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.

Monday, June 28, 2010


On the surface there seems to be some confusion about Israel’s relationship with the US. On the one hand we have Israel’s Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, yesterday telling Israel’s diplomats in Jerusalem, “Relations are in the state of a tectonic rift in which continents are drifting apart." The remarks mainly refer to Obama’s stance on settlements in the West Bank and building in East Jerusalem.

On the other hand, however, we have two countries united in standing against Iran and what seems to be a joint build up of forces in preparation for a confrontation which will involve both the US and Israel. To compound the notion of confusion, at about the same time as Oren is sounding off about relations with the US over the Palestine issue, America’s top military man, Admiral Mike Mullen, is in Israel to confer with Ehud Barak, Israel’s Defence Minister, and Gabi Ashkenazi, Israel’s Chief of Staff, and is telling them that ‘he always tries to see threats and challenges from the Israeli angle”.

There is a simple explanation for this apparent contradiction in US policy toward Israel.

Obama cannot be seen to be caving in to Israel when it comes to resolving the Palestine issue and US efforts to create a Palestinian state and so, for the sake of public opinion, needs to be seen resisting Netanyahu’s insistence that settlement building and building in Jerusalem continues. Of course, Netanyahu’s insistence, in turn, is designed to placate Zionist public opinion.

The fact is that once the final confrontation with Iran has taken place, the whole question about Palestine’s future, settlements in the West Bank and building in East Jerusalem becomes academic. Israel will, so they hope, have defeated Hezbollah and Hamas and occupied south Lebanon and the Gaza, together with a full occupation of the West Bank, while the US will, so they hope, have bombed Iran to the negotiating table and regime change. The US will accept Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza and south Lebanon as fait accompli.

There will be no Palestinian state. The US will accede to Israel’s creation of a Greater Israel. The West will support Israel and the Arab states, having witnessed the destruction of the Iranian regime, will become utterly compliant.

That, at least, is what the Israelis and the US hope will happen.

The alternative could be that the Israelis and the US don’t get it all their own way. Israel is a very small and, therefore, very vulnerable target. Any threat to the existence of Israel may cause them to lash out with whatever weapons they have, in which case…

The OneState binational solution is now the ONLY solution. Jews and Palestinians supported by the rest of he world must demand it.


traducteur said...

Well said, Damian.

Pat O'Donnell said...

The relationship between Israel and USA will crumble when Americans learn that the bible stories can be proven as false and jews are NOT chosen people.
As shown at there is abundant evidence showing that the bible stories are based on earlier history of India, Persia and Babylonia. The jews just copied the flood story, the creation story, etc.
The have stolen a country from the biblical Philistines(Palestine) who are the real semitic race.
Because Christians share the old testament with jews, any exposure of the earlier history also mutes The Word of The Lord. So this is the blackmail lever that jews hold over all Christian nations and especially over those with a king or a queen. The church creates the monarch that is said to be chosen by God. When Christians accept the peaceful message of Jesus and reject the warmongering of Jehovah the world will be a better place. We need a new bible and if it takes a new reformation to achieve this, so be it.

Brewerstroupe said...

Australia will now fall into line:

"A FORMER Australian ambassador to Israel has accused Prime Minister Julia Gillard of being silent on the "excesses" of Israel, and has questioned why her partner has been given a job by a prominent Israel lobbyist."

Anonymous said...

It's basically a variation of the "Good Cop, Bad Cop" routine. They are pretending to have a "rift" so that when they invade Iran they can tell the American people (and the world in general) that it was necessary for America's "National Security" and not for the benefit of Israel. The Israel lobby was too prominent in the run-up to the disastrous Iraq war and this time they want to make it appear that it is America's idea so that, when things turn sour, public opinion against the Jewish State will not be even more vitriolic than it is already.

Damian Lataan said...

The 'good cop, bad cop' analogy is about right and your analysis of it is spot on. It's all about appearances.