THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Wednesday, June 03, 2009


Relations between Israel and the US seem to have come to some kind of impasse since Netanyahu became Prime Minister of Israel. While Obama is insisting that Israel freeze settlements in the West Bank as a prelude to talks about peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel, under Netanyahu’s Zionist government are unlikely to shift their settlement policies. While some of the so-called ‘illegal’ outposts, consisting of little more than a few transport containers, are being removed, Netanyahu is refusing to freeze what he calls ‘natural growth’ expansion on the so-called ‘legal’ already established settlements.

The media has been full of speculation about how the US will react to Netanyahu’s intransigence. Measures under discussion include withdrawing US support for Israel in the UN. The support of the US with its power of veto on the UN Security Council is crucial to Israel. Without US support Israel would be hard put to even survive let alone prosper. However, Israel, with its massive political lobbying influence in the US, is unlikely to be too perturbed by this suggestion, indeed, the US State Department have already reiterated its full support for Israel in the UN. Withdrawing financial guarantees to Israel has also been ruled out.

Netanyahu cannot afford to back down. His whole premise of political power is based on a Greater Israel that includes, at the very least, the West Bank settlements and the non-existence of a sovereign Palestinian state. On the other hand President Obama has said the settlements must at the very least be frozen as the first step to peace with the Palestinians. From the Palestinians point of view there can be no peace while the settlements exist in the West Bank. While Abbas might be willing to talk ‘peace’, especially if money is involved, he does not have the backing of all activist Palestinians who want nothing less than a full withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines, full right of return and a completely autonomous sovereign state that is not subordinate to any other state, particularly Israel.

With the two sides now deadlocked leaving little wriggle space for either to move, only something out of left field can shift the balance for Netanyahu.

The Zionist and Netanyahu’s Likud party’s long term aim is to establish a Greater Israel that is not threatened by Hamas and Hezbollah. Because the Zionists wish to create their vision of a Greater Israel out of the lands that both Hamas and Hezbollah are defending, Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and Hezbollah in south Lebanon with both in turn being supported by Iran, Israel needs ultimately to eliminate Iran as an enemy and supporter of those enemies directly impeding Israel’s ambitions.

To a certain extent, the existence of both Hamas and Hezbollah actually serve Israel’s interest inasmuch that they provide a reason for the US to continue supporting Israel. The Israeli propaganda machine also uses the existence of Hamas and Hezbollah to paint Israel as the victim. In reality, however, Israel could use its military might to easily crush Hamas, but can’t because of the world outcry if it did so for no apparent reason. To a much lesser extent, the same applies to Hezbollah though a full-on war against Hezbollah would be a very bloody affair but one which militarily Israel would prevail in. In Israel’s dealings in the past with their battles against Hezbollah, Israel has exposed its Achilles Heel. In recent times Israelis have shown a reluctance to expend too much of their own blood in chasing their cause. The advent of the internet and its proliferation over the past decade, especially when coupled with today’s modern global communications systems that is readily available just about everywhere, has made it almost impossible for the Israelis to hide from the world and, importantly, ordinary Israelis despite Israeli censorship, what they are doing in the places they attack.

It is for this reason that Israel, even more so now than ever before, needs to always to have a casus belli with which to attack their enemies. And, if they can’t covertly provoke their enemies into providing a casus belli then it is not beyond them to create one themselves by using a false flag event which they subsequently blame on those they wish to attack..

Now, more than ever, Netanyahu and his extreme right-wing Zionists are in dire need of just such an event which will allow them attack Iran as well as Hamas and Hezbollah and bring the US back on side with support.

It is the only way out of the current impasse.


IDHolm said...

lies, lies ...

 .. ever more lies ...

   .. lies are told to deceive ...

     .. to deceive whom, over what? (tip: crimes)


G'day Damian,

 .. Israel is a crime scene, as you well know. (Well, at least you might agree; the "as you know" gambit can be fallacious.) Even before the (risibly) named IDF (or its predecessors, at root terrorists) - began chasing, killing and generally driving away the original (and, one could say still) legal Palestinian owners of the land now occupied by Israel, it was a crime scene only thinly disguised (if at all) by 'clothes' inappropriately provided by a corrupt UN process. Oh! 'Only' IMHO - always and of course. But I'm also supposing you might object, if someone came at you in your own house, pointing a gun at you and saying "Pizzorf!! Pizzorf now, or we'll kill you!!"

Israel itself - so I've heard - does not declare its own borders (ever wonder why not?) - and the people living around and about are either original legal owners (see above, see Deir Yassin) - original legal owners who were brutally driven out, or 'native' Lebanese or Gazans, both groups recently brutally attacked. (Lebanon '06; Lebanese citizens (civilians and militants): 1191 dead; in Gaza '08/09, around 1300 mostly civilians massacred.)

One thing is "for sure," and that is if one's intentions are honourable, there's no need to lie about 'em. And, if you're nice to your neighbours, you don't call 'em "enemies."

I personally, do not agree to the use of "enemies" nor " militants" and such like. When one side attacks another (IDF crossing whatever line they call their own this week, *OUTWARDS*), it is the IDF who/which is the aggressor, and its 'targets' are mostly hapless innocent and unarmed civilians.

In fact, given the actual situation on the ground, where almost the entire I/J/Z-plex are a) *NOT FROM THERE* and b) would be more correctly termed *INVADERS*, the AusBC really should call the Lebanese or Gazan civilians Israel's victims on the one hand, and any armed resistors freedom fighters on the other. That would be truth in reporting, eh Aunty?

As for your suggestion that the I/J/Z-plex *needs* some trumped up 'justification' to attack Iran as "the only way out of the current impasse" I wish to remind you of my own suggested *just* solution:

1. In all cases, in all places, stop all the lying, cheating, killing and thefts.

2. Return all property to its rightful owners, and that means the owners before the disputed laws and all wars. Specifically, give back to the Palestinians everything that was not acquired perfectly legally - and yes, that does mean most of Israel. Alternatively, buy anything deemed impractical to return, see (3) next.

3. Pay full, fair and adequate reparation/compensation.

4. Say "Sorry!" - then act as if it's meant.


Wouldn't that be better than starting WW3?

Ernest William Graham said...

G'day Damian,

Is it OK for me to contribute opinions in this blog?

I use the old Graham motto of NE OUBLIE (NEVER FORGET)

Cheers Ern G.

Damian Lataan said...

Go for it Ern. Might be best if you head for the home page to get the latest stuff.

If you want to post an article just email it to me and w'll see what we can do.