US Invites Israel, Palestine to Direct Talks

It's like Obama's trying to get the entire run of The West Wing in on his first term. Which I'm fine with.

Now let's see if these talks produce anything, and if Obama can get them both to sit down and say "No one leaves the table until their plates are clean."

Then when's "Let Obama be Obama" going to happen?

Hopefully they'll be some progress.

"These negotiations should take place without preconditions..."

... with the pre-condition that Hamas - the democratically elected government of the Palestinians with sole authorization to speak for the Palestinians at international level - be barred.

It speaks volumes that the US won't even let the Palestinians pick their own NEGOTIATORS.

But what else can you expect from the wife of the guy who once said "I am the most pro-Israeli president since Truman".

Utterly infuriating. I mean, good luck, Obama, but I don't for one minute believe that Israel is serious about peace, given their actions.

This whole "renewing the peace process" thing strikes me as nothing more than clever PR, a kind of sleight of hand. Given the fact that public support for Israel is dropping world wide, Netanyahu no doubt welcomes this distraction as he continues down the road of dangerous extremism

Given their actions? Let's talk about platforms or wants and ideologies.

Israel wants to be left alone to be themselves.
Hamas, as chartered, wants nothing short of the disappearance of Israel, and presumably all the Jews.

Who is against peace here?

The people refusing to end the building of new "settlements" (colonies), and terrorizing gaza, and disenfranchising non jews within their own country are against peace. They want to be an unassailable regional strong man and do it with our tax dollars and unwavering unquestioning support at every turn

The people who want freedom and their land back, well, it's clear what they want.

Just MHO, but I stand by it.

Abbas has no mandate from the Palestinian people. This is a gimmick designed solely to make people who watch FOX News etc. think the US is serious about the plight of the Palestinians.

Ahhh, but isn't any peace talk simply an excuse for every president to seem serious about Israel for the Jewish lobby?

Beat me to it, although I was going to go with "How long until Rahm Emmanuel has a massive heart attack at Camp David?"

The US and Israel won’t let Hamas enter any debate on the Palestinian issue unless – specifically - it a) “ceases its attacks on Israel” and b) “renounces terrorism”.

Now, consider the wording of this statement very carefully.

You might say that condition (a) is fair – but whilst the US has (politely) told Israel to cease land-grabbing* it does not demand such as a necessary precursor to Israel sitting at the negotiating table. Nor does the US demand that Israel cease firing US-made Hellfire missiles from US-made Apache Longbow helicopters into apartment blocks as a precursor to negotiations.

In two words condition (b) apportions axiomatic culpability. It says that first you must admit to being a terrorist – taking on board all the negative connotations that come with that term – and then give up being a terrorist.

Now some will argue that condition (b) is also fair – but consider this: Imagine Israel’s response to the same demand. It’s inconceivable. But Hamas would argue – with considerable justification – that it is Israel that embraces terrorism and it is merely fighting for the very existence of the Palestinian people.

You see how this demand is a dead end?

Obama is a bright guy. He knows full well that Hamas will never accept these stipulations. Which can leave you with only one conclusion: the US a) is in favour of Israel’s expansion into the West Bank, appropriation of water resources and repeated assaults on the Gaza Strip, b) massive punitive strikes against Palestinians and c) totally opposes any peace settlement.

Make no mistake, if the US demanded that Israel abide by international law and the various UN declarations it would be done almost instantly. Without overwhelming financial, political and military support Israel would fall apart.

The truth is the US finds it profitable to have a highly militarised and aggressive proxy in the Middle East to do its dirty work. So, if the decision comes to bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities it won’t be US pilots flying the planes.

All this is a great pity because the Israel-Palestinian issue is not that difficult to address. There has been overwhelming international support for a two-state settlement around the international border for forty years. The Arab League has repeatedly stated that this is a viable proposition and Hamas could be brought to the table if the US & Israel (which means the US) would budge.

Regarding Hamas, look, I certainly don’t condone some of their actions – but given the seemingly unending misery of the Palestinian people it’s simply pie-in-the-sky to think any liberal-minded pacifist government is likely to be voted in. You have to remember that it is Hamas that get’s the trains running on time in the West Bank. When an Israeli bomb leaves a mother without her husband it is Hamas that organises the funeral and provides money so that her children can eat. And it is Hamas that provides medical care, schools and work for the Palestinian people. Which is the reason the Palestinians voted for them in the ONLY DEMOCRACY in the Arab world. Think about that when you hear people like Obama saying that Hamas is nothing but a collection of terrorist thugs.

And, most importantly, ask yourself why is it that the US opposes any and every viable Middle Eastern peace deal when the overwhelming majority of Americans think that it is essential that some sort of peaceful resolution is achieved. Bush and his cronies at the media (especially FOX), were often quoted as saying terrorists "... hate us because of our freedom", but who is living in a true democracy here? Hamas do some pretty hideous things - but they also do what the Palestinians tell them to. The same cannot be said in the US where government, whether it be Republican or Democrat (it really makes little difference), appears to place itself on Mount Olympus where it fraternises and conspires with the social elites (demigods) whilst ignoring the people down below entirely.

* This request kind of misses the point as it is the EXISTENCE of the settlements rather than their expansion which is the issue.

It might interest you to know Bush Senior actually did demand Israel conform to international law, and also stop land grabs and colonization. Supposedly he took the hardest stance on Israel of any president who dealt with the matter. He was going stop aid to Israel if they didn't conform. This was in his last year of presidency, at that point Israel simply stopped talking to Bush and put all their eggs in Clintons basket. He was very interested in resolving the issue and he didn't think the problem was complex. It would've been interesting to see what would've happened if he didn't lose.

Also current theories on US Israel foreign policy point more to the lobbying power than traditional theories of geomilitary importance. I've read some of the latest writings that strongly suggest its the global lobbying power of Israel that wins its support.

I know they are the top lobby group in the UK, they fund both labor and conservative more than any other group. But there links with Conservatives is whats undeniably strong. There was a channel 4 documentary about this, Inside Britains Israel Lobby.

Yes, Bush I was a rare breed - an intellectual politician and President who also had balls enough to (occasionally) do what his conscience (rather than his corporate masters) told him to do. Ironic, really, that he came to be remembered as the "Wimp President".

Although, it's a measure of his firmness with Israel that he [deja vu]denied entry for the Palestinian democratically elected leader[/deja vu] to the Madrid peace conference. I give credit to Bush and (particularly) Secretary of State James Baker for getting the various factions together (the Palestinians were only allowed entry on a joint-Jordanian ticket) in Madrid. But it was half-hearted. Instead of sitting at the head of the negotiating table and driving the peace process through Bush simply locked them all in a room and left them to get on with it.

Don't even get me started on Clinton. He wrecked everything Bush achieved within the first six months of his presidency. Arms shipments to Israel were ramped up almost exponentially and the West Bank and Gaza (especially) turned into a killzone.

There is a significant Jewish lobby in both Britain and the US (AIPAC) consisting of former politicians, intellectuals, businessmen etc. They are vocal and have some political weight. But the notion that Jewish lobbying power alone provides impetus to US foreign policy is fanciful.

This theory of "the Lobby" first surfaced seriously in an article published in the London Review of Books by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt a few years ago, kicked up a storm of controversy and has gathered supporters steadily since.

It's a well-written piece which has plenty of facts and some good examples of clear thinking. But it also turns a blind-eye to a number of important events and several of its conclusions are dubious.

For example:

Mearsheimer and Walt argue that "the Lobby" bullies the US into its Middle Eastern policy. But when it is pointed out that US Middle Eastern policy is exactly the same as its policy toward other oil producing regions such as Indonesia/East-Timor they are silent. Where is the Indonesian (or other) "Lobby"?

They also have no explanation as to how the pro-Israel lobby is more powerful than, say, the petroleum lobby, or the mineral lobby, or the computer lobby. Where is the money coming from? Without US money pouring into Israel by the billion-dollar-barrel-load Israel would either become a third-world nation or sink into the sand. Or are they all part of the same lobby (in which case it becomes increasingly difficult to identify any political or ideological interest independently).

It's also worth noting that the "lobby" neatly cleanses the US of any responsibility for its actions in the Middle East. It was all the fault of those nasty men from Israel with their wooing, cajoling and inexhaustible reserves of money and resources (sources unknown).