US Prepares To Cook Up a Deal
In an article titled “The Palestinian Statehood Deal between America and the Islamists,” I began to reflect on and study the Americans and the arbitrators representing the Islamist trend. I imagined that these groups would act as a life preserver for the Palestinian state, whose land Netanyahu and his rodent allies are gnawing away. On Feb. 26, 2013, I published a historical proposal in al-Masri al-Yom. This proposal resembled the deal between the U.S. and President Sadat, which achieved the primary U.S. interests of expelling Soviet influence from the region, while using U.S. pressure to counter Israeli expansion in the Sinai and force the Israelis to sign a treaty committing them to withdraw from the peninsula.
As far as the newly proposed deal is concerned, it is based on two basic principles. First, the Islamist arbitrators guarantee U.S. security from the jihadist groups that have threatened it since September 2001 by including these groups in the framework of the political process. Second, the U.S. uses its power of persuasion, intimidation and pressure to convince Israel to settle the Palestinian issue and establish a state on the land occupied in 1967. I have encountered two opinions about this suggestion. The first is that the U.S. is currently busy with the Iranian nuclear issues, to which it gives priority; the second is that the U.S. has given priority to the idea of Islamic Vietnamization. This scenario involves the U.S. pushing Sunni powers, led by the Islamist government in Egypt, to join the struggle against Iran and its Shiite followers. As in Vietnam, by pushing South Vietnam to fight the North, the U.S. was able to safely extricate its forces and achieve its goals. Although I concede that the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s was a rehearsal or microcosmic experience of the infighting that is intended for the Islamic world today, I believe that the U.S. is cooking up a settlement to the Palestinian issue, as various witnesses and much evidence suggests.
Here, I will attempt to provide evidence demonstrating the beginning stage of its preparation to cook up a deal. The first component of this deal would enable Israel’s psycho-political leadership over its citizens, particularly the generation of youth that accepts the establishment of the Palestinian state. Obama’s last trip to Israel on March 20 has demonstrated this. Obama’s reference to Netanyahu by the pet name “Bibi” and his use of three different presidential tones during his speeches to Israelis, specifically during his special meeting with the younger generation, reassured Israelis that the Obama administration will pamper Netanyahu.
The first tone came to assuage the Israelis’ feeling of fear and hostility, inherited from their European experiences of persecution and massacre, that have fueled the Arab-Israeli conflict. Obama received much applause when he reassured young Israelis that they are not alone and the U.S. is always with them. The second tone, which also received applause, resonated with the Israeli youth who agree with Obama that establishment of a Palestinian state will strengthen Israeli security. As for his third tone, it encouraged the youth to push their leadership forward in the peace process. However, Israeli Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor and leader of the Jewish Home Party Naftali Bennett, who rejects the establishment of a Palestinian state and supports building settlements, has criticized Obama.
The second component of this deal is strategically connected to the Israeli feeling of alarm over Iran’s ability to become a nuclear power. This feeling of alarm among Israelis is shared by the U.S., which guarantees their safety and prevents Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons in exchange for Israeli participation in the peace deal with the Palestinians.
The third component is policy to launch a process of negotiations that would include a search for alternatives to the two conditions that preclude negotiation. The first of these two conditions is the special Palestinian demand to freeze Israeli settlement construction; the second is the Israeli demand for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as the national state of the Israeli people.
The fourth component of this deal is connected to the area of land occupied in 1967, on which the Palestinians envision the establishment of their state. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry highlighted the need to revive the idea of swapping land, which would keep Jewish settlements in the West Bank and compensate Palestinians with areas either inside Israel or in the Negev desert.
As for the fifth component, it relates to advancing the Arab peace initiative. The representatives of this committee, headed by Qatar, will attend a meeting with President Obama in Washington at the end of this month.
The sixth component of this deal is the expressed understanding of Israel’s security demands, the existence of the Israeli military on the border of a Palestinian state with Jordan and Israeli control over Palestinian airspace. Otherwise, the U.S. must find alternative solutions to these demands.
During his visit last week, Kerry reaffirmed to Turkey, Israel and the Palestinian Authority that peace represents a key U.S. security interest. Through the peace process, the U.S. aims to absorb Islamist jihadists into the political framework of their countries. I promise you that I will continue to examine and collect evidence supporting my theory about the U.S.-Islamist deal, whether it is true or false.
As far as the newly proposed deal is concerned, it is based on two basic principles. First, the Islamist arbitrators guarantee U.S. security from the jihadist groups that have threatened it since September 2001 by including these groups in the framework of the political process. Second, the U.S. uses its power of persuasion, intimidation and pressure to convince Israel to settle the Palestinian issue and establish a state on the land occupied in 1967. I have encountered two opinions about this suggestion. The first is that the U.S. is currently busy with the Iranian nuclear issues, to which it gives priority; the second is that the U.S. has given priority to the idea of Islamic Vietnamization. This scenario involves the U.S. pushing Sunni powers, led by the Islamist government in Egypt, to join the struggle against Iran and its Shiite followers. As in Vietnam, by pushing South Vietnam to fight the North, the U.S. was able to safely extricate its forces and achieve its goals. Although I concede that the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s was a rehearsal or microcosmic experience of the infighting that is intended for the Islamic world today, I believe that the U.S. is cooking up a settlement to the Palestinian issue, as various witnesses and much evidence suggests.
Here, I will attempt to provide evidence demonstrating the beginning stage of its preparation to cook up a deal. The first component of this deal would enable Israel’s psycho-political leadership over its citizens, particularly the generation of youth that accepts the establishment of the Palestinian state. Obama’s last trip to Israel on March 20 has demonstrated this. Obama’s reference to Netanyahu by the pet name “Bibi” and his use of three different presidential tones during his speeches to Israelis, specifically during his special meeting with the younger generation, reassured Israelis that the Obama administration will pamper Netanyahu.
The first tone came to assuage the Israelis’ feeling of fear and hostility, inherited from their European experiences of persecution and massacre, that have fueled the Arab-Israeli conflict. Obama received much applause when he reassured young Israelis that they are not alone and the U.S. is always with them. The second tone, which also received applause, resonated with the Israeli youth who agree with Obama that establishment of a Palestinian state will strengthen Israeli security. As for his third tone, it encouraged the youth to push their leadership forward in the peace process. However, Israeli Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor and leader of the Jewish Home Party Naftali Bennett, who rejects the establishment of a Palestinian state and supports building settlements, has criticized Obama.
The second component of this deal is strategically connected to the Israeli feeling of alarm over Iran’s ability to become a nuclear power. This feeling of alarm among Israelis is shared by the U.S., which guarantees their safety and prevents Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons in exchange for Israeli participation in the peace deal with the Palestinians.
The third component is policy to launch a process of negotiations that would include a search for alternatives to the two conditions that preclude negotiation. The first of these two conditions is the special Palestinian demand to freeze Israeli settlement construction; the second is the Israeli demand for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as the national state of the Israeli people.
The fourth component of this deal is connected to the area of land occupied in 1967, on which the Palestinians envision the establishment of their state. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry highlighted the need to revive the idea of swapping land, which would keep Jewish settlements in the West Bank and compensate Palestinians with areas either inside Israel or in the Negev desert.
As for the fifth component, it relates to advancing the Arab peace initiative. The representatives of this committee, headed by Qatar, will attend a meeting with President Obama in Washington at the end of this month.
The sixth component of this deal is the expressed understanding of Israel’s security demands, the existence of the Israeli military on the border of a Palestinian state with Jordan and Israeli control over Palestinian airspace. Otherwise, the U.S. must find alternative solutions to these demands.
During his visit last week, Kerry reaffirmed to Turkey, Israel and the Palestinian Authority that peace represents a key U.S. security interest. Through the peace process, the U.S. aims to absorb Islamist jihadists into the political framework of their countries. I promise you that I will continue to examine and collect evidence supporting my theory about the U.S.-Islamist deal, whether it is true or false.