Tall Talk and Puppet Shows
Newly appointed to Hillary Clinton's office, John Kerry seems to have acquired a particular liking for the Middle East where he returned for the second time in two weeks on Sunday. So, does this activism on his part bode well for the Palestinian dossier, which has not seen any changes since the “fake” 1993 Oslo Accords? Are there any new developments? No — the U.S. Department of State both soothes and warns us, indicating that the secretary of state “was carrying no peace plans in his suitcase.”
They would say as much! So, what is egging Kerry on, apart from the desire to visit this beautiful region, the cradle of human civilization?
Actually, we are asking the wrong question. Rather than wondering what Kerry carries or will bring in his suitcase, we should be asking: Will Israel allow the U.S. to go further than required? The Department of State has the answer, which could not be any clearer: John Kerry came with empty hands and is not making any suggestions to either side. In fact, besides the absence of a plan, which could set the currently stagnant peace processes into motion, the question remains why the U.S. no longer wants to get further involved, despite — if it so desired — being able to help along peace negotiations in the region.
What we can conclude first — although not definitively — is that Washington is not particularly keen to see things come to an end quickly, evident in its refusal to act to necessitate real negotiations between the two sides. If this is not the case, how else can we understand the U.S. having totally abandoned its call for the cessation of Israel’s expansion into occupied Palestinian territory from one day to the next, while being aware that, in his first term, Obama himself denounced the settlements, which persist and constitute a major obstacle to a negotiated solution?
What we have here is a concrete fact that nuances the U.S. involvement in the peace talks and shows how willing the Yankees are to do nothing that could upset Israel and AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby that infiltrates the U.S. administration. The less-than-glorious way in which Washington has stepped down from its role in the peace process says a lot about the “independence” of U.S. policies in the Middle East, which fall under the domain and "appraisal" of Israel and AIPAC, the only ones authorized — it must be said— to formalize U.S. politics on the Palestinian question. Also, the rest is nothing other than bluffing, tall talk and puppet shows, poorly accounted for by U.S. leaders. According to Department of State spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, Kerry will make clear that “the parties themselves have to want to get back to the [negotiating] table" and that each side will have to accept “compromises and sacrifices.”
All this is nicely covered up. When we decipher it, we understand that the U.S. is signaling the Palestinians to make additional sacrifices: in other words, to abandon their demand for a total freeze on settlements before resuming negotiations, halted in October 2010. You can't make this stuff up! From this point forward, with tacit agreement from Washington, Israel is working at full speed to reduce the construction of a Palestinian state to a utopian dream, having made the U.S. responsible for allowing the Zionist entity to gain more time. This highlights the bad faith of the U.S., which objected to the accession of Palestine to the United Nations alongside Israel.
However, a globally recognized Palestine would not only clarify order in the region but also make Israel face its responsibilities. And yet, Israel wants neither peace nor a neighboring Palestinian state: We would have been well-aware if they had wanted as much! In fact, this dossier serves as a diversion tactic as Israel purposely complicates order in the Middle East by standing in the way of any lucid or positive approach that attempts to bring peace to the region on the one hand and security for Palestine and Israel on the other. It is evident that the existence of a Palestinian state with all the attributes of sovereignty would guarantee the security of the Jewish state.
The U.S. knows this, and it is not playing fair. Also, we can be sure that the U.S. secretary of state's trip to the Middle East appeared purposeless as soon as he chose not to show up with a clear and equitable solution to the Palestinian victims' denial of rights.
They would say as much! So, what is egging Kerry on, apart from the desire to visit this beautiful region, the cradle of human civilization?
Actually, we are asking the wrong question. Rather than wondering what Kerry carries or will bring in his suitcase, we should be asking: Will Israel allow the U.S. to go further than required? The Department of State has the answer, which could not be any clearer: John Kerry came with empty hands and is not making any suggestions to either side. In fact, besides the absence of a plan, which could set the currently stagnant peace processes into motion, the question remains why the U.S. no longer wants to get further involved, despite — if it so desired — being able to help along peace negotiations in the region.
What we can conclude first — although not definitively — is that Washington is not particularly keen to see things come to an end quickly, evident in its refusal to act to necessitate real negotiations between the two sides. If this is not the case, how else can we understand the U.S. having totally abandoned its call for the cessation of Israel’s expansion into occupied Palestinian territory from one day to the next, while being aware that, in his first term, Obama himself denounced the settlements, which persist and constitute a major obstacle to a negotiated solution?
What we have here is a concrete fact that nuances the U.S. involvement in the peace talks and shows how willing the Yankees are to do nothing that could upset Israel and AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby that infiltrates the U.S. administration. The less-than-glorious way in which Washington has stepped down from its role in the peace process says a lot about the “independence” of U.S. policies in the Middle East, which fall under the domain and "appraisal" of Israel and AIPAC, the only ones authorized — it must be said— to formalize U.S. politics on the Palestinian question. Also, the rest is nothing other than bluffing, tall talk and puppet shows, poorly accounted for by U.S. leaders. According to Department of State spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, Kerry will make clear that “the parties themselves have to want to get back to the [negotiating] table" and that each side will have to accept “compromises and sacrifices.”
All this is nicely covered up. When we decipher it, we understand that the U.S. is signaling the Palestinians to make additional sacrifices: in other words, to abandon their demand for a total freeze on settlements before resuming negotiations, halted in October 2010. You can't make this stuff up! From this point forward, with tacit agreement from Washington, Israel is working at full speed to reduce the construction of a Palestinian state to a utopian dream, having made the U.S. responsible for allowing the Zionist entity to gain more time. This highlights the bad faith of the U.S., which objected to the accession of Palestine to the United Nations alongside Israel.
However, a globally recognized Palestine would not only clarify order in the region but also make Israel face its responsibilities. And yet, Israel wants neither peace nor a neighboring Palestinian state: We would have been well-aware if they had wanted as much! In fact, this dossier serves as a diversion tactic as Israel purposely complicates order in the Middle East by standing in the way of any lucid or positive approach that attempts to bring peace to the region on the one hand and security for Palestine and Israel on the other. It is evident that the existence of a Palestinian state with all the attributes of sovereignty would guarantee the security of the Jewish state.
The U.S. knows this, and it is not playing fair. Also, we can be sure that the U.S. secretary of state's trip to the Middle East appeared purposeless as soon as he chose not to show up with a clear and equitable solution to the Palestinian victims' denial of rights.
Previous article![]( "Mark Zuckerberg, Activist CEO")
