Peace Process Hypocrisy: Stillborn from Inception

Journalist Henry Siegman titled his August 2007 London Review of Books article, “The Great Middle East Peace Process Scam,” calling it likely “the most spectacular deception in modern diplomatic history.” 

This writer omits most likely calling it the no-peace peace process, stillborn from inception, while Haaretz writer Gideon Levy, on March 7, 2010, wrote, “There has never been an Israeli peace camp,” saying “let’s call the child by its real name: The Israeli peace camp is still an unborn baby,” the mother yet to become pregnant given decades of Israeli-Washington rejectionism.

In September 2009, former IDF chief of staff and current Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Strategic Affairs, Moshe Ya’alon, said Jews have an “unassailable right (to) settle anywhere, particularly here, (in) the land of the Bible,” and earlier called the peace process a useful fiction “to sear deep into the consciousness of Palestinians that they are a defeated people.”

In 1968, former IDF chief of staff and then defense minister, Moshe Dayan, called the West Bank occupation “permanent,” and a decade later reiterated his commitment to the status quo, the same position held by all Israeli officials to the present. 

Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir (1983-1984 and 1986-1992) once said he wanted to drag out peace talks for a decade while vastly expanding settlements.

Current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier called the peace process “a waste of time,” is obstructionist on the right of return, backs continued settlement expansion, won’t ever withdraw from East Jerusalem or return to 1967 borders, and, in subtle terms, wants negotiations based solely on Israeli dominance .

Given its decades of financial, military and diplomatic support, America holds the trump cards, its position consistently one-sided under Republican and Democrat administrations, and, rhetoric aside, for decades has rejected an equitable, sustainable peace. 

With its Security Council (SC) veto, it’s blocked past efforts in spite of the General Assembly (GA) regularly supporting conflict resolution and Palestinian self-determination by overwhelming margins, including:

— GA Resolution 3236 (1974) recognizing Palestinian self-determination; and

— most recently on December 2, 2009 passing: 

“six resolutions aimed at promoting the inalienable rights of Palestinians — particularly to statehood — and permanently ending Israel’s ‘illegal’ actions in Jerusalem and Syrian Golan.” 

The votes passed by margins of 109-8, 112-9, 162-8, 164-7, 163-7, and 116-7. Those against, in one or more resolutions, included America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Panama, Ivory Coast, a few tiny Pacific islands, and, of course, Israel. 

Yet peace and Palestinian self-determination remain stillborn because Washington and Israel reject them – even though around 130 nations diplomatically recognize a Palestinian state, and the UN grants Palestine all member rights except to vote.

Further, on November 15, 1988, the Palestine National Council (PNC) proclaimed the existence of an independent Palestinian state. According to the 1925 Palestine Citizenship Order in Council, Palestinians, their children and grandchildren are automatically citizens, including those in the diaspora.

Provisionally, Washington recognizes an independent Palestine, and under UN Charter Article 80(1), can’t reverse its position by vetoing SC resolutions calling for its UN admission. Doing so is illegal and subject to SC action under the Charter’s Chapter VI. The Security Council recommends admissions. The General Assembly affirms them by a two-thirds majority. In December 1988, it did so for Palestine, and at the same time called for:

  • ending Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem;
  • dismantling Israeli settlements;
  • resolving the Palestinian refugee problem;
  • placing Palestine under interim UN supervision; and
  • requesting the SC convene an international Middle East peace conference.

Three earlier Security Council resolutions are also noteworthy:

— SC Resolution 242 (1967) calling for an end of conflict and withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from occupied territories;

— SC Resolution 338 (1973) repeated the same demand; and

— SC Resolution 298 (1971) affirming “acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible.”

Rejecting Legitimate Peace Talks

In his book The Peace Process, William Quant traces American-led negotiations from the mid-1970s when the term signified a “gradual, step-by-step approach to resolving one of the world’s most difficult conflicts.” At best, it was a “process,” at worst, “little more than a slogan used to mask the marking of time,” what, in fact, it’s been for the past 35 years. As a result, since 1967, Israel expropriated valued Palestinian land, dispossessed tens of thousands incrementally, and, through violence and oppression, continues to commit slow-motion genocide — hardly a recipe for peace and conflict resolution.

The “peace process,” in fact, subverts it in a region Dwight Eisenhower called the most “strategically important area in the world” with its enormous energy reserves. Pressured by the Israeli Lobby, Washington’s prevailing view is that Israel is vital to US Middle East dominance, part of a plan to control all Eurasia with 75% of the world’s population, most of its resources and physical wealth, and three-fourths of its energy reserves — the grandest of grand prizes, too valuable to slip away, and one not to let peace obstruct.

It’s no surprise that Washington vetoed SC Resolution 11940 (January 1976) calling for a pre-1967 border settlement with “appropriate arrangements… to guarantee… the sovereignty, territorial integrity and the political independence of all states in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries,” including a sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and the PLO backed it. Israel was opposed. Washington obliged with a veto as it’s done dozens of times over the past half century blocking resolutions harmful to Israeli interests.

Israel’s record is even worse. With full US support, it’s ignored over five dozen UN resolutions condemning or censuring it for its actions against the Palestinians or other Arab states, deploring it for committing them, or demanding, calling on, or urging the Jewish state to end them. To the present, Israel never did, acting with impunity to obstruct peace, continue conflict, and deny Palestinians a sovereign independent state or a viable one-state solution for all its people.

After the 1967 Six Day War, the “Allon Plan,” named after Defense Minister (later Prime Minister) Yigal Allon, was an early rejectionist measure by proposing:

  • “maximum land with minimum Arabs;”
  • annexing the choicest 40% of the West Bank and Gaza, including the Jordan valley and “back of the mountain,” the Jordan River remaining Israel’s eastern border;
  • expropriating a substantial area around Greater Jerusalem, including the Latrun salient, seizing future portions thereafter to secure full control of a united city, never again to be divided;
  • dispossessing Palestinians from areas Israel wants solely for Jews;
  • building permanent settlements and army bases; and
  • making remaining parts of the West Bank an autonomous region economically linked to Israel.

These strategic concepts have been part of Israel’s military doctrine since 1948. Thereafter, they influenced Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and still do today. The terms “territorial compromise” and “land for peace” refer to Allon’s rejection of Palestinian self-determination. They still do today.

Ilan Pappe on Faulty Peace Efforts

Israeli historian Ilan Pappe says Washington promotes peace “based on three faulty principles:”

— the area’s balance of power giving Israel a one-sided advantage; genuine peace talks are impossible unless both sides are equal partners working for a just solution;

— letting Israel set the terms “even though this… crucially limit(s) the range of possibilities… for negotiation;” and

— each effort must begin from scratch, “as if nothing had been tried before.”

According to Pappe, the roots of the problem date from the 1948 war and dispossession of around 800,000 Palestinians from land they lived on for centuries and rightfully claim. Also to have Jerusalem as their capital. Not addressing these issues assures failure, continued hostility, oppression, and violence, the consistent pattern for over six decades and over four under occupation.

A First Step

Under UN auspices, the first peace conference took place in Lausanne, Switzerland in April 1949, proposing a three-tier settlement:

  • the unconditional right of return;
  • Jerusalem as an international city; and
  • a two-state solution, on equal portions of land.

Israel rejected it, kept 78% of historic Palestine, and granted Jordan the right to annex the West Bank and part of Jerusalem. Egypt controlled Gaza. Peace efforts were suspended, and weren’t resumed until after the 1967 Six Day War, the West Bank and Gaza then occupied creating an unfavorable environment for negotiation.

It’s more than ever true today, given 300,000 Jews in the West Bank, another 200,000 in East Jerusalem, and Israel controlling over 40% of the Territory for settlements, the Separation Wall, military bases, no-go areas, nature reserves, Jews-only roads, and hundreds of checkpoints and barriers, restricting Palestinians to shrinking cantonized communities surrounded by growing numbers of hostile Jews.

Peace Process Rejectionism

From 1967 through the 1980s, the PLO was rejected as a legitimate peace partner, even after Chairman Yasser Arafat’s November 13, 1974 (first ever) appearance before the UN General Assembly saying:

The difference between the revolutionary and the terrorist lies in the reason for which each fights. Whoever stands by a just cause and fights for liberation from invaders and colonists cannot be called a terrorist. Those who wage war to occupy, colonize and oppress other people are the terrorists…. The PLO dreams and hopes for one democratic state where Christian, Jew and Muslim live in justice, equality, fraternity and progress… I have come bearing an olive branch and a freedom fighter’s gun. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand.

It was a watershed moment. America and Israel stood practically alone opposing Arafat’s appearance and  Palestinian self-determination. Most UN members supported it, finally (on November 12, 1975) getting US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East and South Asian Affairs, Harold H. Saunders, in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East, to say:

In many ways, the Palestinian dimension of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the heart of that conflict…. The Palestinians are a political factor…. The legitimate interests of the Palestinian Arabs must be taken into account in the negotiating of an Arab-Israeli peace.

The comments so upset Israel that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger discounted them as an “academic and theoretical exercise,” even though he approved them in advance. Nonetheless, US policy remained unchanged, Congress further marginalizing the PLO by enacting Kissinger’s non-recognition pledge until it “renounce(d) terror,” meaning its struggle to be free from occupation.

Proclaiming An Independent Palestine

In 1988, Arafat proclaimed it, renounced terrorism, accepted SC Resolution 242, and called for an international peace conference under UN auspices. The Reagan administration ignored him until December 14, 1988, thereafter saying America would recognize the PLO. Talks began in Tunisia the next day, achieved nothing, and were broken off.

Continued Peace Process Subversion

After the 1991 Gulf War, America and the near-powerless Soviet Union (two months before its dissolution) jointly sponsored the Madrid peace conference where Israel negotiated face-to-face for the first time with Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and US-Israeli approved Palestinian representatives as part of the Jordanian delegation, but not in good faith. 

Haaretz writer Danny Rubinstein explained the “autonomy” offered “as in a prisoner-of-war camp, where the prisoners (are) autonomous(ly allowed) to cook their meals without interference and to organize cultural events.”

Afterward, talks continued on two parallel tracks to resolve past conflicts and sign bilateral peace treaties along with multilateral negotiations on issues affecting the whole region. The whole process was a charade, a precursor for subsequent efforts.

Begun secretly, the Oslo Accords and Declaration of Principles followed in September 1993, denounced by Edward Said, explaining:

the fashion-show vulgarities of the White House ceremony, the degrading spectacle of Yasser Arafat thanking everyone for the suspension of most of his people’s rights, and the fatuous solemnity of Bill Clinton’s performance, like a 20th century Roman emperor shepherding two vassal kings through rituals of reconciliation and obeisance, (and) the truly astonishing proportions of the Palestinian capitulation.

It was unilateral surrender, a Palestinian Versailles, affirming a vaguely defined negotiating process. No outcome was specified. Israel obstructed and delayed, refused to make concessions, and continued its colonization agenda unimpeded. 

Palestinians got nothing for renouncing armed struggle, recognizing Israel’s right to exist, and leaving major unresolved issues for later final status talks. They included an independent Palestinian state, the right of return, the future of settlements, borders, water rights, and status of Jerusalem as sovereign Palestinian territory and future home of its capital. Under Arafat, a new Palestinian Authority (PA) was established as Israel’s enforcer. 

In September 1995, Oslo II followed, concluded in Taba, Egypt, countersigned in Washington four days later, it called for further Israeli troop redeployments from Gaza, major West Bank population centers and rural areas, except for Israeli settlements and designated military zones. 

The West Bank was divided into three parts, each with distinct borders, administration, and security rules — Areas A, B and C plus a fourth for Greater Jerusalem. A complicated system was as follows:

— Area A under Palestinian control for internal security, public order, and civil affairs;

— Area B under Palestinian civil control for 450 West Bank towns and villages, Israel retaining overriding authority for settler safety; and

— Area C, its water resources, and settlements under Israeli control on the West Bank’s most valuable land connected by special by-pass roads for Jews only.

Israel controlled the Territories, occupying today over 40% of the West Bank with expanding settlements, by-pass roads, the Separation Wall, military areas, no-go zones, nature reserves, and hundreds of checkpoints and barriers, excluding Palestinians from their own land, thus effectively in charge of all parts they inhabit.

In September 1999, the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum was next — implementing Oslo II and other post-Oslo I agreements, including:

(1) a 1994 Protocol on Economic Relations favoring Israel;

(2) a Cairo Agreement on Gaza and the Jericho Area the same year;

(3) the 1994 Washington Declaration and Agreement on Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities between the two parties; and

(4) the 1995 Protocol on Further Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities. 

Both sides agreed to resume permanent status talks and discuss other peace elements relating to Israeli troop redeployments, land transfers, safe passage openings between Gaza and the West Bank, a Gaza seaport, prisoner releases, other security related issues, normal civilian life activities, international donor aid, and a timetable for final status talks on the toughest issues.

In July 2000, Bill Clinton hosted Arafat and Prime Minister Ehud Barak at Camp David, again delivering rejectionism. Barak insisted Arafat sign a “final agreement,” declare an “end of conflict,” relinquish all legal claims for additional land, but offered nothing in return. There was no written offer, no documents, and no maps, just a May 2000 one dividing the West Bank into four isolated cantons under Palestinian administration, surrounded by expanding settlements and other Israeli controlled land.

They included Jericho; the southern one to Abu Dis; a northern one including Nablus, Jenin and Tulkarm; and a central one including Ramallah. Gaza was left in limbo, later resolved after Israel’s summer 2005 disengagement. The deal was so duplicitous, Arafat rejected it. Yet he was pilloried afterward up to his death in a Paris hospital in November 2004, strong evidence suggesting he was poisoned and couldn’t be helped after he arrived.

In July 2001, a Taba summit aimed to address final status issues, showed serious gaps remained, ended in failure like before, and left resolution for future negotiations.

Next came the “road map,” announced by George Bush in a June 24, 2002 speech. He called for an independent Palestinian state along side Israel by 2005 — disingenuous rhetoric with no substance, meaning prospects were doomed from the start. Straightaway, violence beset the region. Israel increased land seizures, oppression, and targeted assassinations. Conditions in Palestine became dire, leaving peace hopes again stillborn, the same way they’ve been from inception.

Once again from the November 2007 Annapolis travesty, attended by officials from the Quartet, EU, Arab League, UN, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and many other countries, except one – democratically elected Palestinian representatives, perhaps the first time ever one side was excluded, dooming the conference from the start. Or as some put it then and now: How can you negotiate in good faith without a willing partner, meaning Israel and Washington orchestrated the process to fail, so it did.

Conflict resolution wasn’t intended, just a (rejectionist) show of good faith before Bush’s second term ended. Israel quashed it quickly, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert promising faster West Bank colonization, especially in East Jerusalem, saying settlement building was an internal Israeli matter, no one else’s.

Thereafter, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations produced nothing, for reasons like today. There isn’t, nor has there ever been, a viable peace process. Given Washington-Israeli rejectionism, talks are a charade, nothing else.

Edward Said, in a January 1999 op-ed, anguished over “a disheartening bloody impasse,” Palestine an isolated prison, a vast wasteland of destruction and human misery, an entire people suffocating, tanks and F-16s slaughtering defenseless civilians, enduring every imaginable indignity and degradation for their faith, ethnicity and presence.

Yet once again, on his March visit to Tel Aviv, Vice President Joe Biden, called for the resumption of peace talks, saying:

“The most important thing is for these talks to go forward and (do it) promptly… in good faith.” Not with Palestine’s democratically elected government, with the Abbas-led coup d’etat one under Fatah.

In good faith? Henry Siegman explained the charade, calling it “the most spectacular deception in modern diplomatic history,” clearly shown in chief negotiator Saeb Erekat’s December 2009 document (for the Negotiations Affairs Department of the Palestine Liberation Organization — administered by a UK free-market think tank) titled, “The Political Situation in Light of Developments with the US Administration and Israeli Government and Hamas’ Continued Coup d’etat: Recommendations and options.”

It accepts Israeli demands, is silent on the right of return, recognizes Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, and agrees to Israeli annexation of large settlement blocs throughout the West Bank and East Jerusalem, rendering a viable Palestinian state null and void, and “peace” solely on Israel’s terms — a “fantasy world” for Said, and no hope for justice unless grassroots outrage forces things. 

Why not, as famed anthropologist Margaret Mead (1901-1978) explained, saying: “Never underestimate the power of a few committed people to change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has,” or ever will, so imagine the power of millions if they’ll use what they’ve got.

Stephen Lendman wrote How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War. Contact him at: Also visit his blog site and listen to The Global Research News Hour on Mondays from 11AM-1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening. Read other articles by Stephen.

12 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Rehmat said on March 16th, 2010 at 10:01am #

    In his February 2010 interview with Al-Jazeera (watch video at the end of this post), Gen. Hamid Gul said that “Taliban is the future” for a stable and progressive Afghanistan. He said: “America is defeated. Karzai is no more, he is fighting for his life. Some 80% of Afghan population support Taliban as they’re fed-up with corruption. They’re sick of the influence of the warlords and drug-barons and the continued American occupation”.

    We (Pakistanis) want a friendly Afghanistan. We know India is playing havoc with us. The Pakistani Taliban are being sponsored by the Indian intelligence and the Mossad, by the way, to carry out their attacks in Pakistan. The Mossad is very active in Pakistan and they are providing all the guidance and technical support to the Indian intelligence. So, Pakistan has to have its back covered – no country can fight on two fronts. We have to have a friendly Afghanistan, this does not mean that we dominate Afghanistan. No one can dominate Afghanistan, a country which has already buried two superpowers and the third one is about to be buried there,” said Hamid Gul.

    “I have no ties with Al-Qaeda. As far as al-Qaeda is concerned, I simply say come up with the evidence for 911. You haven’t even charged Osama bin Laden so far, that means you don’t have hard evidence against him. The full story is yet to come out. In my opinion, all this is a gimmick, an inside job,” said Hamid Gul.

  2. dan e said on March 16th, 2010 at 11:34am #

    Very interesting post by Rehmat, but I wonder if it is really a comment on another article? Don’t see the direct pertinance to Lendman’s thesis. ??

    Lendman is of course totally accurate & to the point re the so-called “peace process”, which I used to call “The Two-State Illusion” before I realized that many were putting hopes in the idea of a negotiated “one-state solution”.
    I don’t know why it’s been so hard for so many to face up to the obvious fact that you can’t do business with Zionists. They’ll pretend to be “negotiating” forever but they have no intention of giving up one inch of the real estate they’ve conquered. Maybe this only becomes totally clear upon A) examination of the Zionist “founding documents” like Herzl’s writings, Basel Conference proceedings, Weissman/Ben Gurion/Jabotinsky statements, and B) the historical record of what the Zionists have actually done, which Dr Lendman has so admirably encapsulated above.
    There seems to be no limit to the Will To Believe.

  3. Ismail Zayid said on March 16th, 2010 at 11:49am #

    As Stephen Lendman documents accurately, the Zionist leadership have never had a desire for a genuine peace, and the peace process is merely a ploy they use to maintain their expansionist campaign while their allies, in the US and Europe, maintain their deafening silence. UN resolutions and international law bear no relevance to their conduct and expansionist designs.

    This expansionist program was asserted by Moshe Dayan as he stated: ” Our fathers had reached the frontiers which were recognised in the Partition Plan. Our generation reached the frontiers of 1949. Now the Six-Day generation have managed to reach Suez, Jordan and the Golan Heights. This is not the end. After the present ceasefire lines, there will be new ones. They will extend perhaps to Jordan – perhaps to Lebanon and perhaps to central Syria as well” [Moshe Dayan, The Times. June 25, 1967.]

    Sadly, it is the Palestinian and Arab leaders who fail to understand the reality of the Zionist programme, in its full context.

  4. dan e said on March 16th, 2010 at 12:09pm #

    yes, well put. The full context of course includes Zionist Power Configuration control of the US Militarist State including its ideological apparatus. So there will be no “solution” to the Isreal problem until there is a major shift in global power relations.

  5. Parviz Mirbaghi said on March 16th, 2010 at 1:02pm #

    I remember in the early sixties I heard an Israeli say on British TV that even Jordan (or much of it) is theirs and some such remarks. At the time I took it as an odd and isolated remark but at the time I wasn’t aware of Judea and Sumeria, and this kind of nightmarish scheme for Palestine. By now, anyone who fails to see ethnic cleansing and virtual take over of Palestine has to be completely blind and a raving lunatic. I don’t think Abbas and ruling cliques among the Arab nations are this ignorant, I think treason is the most apt term for them. Their obeisance to unconscionable oppression is the tragedy.

  6. mary said on March 16th, 2010 at 2:37pm #

    Quite right Parviz. Fayyad was a speaker at the recent Herliya conference. What was he up to in the lions’ den?

    This weekend AIPAC are coming to Washington for the weekend. This is a preliminary list of speakers. Kemp is ex British Army and is on terrestrial and satellite TV almost continuously putting out the war propaganda for the war in Afghanistan, and for all other USUKIs/NATO obscenities. Now we have confirmation of where his loyalties lie if we didn’t know before.

    2010 Policy Conference


    This March 21-23, pro-Israel America is coming to Washington, D.C. Will you be there?

    The AIPAC Policy Conference is the pro-Israel community’s preeminent annual gathering. Register today and join more than 7,000 community and student activists from all 50 states, more than half of the Senate, a third of the House of Representatives and countless Israeli and American policymakers and opinion leaders.

    Please note: Registration closes on Friday, March 19 at 6:00 pm PDT. There will be no on-site registration.


    * Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
    * Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
    * Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, Quartet Representative and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
    * Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)
    * Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
    * Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)
    * Amb. Michael Oren, Israeli ambassador to the United States
    * Col. Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan
    * Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School
    * Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy
    * Dan Senor, co-author of Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle
    * Robert Kagan, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

    During the three-day conference, delegates will have the opportunity to choose from dozens of informative sessions and participate in the pro-Israel community’s largest and most important advocacy day. Check back soon for a detailed program.

  7. mebosa ritchie said on March 16th, 2010 at 4:39pm #

    quite right stephen,the “peace process” doesn’t and never has existed. the arabs are not prepared to accept a jewish state,even a tiny one so why should the israelis-jews-do the arabs any favors.
    the americans are wasting their time. abbas is a crook and is hated by his own least hamas are honest and open about wanting to destroy israel,but they are murderous scum.
    by the way arafat died of aids ;he wasn’t poisoned.
    mary,thanks for the info on aipac
    i’ll be there;hope you can come

  8. Mulga Mumblebrain said on March 17th, 2010 at 3:49am #

    Just when you need an illustration of Judeofascist mendacity, arrogance and narcissism, who should pop up but Mebosa, everybody’s favourite golem. The salient feature of Judeofascism is I believe, its sadism. Leave aside the gobsmacking arrogance, the hatred and contempt for the non-Judaic universe even including those loyal toadies the Sabbat Goyim like Bliar and our very own ‘Christian Zionist’ Kevin Rudd, and the absolute lack of compunction in engaging in any and every criminal enterprise so long as it brings profit. Just concentrate on the refined and exquisite cruelty meted out to the imprisoned Palestinians, for generations, and the absolute lack of any remorse. Contemplate,for a moment, a state where leading ‘religious’ figures declare that killing civilians is a mitzvah, or ‘good deed’ and that killing children is acceptable on the grounds that they might grow up to resist the Jews. Then contemplate the absolute truth that this belligerent, bloodthirsty and vengeful tribe control Western politics, media and finance,and are becoming more and more bellicose, threatening, demanding and violent almost by the day,and that they possess hundreds of thermonuclear weapons, and tell me that that reality is not deeply, profoundly, disturbing.

  9. Rehmat said on March 17th, 2010 at 4:32am #

    Abraham Foxman, Boss of pro-Israel Jewish lobby group, Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has blamed Zionist-controlled Obama administration for underminig Middle East peace instead of the radical Jewish government in Tel Aviv. “This administration has bought into this concept – even Joe Biden’s language, that if we don’t resolve this conflict American soldiers will die – that’s the worst of that fallacy. When the secretary of state then says that it harms the bilateral relationship – what happens between the Palestinians and Israelis impacts American security. The solution of the problem is in Baghdad, Kabul, Tehran, maybe in Riyadh and Cairo. Not in Jerusalem,” quoted Israeli daily Ha’aretz, March 15, 2010.

    Interestingly, Joe Klein doesn’t buy Abe Foxman’s rhetoric about Islamic Resistance Hamas or Islamic Iran being obstacles to the Middle East peace process. In his July 20, 2009 blog at ‘Swampland’, he wrote: “Benjamin Netanyahu’s phony flexibility on two-state was always transparent – and it’s now becoming apparent the Israel is the prime impediment to progress in the Middle East……. It’s time for Netanyahu – who recently called David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel “self-hating Jews” – to recognize that the Bush neoconservative-evangelical alliance is gone. It’s time for him to adjust to the new diplomatic reality”.

    The tail wagging the dog

  10. mary said on March 17th, 2010 at 6:42am #

    Dear Bibi and Shimon

    We didn’t really mean what we have been saying. We have now rolled over to you and Hill will be cheerleading for you this weekend at the conference.

    Yours (literally) Obummer.


    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has dismissed the idea that US-Israeli relations are in crisis amid a row over Jewish settlers in Arab East Jerusalem.

    She said the two nations had a “close, unshakeable bond” but made clear the US wanted both Israel and the Palestinians to prove their commitment to peace.

    Earlier, US envoy George Mitchell postponed a planned visit to Israel.

    Heightened tensions in Jerusalem have led to violent clashes between hundreds of Palestinians and Israeli police.

    Israeli police said about 60 Palestinians had been arrested and medical officials said a number of people had been injured.

    UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged restraint from both sides, the AFP news agency reports, and reiterated that Jerusalem’s final status should be decided by negotiation.

    ‘Dismay and disappointment’

    Israel angered Washington by announcing its plans for 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem as US Vice-President Joe Biden visited the region last week to try to kick-start stalled peace talks.

    Israel’s ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, was quoted by Israeli media on Monday as saying that ties between the US and Israel were at their lowest point since 1975.

    Asked if that was the case, Mrs Clinton said: “I don’t buy that.”

    She said Washington had an “absolute commitment to Israel’s security”.

    But, she added, the US did not always agree with its international allies on everything, and it had expressed its “dismay and disappointment” to Israel over last week’s incident.

    Last week, Mrs Clinton called the settlements announcement “insulting” to the US and, in a phone call to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, demanded Israel take steps to show its commitment to peace.

    The US says it is still awaiting a “formal” response from Israel to those concerns.

    Mr Mitchell had been due to meet Israeli President Shimon Peres on Tuesday but the trip has been put off to an as yet undetermined time, officials said.

    State department spokesman Philip Crowley said Mr Mitchell would not meet Israeli and Palestinian leaders before a Middle East Quartet meeting in Moscow on Friday but talks would be scheduled at some point.

    BBC state department correspondent Kim Ghattas, in Washington, says the pressure is piling up on Israel but the question being asked is whether the US can get anything from Israel at this stage.

    It is possible the Israeli prime minister cannot deliver what Washington wants without paying too heavy a price at home, our correspondent says.

    Although he has apologised for the timing of the settlement announcement, Mr Netanyahu has stood by Israel’s policy, telling parliament on Monday there can be “no curbs” on Jewish building in Jerusalem.

    The BBC’s Paul Wood in Jerusalem says there seems to be an impasse – if Mr Netanyahu caves in and cancels the new settlements, the stability of his government may be in doubt; if he does not, it is hard to see how the peace talks can take place.

    ‘Day of rage’

    Tensions in East Jerusalem have risen in recent days with the settlements issue and the rededication of a synagogue in Jerusalem’s Old City, which Palestinians have condemned as provocative.

    Hundreds of Palestinian protesters burned tyres and threw rocks, while police fired stun grenades and tear gas, as rioting broke out in a number of areas – including the Shu’fat refugee camp, al-Eisaweyah and the Qalandia checkpoint between Israel and the West Bank.

    Israeli police said they had deployed 3,000 officers across the city.

    The reopening of the twice-destroyed Hurva synagogue, in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, which Palestinians seek as part of a future capital, triggered a wide backlash.

    Hatem Abdel Qader, Jerusalem affairs spokesman for the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, said: “This synagogue will be a prelude to violence and religious fanaticism and extremism.”

    Militant group Hamas had declared Tuesday a “day of rage” against the move.

    Thousands of people turned out in Gaza to protest against the rededication of the synagogue, not far from the al-Aqsa mosque, Islam’s third-holiest site, although demonstrations there remained relatively peaceful.

    Our correspondent says the call by some Palestinian officials for people to defend the Haram al-Sharif or Temple Mount, site of the al-Aqsa mosque, comes amid rumours of plans by Jewish extremists to take control of the area.

    He says that although the clashes so far are small-scale, no-one has forgotten how the last Palestinian intifada – or uprising – began over the holy sites in Jerusalem.


    Published: 2010/03/16 19:02:12 GMT

    Comment from ‘cockneymystic’ on Medialens yesterday in reply to “Clinton affirms US Israel support”

    We are already seeing the US bending over and puckering up for another shafting from Israel. The way they let Israel do what the hell it likes would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic and if the implications for the Palestinians weren’t so tragic. They talk as if the timing of the announcement is a bigger deal than Israel changing facts on the ground, which they can then use for bargaining when the Palestinians are told they have to do their bit to give ground in the peace negotiations. It was actually bloody good timing by Netanyahu, what with the AIPAC jamboree coming up, mustn’t upset them.

  11. mary said on March 17th, 2010 at 7:17am #

    This map illustrates the effect of the Occupation over 62 years and is a shocking reminder of the Israeli land grab.

  12. Mulga Mumblebrain said on March 17th, 2010 at 12:21pm #

    mary, the Master Race allowed Sabbat Goy Clinton precisely one day to pose as the voice of reproach before they pulled on her leash. There is no doubt whatsoever who calls the shots in this world, a situation that must have those shadowy figures who ‘concocted’ the ‘fraud’ of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, looking down from above, (or from below)and wondering at their own prescience.