestrian knowledge of the Israel/Palestinian conflict or its history.

  3. hayate said on October 4th, 2010 at 10:06am #

    wjmartin said on October 4th, 2010 at 10:01am

    “He is the only president since Eisenhower to have stood up to Israel.”

    Actually, bush sr. also stood up to israel. And like carter, got sacked for it. Agree about obama. Like most zionist selected leaders in the usa now, he’s an airhead selected for loyalty and propaganda appeal. These zionist tools are all advert readers and virtually nothing more.

  4. Ismail Zayid said on October 4th, 2010 at 12:06pm #

    Obama’s cave-in to Israel is hardly a unique experience in the history of the US role in the Palestine/Israel conflict. All US presidents, apart from Eisenhawer in 1956, have complied with Israeli directions and interests. It is easy for Obama to practice sush acts of generosity, as reported in his last letter to Netanyahu, quoted here, including giving away the Jordan Valley to Israel. It is easy to be generous with other peoples’s property. Artur Balfour practised this extraordinary act of generosity in 1917, in the infamous Balfour Declaration, with perfect ease.

    In essence, the term of an Honest Broker for the US, in this conflict, is baseless.

  5. Ellen Lau said on October 4th, 2010 at 3:16pm #

    Jonathan Cook is incisive as usual.
    People who claim Obama is going to stand up to Israel make me laugh.
    I still get messages from the Democratic Party liberals in spite of my efforts to block them, and they often take this line that ‘we have to help ‘our’ President fight the lobby.’ AS if Obama were some poor victim of the lobby and that is why he won’t stand up even on this relatively minor issue of an extension of the spurious settlement suspension.

    Obama and the rest of the US policymakers ARE the lobby. The AIPAC and such are only fronts…really the lobby comes right from the White House and the CIA headquarters.

    There won’t be a Palestinian state for the same reason there’s no Kurdish state: It doesn’t fit US-British-French policy for the region. They are pretty sure they wouldn’t be able to control such a state for long. The lobby is secondary.

  6. shabnam said on October 4th, 2010 at 5:40pm #

    Everyone knows that Iraq war waged for the interest of Israel to divide Iraq into 3 parts to create “Kurdistan” as ally of Israel against Arabs according to Oded Yinon to erect ‘Greater Israel’ where Judofascistws will take this wish into their graves one by one.
    This was a Zionist plan since 1948. The entire Kurdistan was part of Iran until the Ottoman Empire with better weapons of mass destruction invaded Iran and occupied part of Kurdistan where was incorporated into Iraq, Turkey and Syria by the British Empire later in the 20th century.
    The partition of Iraq was designed by a fifth column Zionist, Dennis Gelb, and brought to the senate by a self declared zionist puppet, Joe Biden.
    North of Iraq is nothing but a spy network of Israel where Mossad, pose as businessman, is training the zionist’s Pawns, Kurds, for terrorist activity in the neighboring countries, Iran, Turkey and Syria, to destabilize and divide these countries according to Oded Yinon strategy.
    AMERICA IS OCCUIPIED by Zionists worse than fascists and Obama like Bush and Clinton is a puppet, puppet, puppet, puppet, pupppppppppet.


  7. Deadbeat said on October 4th, 2010 at 8:44pm #

    Ellen Lau writes …

    Obama and the rest of the US policymakers ARE the lobby. The AIPAC and such are only fronts…really the lobby comes right from the White House and the CIA headquarters.

    This is typical Chomskyism. Now Obama like John Hagee are the masterminds of Zionism. Apparently Chomskyites won’t stop selling the “U.S. Imperialism ™” axiom, bromides, and cliches (ABC’s) of Chomskyism. Clearly Zionism is in control and in charge otherwise Obama would have never gotten elected to the Senate nor the White House.

  8. jayn0t said on October 4th, 2010 at 8:47pm #

    Nice try, Ellen Lau (above). But she’s not yet as sophisticated as some of Chomsky’s followers at amalgamating Western interests with those of Israel, thus making it harder to oppose the latter.

    “There won’t be a Palestinian state for the same reason there’s no Kurdish state: It doesn’t fit US-British-French policy for the region. They are pretty sure they wouldn’t be able to control such a state for long. The lobby is secondary.” she states, without evidence.

    The reason the ‘imperialist’ powers don’t want a Kurdish state is because Turkey, Syria, and Iraq would fight to the death to defend their borders against Kurdish secession. That’s what states do. It is not because this state would be less ‘controllable’ than any other.

    A Palestinian state would be worse than the Bantustans of South Africa, which were not regularly bombed by the air force, nor subject to homicidal attacks by mobs of Afrikaaner settlers. It is clear evidence of the power of Zionism in the West that this state is seen as a concession to the Palestinians which even the president of the USA cannot pull off. It’s true that the US couldn’t ‘control’ a Palestinian Bantustan – that’s because it can’t control Zionism!

    ‘The Lobby’ is not ‘secondary’. It’s an understatement.

  9. hayate said on October 5th, 2010 at 3:41pm #

    Ellen Lau said on October 4th, 2010 at 3:16pm

    “Obama and the rest of the US policymakers ARE the lobby. The AIPAC and such are only fronts…really the lobby comes right from the White House and the CIA headquarters.”

    We all know obama specifically ordered his puppet, nutlessyahoo, to humiliate him publicly. Multiple times.

    The reason?

    It’s a secret plot of the world antisemitic conspiracy to increase hatred of zionists and israel. Prez obama is president of the organisation. Having the israelis humiliate obama will make all those latent antisemitic goys turn on their zionist friends and neighbours and turn on the israelis and help their Arab enemies push “the chosen” into the sea.

    Fortunately for israel, though, they were wise enough to see a scenario like this developing ahead of time and hire you to debunk this evul antisemitic plot before it does any permanent damage to the sacred vaterland.

  10. Rehmat said on October 5th, 2010 at 3:44pm #

    Alex Spillius wrote in British daily Telegraph on September 30, 2010 that Ben Obama has sent a letter to Benji Netanyahu outlining assurances on peace talks.

    David Makovsky, an analyst with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a think tank of Israel Lobby (AIPAC) headed by Martin Indyk, former US Jew ambassador to Tel Aviv – wrote that a draft letter was agreed between Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, and Yitzhak Molcho, the chief Israeli negotiator.

    According to the leaked information, Ben Obama gave the following assurances to Benj Netanyahu:

    1. The future of the (illegal) Jewish settlements recently implanted in the Palestinian Territories would not be decided prior to the negotiations, but would be discussed in the course of the negotiations.

    2. The United States will veto every resolution proposal concerning Israel, regardless of its origin, for the duration of the negotiations, set to last for one year.

    3. Washington recognizes the legitimacy of Israel’s security demands and will not try to modify them. US annual military aid to Israel, currently at 3 billion dollars, would be increased and Tel-Aviv could have acces to new weapons and surveillance systems, including satellite surveillance.

    In other words, the Zionazis just have to sit across the table with the un-elected politicians of Palestinians to gain all the above additional benefits.

    The two-state solution, defended by Ben Obama at the UN, does not mean that they will share the same rights. On the contrary, the territory of the future Palestinian state will be regarded as an extension of Israel’s strategic depth. Consequently, the Palestinian State will be unable to have its own army and will be required to open its territory at the behest of the Israeli army. Under such conditions, the Palestinian State will be nothing but a fiction, similar to the South African Bantustan of the Apartheid era; in other words, a legal screen allowing the continuation of an apartheid system between Palestinians and Israelis while preserving Israel from criticism. Finally, with the moratorium lasting only two months and with Israel having total impunity, each extension of the moratorium will be to the detriment of the Palestinians, who will be compelled to make a further concession each time in order to obtain respect for their rights.

    Like every previous ‘peace negotiation’, the current negotiations have been geared towards yielding new ground to Israel and not towards achieving peace.


  11. hayate said on October 5th, 2010 at 4:01pm #

    Rehmat said on October 5th, 2010 at 3:44pm

    “Like every previous ‘peace negotiation’, the current negotiations have been geared towards yielding new ground to Israel and not towards achieving peace.”

    I think it’s quite clear that israelis and zionists can not be negotiated with any more than the German nazis could be negotiated with. Both just take it as a sign of weakness to exploit further.

  12. hayate said on October 5th, 2010 at 7:26pm #

    When israel/zionists control a country, that country rapidly comes to resemble israel:

    Dissent in the age of Obama
    Peace activists had high hopes of an Obama presidency only to face the harsh realities of FBI raids and intimidation.
    Cindy Sheehan Last Modified: 05 Oct 2010 18:28 GMT

    “The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.” – Albert Camus

    Recently, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) raided the homes of at least eight anti-war/social justice activists here in the US.

    I happen to be a prominent anti-war activist myself, and have joked that I am a “little hurt” that I was not raided and perhaps I should try harder. Even though, we have the urge to try and be light-hearted in this time of an increasing police state, with civil liberties on the retreat, it really isn’t funny considering that the activists could face some serious charges stemming from these raids.

    I have felt this harassment on a smaller scale myself and I know that defending oneself against a police state that has unlimited resources, time and cruelty, can be quite expensive, time consuming and annoying.

    There is nothing noble about an agency that has reduced itself to being jackbooted enforcers of a neo-fascist police state, no matter how much the FBI has been romanticised in movies, television and books.

    For example, in one instance, early in the morning of September 24, at the home of Mick Kelly of Minneapolis, the door was battered in and flung across the room when his partner audaciously asked to see the FBI’s warrant through the door’s peephole. At Jessica Sundin’s home, she walked downstairs to find seven agents ransacking her home while her partner and child looked on in shock.

    These raids have terrifying implications for dissent here in the US.

    First of all, these US citizens have been long-time and devoted anti-war activists who organised an anti-war rally that was violently suppressed by the US police state in Minneapolis-St. Paul, during the 2008 Republican National Convention. Because the Minneapolis activists have integrity, they had already announced that they would do the same if the Democrats hold their convention there in 2012.

    I have observed that it was one thing to be anti-Bush, but to be anti-war in the age of Obama is not to be tolerated by many people. If you will also notice, the only people who seem to know about the raids are those of us already in the movement. There has been no huge outcry over this fresh outrage, either by the so-called movement or the corporate media.

    I submit that if George Bush were still president, or if this happened under a McCain/Palin regime, there would be tens of thousands of people in the streets to protest. This is one of the reasons an escalation in police state oppression is so much more dangerous under Obama – even now, he gets a free pass from the very same people who should be adamantly opposed to such policies.

    Secondly, I believe because the raids happened to basically ‘unsung’ and unknown, but very active workers in the movement, that the coordinated, early morning home invasions were designed to intimidate and frighten those of us who are still doing the work. The Obama regime would like nothing better than for us to shut up or go underground and to quit embarrassing it by pointing out its abject failures and highlighting its obvious crimes.

    Just look at how the Democrats are demonising activists who are trying to point out the inconvenient truth that the country (under a near Democratic tyranny) is sliding further into economic collapse, environmental decay and perpetual war for enormous profit.

    Barack and Joe, the commandantes of this police state, say that those who have the temerity to be critical are “asleep” and just need to “buck up”. White House spokesperson, Robert Gibbs, recently stated that we on the “professional left” need to be “drug tested” if we are not addicted to the regimes’ own drug: the Hopium of the Obama propaganda response team.

    It seems like, even though some of those that have been nailed to the cross of national security do activism around South America, most of the activism is anti-war and pro-Palestinian rights. Being supportive of any Arab or Muslim, no matter how benign or courageous is a very dangerous activity here in post-9/11 America.

    The Supreme Court just decided (Wilner v. National Security Agency) that the National Security Agency (NSA) did not have to disclose if it was using warrantless wiretapping to spy on attorneys representing the extra-legal detention of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obtaining warrants, with cause, and attorney-client privilege were important principles of the US justice system, but even the neo-fascist Supreme Court is undermining the law – talk about “activist” judges!

    Not only have activists been targeted here in the States, but Obama has ominously declared himself judge, jury and executioner of anyone that he deems a national security “threat”. These are the actions of a tyrant and another assault against our rights and against the rule of law from a person who promised “complete transparency” from his administration.

    We have learned that Obama’s first victim under his presidential execution programme is Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-born Muslim who is now in Yemen. Without showing proof of al-Awlaki’s so-called executionable offenses and without a trial in a court of law, Obama has unloosed his hit squads on Awlaki. Is there anyone out there reading this who does not believe, or fear, that this programme could quickly descend into summary executions within the borders of the US?

    Al-Awlaki’s father has filed a motion in federal court to stay the execution of his son until he gets his constitutionally guaranteed rights to due process, but Obama’s justice department has refused to cooperate stating that to do so would ‘undermine’ that fabled, exploited and ephemeral ‘national security’.

    When Obama behaves like Bush, only on steroids, he amply demonstrates why other people hate our country so much. Persons in other countries are not nearly as blind as Americans. They know that even though Obama went to Cairo to blather about building understanding between the US and the Muslim world, actions speak louder than words and Obama’s actions drip with carnage and pain.

    Obviously, the suppression of dissent here in the US, while outrageous and inexcusable, has not reached the level of the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950’s – yet.

    The longer we Americans remain silent in the face of these injustices, the more they will continue to occur and escalate.

    Make your voice heard!


    Notice how Cindy Sheehan is given space in even centrist, corporate media like Al Jazeera outside the usa, but not within the usa in the american corporate msm? That wouldn’t have something to do with that wee, tiny group of ziofascists who control american media, would it?

  13. Ellen Lau said on October 5th, 2010 at 10:37pm #

    Like your leader, Obama, you hide the imperialist ball.

    Who drew the boundaries, and decided there would be no Kurdish nation?

    The same people who issued the Balfour Declaration and decided there WOULD be a Jewish nation, and at the same time, historically.

    Today the US pressures the Kurds to remain in Iraq because an independent Kurdish state in the north would, still today, destablizie the imperialist order in the oil region…and be very difficult for the imperial powers to control.

    Or is the US just bending to the Turk lobby, or the Syrian lobby?

    Only hasbara refuse to admit there is such a thing as imperialism!

  14. 3bancan said on October 6th, 2010 at 7:32am #

    Ellen Lau said on October 5th, 2010 at 10:37pm #
    “Who drew the boundaries, and decided there would be no Kurdish nation?
    The same people who issued the Balfour Declaration and decided there WOULD be a Jewish nation, and at the same time, historically.”

    As far as I can tell it was the Jewish nazis who claimed (and still claim) that they are a race different from and above the goyim and wanted to become “a nation as the others” – in a foreign land after genociding the indigenous inhabitants and owners of that land. It was the Jews who extorted the – totally illegal, unlawful and immoral – Balfour declaration and begged, pressured and bribed (just as they do today) everyone to help them with the genocide of the Palestinians (the same as they are still doing) and the establishment of their illegal, unlawful, immoral, fascist, nazi state of thieves, robbers, vandalizers, torturers, murderers, genociders and consummate liars. It was the Jews who started the genocide in Palestine and are still perpetrating it. It was the Jews who proclaimed their Jewish militaristic colonial nazi state on FOREIGN land. It is the Jews who started all the genocidal wars in the Middle East since their coming there. And it is the Jews who are exporting their genocidal barbarity to the other parts of the world…

  15. shabnam said on October 6th, 2010 at 1:05pm #

    {Who drew the boundaries, and decided there would be no Kurdish nation?
    The same people who issued the Balfour Declaration and decided there WOULD be a Jewish nation, and at the same time, historically.}

    Since the erection of the Zionist entity on stolen land of Palestine, the Judeofascists have invested heavily on constructing “nation” of Kurdistan based on ethnic and religious divide in Iraq to fulfill Oded Yinon’s strategy to SERVIVE. Thus, the zionist policy in the Middle East and beyond is an expansionist policy based on wars using her FIFTH COLUMN, the Jewish Lobby and its extension to wage wars against the targeted countries in the region to have supremacy over all the countries and act as an empire of the region to establish ‘the greater Israel’ which goes from Mauritania to Afghanistan including Sudan, Egypt and Al Maghreb (Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco) by creating tension among different ethnic groups to for example: Berber against ‘Arab’, African against ‘Arab’, Christian against Muslim , so on and so forth. We have witnessed so many tensions led to destabilization in the region including southern Sudan and Darfur created by the agent of the Judeofascists’ in Southern Sudan and Darfur to partition the country. These Zionist organizations are mainly Jewish in nature, like hollowcaust Museum and ‘Save Darfur’ where are pushing for the partition of Sudan. Israel is creating chaos to bring Red Sea and Suez Canal under her control to weaken the Islamic countries in the horn of Africa. Partition of Iraq is not American policy, rather Zionist policy. According to Professor Francis Boyle: Israel will collapse in 20 years:

    {For the Palestinians to sign any type of comprehensive peace treaty with Israel would only shore up, consolidate, and guarantee the existence of Zionism and Zionists in Palestine forever. Why would the Palestinians want to do that? Without approval by the Palestinians in writing, Zionism and Israel in Palestine will collapse. So the Palestinians must not sign any Middle East Peace Treaty with Israel, but rather must keep the pressure on Israel for the collapse of Zionism over the next two decades as predicted by the Central Intelligence Agency. The correct historical analogue here is not apartheid South Africa, but instead the genocidal Yugoslavia that collapsed as a State, lost its U.N. Membership, and no longer exists as a State for that very reason.}

    The stealing of Palestinian land was achieved due to Jewish plutocracy, Rothschild family, control over the British Empire.
    Nathan Rothschild around 1911 told the world that Rothschild family controls the British Empire. He said:

    {I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.}

    In his diary, Theodor Herzl, describes submitting his draft proposals to the Rothschild Family Council, noting: “I bring to the Rothschilds and the big Jews their historical mission. I shall welcome all men of goodwill — we must be united — and crush all those of bad.”
    Theodor Herzl’s eyes were on Palestine. Thus, he used the wealth of the Jewish plutocracy to buy Abdulhamid II, the Ottoman ruler with little success.

    Modern Jewish immigration into Palestine began in 1882. The Ottoman Government was aware of this influx from the outset, and decided to oppose Jewish immigration to Palestine in 1881, some months before the increased flow of Jews got under way. There was a great pressure from the European on Ottoman Empire to accept Jews to settle on the east bank of the River Jordan, because neither the ruler nor the people of the empire desired to have Jews in their land.
    In November 1881, in response to the Anglo-German group’s approach, the Ottoman Government announced that: “Jewish immigrants will be able to settle as scattered groups throughout the Ottoman Empire, excluding PALESTINE.” *

    * Neville J. Mandel, “The Arabs and Zionism”, 1980

    However, Herzl said that Palestine should be granted to the Jews with the great power protection but Abdulhamid II, the ruler of the Ottoman Empire rejected. He did not want the flow of Jewish immigrants into Palestine and ordered Jewish immigrants to be shipped to America. Herzl’s exchange for Palestine was “to regulate the whole finances of Turkey” * since the empire was in trouble financially. Abdulhamid told Herzl : “I cannot sell even a foot of land, for it does not belong to me, but to my people.
    We know now how Israel was erected after the demise of the Ottoman Empire and regime change in Turkey to ‘create’ homeland based on ethnic cleansing and stolen land of Palestine.
    Balfour declaration did not support Partition of Palestine and creation of a ‘Jewish state’. In fact Britain DID NOT VOTE FOR THE PARTITION PALESTINE. Balfour clearly said:

    {Dear Lord Rothschild,
    “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
    I should be grateful if you would bring this Declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. Balfour }

    So Balfour believed in:
    [T]o facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine ..]

  16. shabnam said on October 6th, 2010 at 6:52pm #

    John Mearsheimer:

    The end of Israel in approaching.


  17. mary said on October 7th, 2010 at 6:46am #

    On Medialens where there are many more e-mails to the BBC

    To Jeremy Bowen (BBC Middle East Editor)
    Posted by John Hilley on October 7, 2010, 2:23 pm

    Dear Jeremy

    Beyond your cursory reply to Media Lens, I wonder if you might address more fully the BBC’s disturbing failure to report the letter sent by President Obama to Mr Netanyahu detailing his inducements for an extension of the settlement freeze.


    Don’t you agree that its disclosure paints a damning picture of Washington’s carefully-constructed role as “honest broker”?

    Doesn’t its omission also bring the BBC’s own claims to honest and balanced reporting into serious disrepute?

    Appropriate BBC coverage of Obama’s offers and Netanyahu’s outright rejection of them would help call into question the accepted narrative of America and Israel as bona fide peace seekers.

    Can you see how proper journalistic illumination of this letter to the viewing public would help contextualise the real power relations and hidden agenda behind the current ‘peace talks’?

    Why do we have to rely on journalists like Jonathan Cook to convey such crucial details and assessment?

    And, please, might you explain why this vital piece of information cannot be covered by the BBC just because you are on another assignment in Lebanon?

    Aside from the apparently selective omission of such key evidence, what does this tell us about the BBC’s position as a ‘leading international news outlet’?


    John Hilley