My latest report for Inter Press Service, this one is about a new poll commissioned by pollster Shibley Telhami. The poll examines American attitudes in the event of the failure of a two-state solution. The results may surprise many.
Posts Tagged ‘Palestine’
Posted in Uncategorized, tagged AIPAC, Barack Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel, Israel Lobby, Jewish State, John Kerry, Leon Hadar, Mahmoud Abbas, Middle east, Occupation, One-State Solution, Palestine, Palestinians, Settlements, Shibley Telhami, Stephen Walt, Two-state solution, United States, West Bank on March 4, 2014 | 2 Comments »
Posted in Zionism, tagged Anti-Semitism, Balfour Declaration, Hannah Arendt, Julius Kahn, Palestine, Woodrow Wilson, World War I, World War II, Yousef Munayyer, Zionism on January 9, 2014 | 1 Comment »
My friend, Yousef Munayyer unearthed this remarkably prescient letter from 1919, ahead of the post-WWI peace conference. It was published in full by the Times, in the wake of its having been presented to President Woodrow Wilson. It was brought to Wilson by Julius Kahn, a Jewish Congressman from San Francisco.
The objections raised to the Zionist enterprise and the disagreement with the recently presented Balfour Declaration are interesting. They are, primarily, rooted in concern for the welfare of Jewish people around the globe, although due consideration is given to the Palestinian population. The case they made was a pretty powerful one, though it did not sway Wilson or the other world leaders of the day, who, as history has well noted, were tantalized by the ideas of fulfilling biblical prophecy with the Jewish return to Zion, having a permanent European presence in what was quickly becoming the most important region of the “oriental” world, and ridding their own countries of Jews. (more…)
Posted in Peace Plans, tagged Barack Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu, diplomacy, foreign policy, Iran, Iran nuclear talks, Israel, Israel Lobby, John Kerry, Jordan Valley, Mahmoud Abbas, Occupation, Palestine, pro-Israel, Saudi Arabia, Two-state solution, US-Iran relations, West Bank on December 10, 2013 | Leave a Comment »
This article originally appeared at LobeLog
There is an odd sort of atmosphere today around the soon-to-fail Israel-Palestine talks. A dramatic gesture by the United States, presenting its own security plans to both Israel and the Palestinians, has engendered mostly yawns. Yet the events of recent days have clarified the likely results of these talks, despite the ongoing secrecy around them.
Secretary of State John Kerry has apparently proposed that Israel agree to abandon the Jordan Valley (constituting some 20% of the West Bank and situated in Area C, which falls under complete Israeli control under the current arrangement) in stages over an extended period of time and subject to the “good behavior” of the Palestinians. The current plan seems to be that Israeli forces would remain in the Jordan Valley for ten years while Palestinian forces are “trained.”
Not surprisingly, the Palestinians, including PA President Mahmoud Abbas disapprove of this idea. But they do so in lukewarm terms, not wanting to offend Kerry, with the hope that when the April deadline for the current round of talks rolls around that the Palestinian side will not, as it was in 2000, be portrayed as the party who refused peace. Still, as former US President Jimmy Carter once told me, a continued Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley is unacceptable to the Palestinians. Indeed, it is impossible to say that an occupation has ended when the occupying army is still there. That should be obvious. (more…)
Posted in US-Israel Lobby, tagged AIPAC, Avigdor Lieberman, Axis of Evil, Bahrain, Barack Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu, France, Geneva, George W. Bush, Iran, Iraq, Israel, John Kerry, Middle east, Naftali Bennett, nuclear, P5+1, Palestine, Saddam Hussein, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tehran on November 15, 2013 | Leave a Comment »
The Obama Administration has never had the best relationship with Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu has never hidden his disdain for Barack Obama, and worked for his defeat in 2012. But the level of invective between the US and Israel in recent days is quite unprecedented.
No doubt, a lot of this has to do with Netanyahu’s inability to chart a course for Israel that includes resolution of any of its conflicts–either diplomatically as the center-left would prefer or by massive exercise of force, as the right favors. Instead, he has chosen a path of perpetual conflict, which has not sat well in Washington and Brussels, where the past decade has whetted their appetites to turn attention elsewhere and, most of all, to extricate themselves from the spreading conflicts and increasingly hostile politics in the Middle East.
But a good deal also is due to an apparent determination on the parts of Obama and John Kerry to change the way the US pursues its agenda in the Mideast. Despite the hysteria of those, such as Abe Foxman, Malcolm Hoenlein, David Harris and Netanyahu himself, who prefer to see Israel in perpetual conflict, the US is not about to abandon Israel, nor its new BFF, Saudi Arabia. But Obama’s opponent in ’12, Mitt Romney, actually laid out the issue very well. When he describes how he would decide on US foreign policy in the Mideast, he said his first step would be to phone his friend, Netanyahu. That’s actually how it has worked for some time, and Obama is trying to change that, though the odds are against his success. I explore in Souciant.