Matthew 5:9
DOOMED PEACE MISSION 2009
The latest mission for Middle East peace (September 2009) in Washington D.C. is doomed to failure: the United States is on Israel’s side; Israel is on Israel’s side; and Israel has selected who is to be on the Palestinian’s side, thereby the Palestinians have no representation at the peace table and no input in the negotiations. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is a Satrap selected by Israel to rule over the Palestinian peoples in the West Bank, while it is Hamas that was elected by the Palestinian peoples themselves to rule over all of the Palestinian Territories including the West Bank and Gaza itself, which is shut out. Abbas was constantly undermined by the Israelis when he served as interim president for Fattah and when he was aide-de-camp to Yasser Arafat in the PLO, however, he was selected by the Israelis and appointed as satrap to rule in Ismail Haniyeh’s place.
Many Faces of Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh
Hamas’s Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has “warned against making any concessions to Israel concerning Jerusalem or the right of return of Palestinian refugees during the US-hosted talks. ‘No one has been given a mandate to renounce Al-Quds or the Refugees,’ Haniyeh said during a speech to mark the Eid al-Fitr holiday. ‘No one, not even the Palestine Liberation Organization or anyone else, has been mandated to accept any agreement that will undermine the rights of the Palestinian people,” the Hamas leader added.’” <http://albawaba.com>
George Orwell
George Orwell in his essay, Not Counting Niggers explicates why the Palestinians as “niggers” have no self representation. The essay was first published in Adelphi July 1939. < http://www.hostorytoday.com> And by design, Matthew F Jacobson says in “Looking Jewish, Seeing Jews,” an abstract published in Theories of Race and Racism: A Reader, edited by Les Back and John Solomos (2000), “Israel is the United States’ only White client state,” Little America, “in the Middle East.”
Israel-Palestine is a Race War where the Israelis are white minority being pummeled by the Negroid Palestinians, the black other, who have no rights a White person need respect. Hitler is no longer the villain of the 21st century, terrorism has taken his place, imperialism has taken the place of Nazism and colonialism, therefore in Orwell’s Not for Niggers one must plug in the name of Palestine to replace India and Islamic terrorist and or Bin Laden for the Axis Powers. Palestine, like India during the Raj, which contains “more inhabitants than the whole” of Israel is not ready for statehood and self determination, therefore they are disenfranchised as a people and their leader must be selected by their White democratic overlords, occupier, and enemy. Orwell asks, “What real settlement, of the slightest value, can there be along these lines? What meaning would there be, even if it were successful, in bringing down” a terrorist system “in order to stabilize something that is far bigger and in its different way just as bad?” I ask the same question and hope to go into more detail in Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World (2002).
HOW DID WE GET TO HERE
Margaret MacMillan
Margaret MacMillan’s Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World (2002) is an insight on the political world we live in today. The object of the Paris Peace Conference was to revamp the Berlin Treaty of 1878 and to redistribute the spoils of WWI to the victors. The world was divided up among the winning Western powers and crumbs were thrown to their sycophants, which included the Zionists. MacMillan devotes an entire chapter, Chapter 28 Palestine, to the beginnings of the nubile State of Israel and the Zionist Movement at the Conference.
Chaim Weizmann and Lord Balfour
“Chaim Weizmann had been at the Supreme Council with a deputation of fellow Zionists to make the case for a Jewish home in Palestine. . . . He appealed to the self interest of the powers: millions of Jews were trying to leave the former Russian and Austrian empires. Where could they go? ‘The Great Powers would naturally scrutinize every alien who claimed to enter their countries, and the Jew would be regarded as a typical wandering alien.’ The obvious solution was to let them go to Palestine; it was underpopulated with plenty of empty space. The Zionist did not have the influence or power of the Czechs or the Poles, nor was there in the public mind a Jewish cause like the Armenian one. They had some friends in powerful places, but they also faced hostility and indifference. Yet Weizmann was right to feel triumphant. He knew that, even if the French were hostile, the Americans and British were behind him; indeed, he had previously vetted his statements with members of their delegations. Both Weizmann and Zionism had come a long way from their origins and would go a long way yet” (410-411). Thereby, the establishment of the State of Israel began at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 when Chaim Weizmann met with Lord Balfour, Lord Curzon, and President Woodrow Wilson himself.
OUR 21ST CENTURY MEDIA INHERITANCERevelations which MacMillan in Paris 1919 point out have help change my conception of 20th media history with the historicism of a fact that affects world media today. The Australian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference included Keith Murdock as “a young reporter. Murdock, who had written a report criticizing the British handling of the landings at Gallipoli, where Australian troops had been slaughtered,” shared his leader, Billy Hughes’s skepticism about British leadership.
Keith Murdock and his son Rupert (5)
(Murdoch’s own son Rupert later carried on the family tradition of looking at the British with a critical eye.) On certain issues, Hughes probably spoke for public opinion back home: he wanted leeway to annex the Pacific islands which Australia had captured from Germany, and nothing in the League covenant that would undermine the White Australia policy, which let white immigrants in and kept the rest out” (48). Rupert Murdoch, as a media mogul, is a chief opponent of the Left and of Progressives. He owns the Weekly Standard (which has never made a profit since its inception as a voice of the Far-right/Neocons), the Wall Street Journal, Fox News (a major partisan opponent of Obama and the Democrats), and in the UK, The Sun, to foster his right-wing politics.THE HEART OF DARKNESS 1919
W.E.B. Dusbois and his Pan African Delegation
African American sociologist and philosopher, W.E.B. Dubois attended the Paris Peace Conference however, “in all the discussions, there had been much talk of how glad the colonies were to get away from German rule. Yet although the fifth of [Woodrow] Wilson’s Fourteen Points had talked about taking the interests of the indigenous populations into account, no one had actually bothered to consult the Africans or the Pacific islanders. True, no Samoans or Melanesians had made their way to Paris, but there were Africans at hand. Indeed, a black French deputy from Senegal, Blaise Diagne, and the great American black leader W.E.B. Du Bois were busy organizing a Pan-African Congress. This duly took place in February with the grudging consent of the peacemakers. [Unlike the Zionist, as with the present day Palestinians, the Africans were ignored by the so-called International Community.] None of the leading figures from the Peace Conference attended. A member of the Belgian delegation spoke enthusiastically about the reforms that were taking place in the Congo, and a former minister of foreign affairs from Portugal praised his own country’s management of its colonies. The handful of delegates from French Africa demonstrated the success of the mission civilisatrice by eulogizing the achievements of the Third Republic. The Congress passed resolutions calling for the Peace Conference to give the League direct control of the former German colonies. [Edward] House received Du Bois with his customary courtesy, but [he] said nothing about the resolution” (104-105). Another of the facts which help me to reevaluate my own “knowledge” is MacMillan’s take about the Treaty of Versailles and its effect on WWII.
BLESSED ARE THE WWI PEACEMAKERS
MacMillan declared that “later it became commonplace to blame everything that went wrong in the 1920s and 1930s on the peacemakers and the settlements they made in Paris in 1919, just as it became easy to despair of democracy. . . . ‘The final crime,’ declared The Economist in its special millennium issue, was ‘the Treaty of Versailles . . . harsh terms would ensure a second war.’ That is to ignore the actions of everyone: political leaders, diplomats, soldiers, ordinary voters—for twenty years between 1919 and 1939” (493).
Adolf Hitler Used the Treaty of Versailles for War Propaganda
“Hitler did not wage war because of the Treaty of Versailles, although he found its existence a godsend for his propaganda. Even if Germany had been left with its old borders, even if it had been allowed whatever military forces it wanted, even if it had been permitted to join with Austria, he still would have wanted more: the destruction of Poland, control of Czechoslovakia, above all the conquest of the Soviet Union. He would have demanded room for the German people to expand and the destruction of their enemies, whether Jews or Bolsheviks. There was nothing in the treaty of Versailles about that” (493).
Peacemakers at Versailles
“The peacemakers of 1919 made mistakes, of course. By their offhand treatment of the non-European world, they stirred up resentments for which the West is still paying today. . . . In the Middle East, they threw together peoples, in Iraq most notably, who still have not managed to cohere into a civil society. . . . They tried . . . to build a better order. They could not foresee the future and they certainly could not control it. That was up to their successors. When war came in 1939, it was a result of twenty years of decisions taken or not taken, not of arrangements made in 1919” (493-494).
THE 21st CENTURY COLD EQUASION
President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
President Obama is in an untenable position in that he must chose between a reliable ally and US interest in the Middle East and the world. Some intuitive Americans are growing weary of being waged by an intransigent and vitriolic ally and that funds and aid in kind used to support it, plus the bribes paid to its neighbors to like it, could be better spent on an American National Health Plan: The Cold Equation. So far this message has been silenced through allegations of Anti-Semitism—but with the economy in crisis; unemployment reaching 25 percent locally, and 10 percent nationally with the accompanying foreclosures still growing; and the Neoconservatives and Conservative Radio Talk Radio determination to make Obama’s presidency a failure, this becomes a formidable task.
The US is embroiled in a two front war in the Middle East, one at the insistence of the Neocons and PNAC. Both opponents in the War on Terror are Islamists. Both Al Qaeda and the Taliban use the excuse of the United States being a dishonest broker in the Palestinian War between the Jews and the Muslims. They claim through Bin Laden that Israel-Palestine is at base in their discontent with the West, meaning the US. No matter the validity of the Islamists’ argument, writers like Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mersheimer in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2007), give it an amount of credence.
Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mersheimer
If Obama fails—the U.S. Fails: I have seen that every labor and every skill which is done is the result of rivalry between a man and his neighbor; this too is vanity and striving after wind. The fool folds his hands and consumes his own flesh. One hand full of rest is better than two fists full of labor and striving after wind.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
ConnieMack
Judy Mandelbaum
badanooj
Aunt Mabel
Salon.com
Comments
My own take on the Mideast situation includes the recognition that the whole thing is really just beginning. Bear in mind that it took the British and the Irish about 800 years to come to the (tenuous) peaceful arrangement they enjoy today. The Israelis and Palestinians might not need that long, but we will see no solution in our lifetimes.
"If Obama fails—the U.S. Fails." This is true. Of course, it all depends on what your definition of "the U.S." is. It looks as if a common vision of America's future is no longer in fashion - if it ever was, and I personally doubt that was ever the case...