Israel again contemplates an act of war, the bombing of Iran (as
it did Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007) in order to be the sole nuclear
weapons-hegemonic power in the Middle East. It is the Arab nations and
the Palestinians that are under "existential treat," not Israel. No
Arab nation has initiated war against Israel since 1948, though Egypt
tried to defend itself in 1956, 1967 and1973, Lebanon in 1996 and
1982.
The entire Arab League in 2002 and 2007 promised peaceful, normal
relations, even military protection, to Israel if it would recognize a
Palestinian state and return Syria's Golan Heights. It is time for
Israel to end its blockade of Gaza (an act of war) by unilaterally
accepting a Palestinian state on the remaining 22% of Palestine (half
the 1947 UN allotment) and put an end to justified Arab resentment of
Israel and the United States. Israel again contemplates an act of war, the bombing of Iran (as
it did Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007) in order to be the sole nuclear
weapons-hegemonic power in the Middle East. It is the Arab nations and
the Palestinians that are under "existential treat," not Israel. No
Arab nation has initiated war against Israel since 1948, though Egypt
tried to defend itself in 1956, 1967 and1973, Lebanon in 1996 and
1982.
The entire Arab League in 2002 and 2007 promised peaceful, normal
relations, even military protection, to Israel if it would recognize a
Palestinian state and return Syria's Golan Heights. It is time for
Israel to end its blockade of Gaza (an act of war) by unilaterally
accepting a Palestinian state on the remaining 22% of Palestine (half
the 1947 UN allotment) and put an end to justified Arab resentment of
Israel and the United States.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Published letter to the Guardian Weekly on July 8, 2011
Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman threatens that Israel will renounce all past agreements if the Palestinians seek recognition of a state at the UN. On the other hand, PM Netanyahu states (speech 24 September) that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations could proceed if the Palestinians would unilaterally recognize Israel as "the Jewish state." What would that mean for existing Arab-Israeli citizens? That Israel would deport all Muslim or Christian Arab citizens? This is the plan proposed by Aigdor Lieberman (Ha'Aretz 28 September 2010). That Israel refuses to be a democratic "state for all its citizens," making an impossible demand on Palestinians to accept removal of Arabs from a Jewish state, suggests that Israel prefers not to negotiate but to acquire Palestinian land and water through creeping annexation.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Beyond the "war on terrorism"
To get beyond the rhetoric of the “war on
terrorism” it would make sense to understand what that terrorism is
about and address it, rather than conduct more war. The two central
issues stated by Al-Qaeda are: (1) U.S support of a corrupt,
autocratic Saudi Arabia (for U.S. access to oil) and, (2) the U.S.
failure to force Israel to negotiate a Palestinian state. Working to
divide and conquer, Israel now seeks to prevent Palestinian unity by
withholding from the Palestinian Authority’s own money lest Hamas find
support in a unified government. That is, Israel seeks permanent
division, not negotiation. The U.S. could force Israel to abandon this
strategy, force it to negotiate statehood with a unified Palestinian
government and, more broadly, undermine a legitimate cause for
Al-Qaeda hostility toward the U.S.
terrorism” it would make sense to understand what that terrorism is
about and address it, rather than conduct more war. The two central
issues stated by Al-Qaeda are: (1) U.S support of a corrupt,
autocratic Saudi Arabia (for U.S. access to oil) and, (2) the U.S.
failure to force Israel to negotiate a Palestinian state. Working to
divide and conquer, Israel now seeks to prevent Palestinian unity by
withholding from the Palestinian Authority’s own money lest Hamas find
support in a unified government. That is, Israel seeks permanent
division, not negotiation. The U.S. could force Israel to abandon this
strategy, force it to negotiate statehood with a unified Palestinian
government and, more broadly, undermine a legitimate cause for
Al-Qaeda hostility toward the U.S.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Israel seeks peace?
Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren’s article, “Will Egypt Be a
Partner in Peace” (Feb. 20 NYT Op-Ed) erroneously depicts Israel as the historic victim of Egyptian aggression, claiming that Nasser’s “hostility toward Israel set off two wars.” Both the 1967 (Six-Day) and 1956 (Suez) wars were initiated by Israeli attack. In 1967, Israel failed to gain U.S.
approval for a “pre-emptive” war against Egypt because President
Johnson knew that Egypt had no intention nor capacity to war against
Israel. Nevertheless, Israel attacked and went further in that war to
take Palestinian and Syrian land and water. In 1956, after Nasser
nationalized the Suez Canal (to retain revenues for Egypt), Israel
also attacked. President Eisenhower was enraged and forced Israel to
return its ill-gotten territorial gains. If Israel today is “striving
for peace in the region,” why does it not accomplish this by return of Palestinian and Syrian lands invaded in 1967 -- in exchange for which the entire Arab world offered permanent peace in 2002 and 2007 (Beirut and Riyadh Declarations)?
Partner in Peace” (Feb. 20 NYT Op-Ed) erroneously depicts Israel as the historic victim of Egyptian aggression, claiming that Nasser’s “hostility toward Israel set off two wars.” Both the 1967 (Six-Day) and 1956 (Suez) wars were initiated by Israeli attack. In 1967, Israel failed to gain U.S.
approval for a “pre-emptive” war against Egypt because President
Johnson knew that Egypt had no intention nor capacity to war against
Israel. Nevertheless, Israel attacked and went further in that war to
take Palestinian and Syrian land and water. In 1956, after Nasser
nationalized the Suez Canal (to retain revenues for Egypt), Israel
also attacked. President Eisenhower was enraged and forced Israel to
return its ill-gotten territorial gains. If Israel today is “striving
for peace in the region,” why does it not accomplish this by return of Palestinian and Syrian lands invaded in 1967 -- in exchange for which the entire Arab world offered permanent peace in 2002 and 2007 (Beirut and Riyadh Declarations)?
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Letter to NY Times about Israel-Egypt
To the Editor:
Re “Israel Worries That Egypt’s New Face May Not Be a Friendly One” by Ethan Bronner (A4, Feb 12)
Mr. Netanyahu cites the possibility that “Egypt would go the way of Iran … [that] a dark and violent despotism” could threaten Egypt’s own people and “everyone else.” Previously, Netanyahu claimed that Israel could be the victim of Iran were it to have nuclear weapons, as Israel does. Now he alludes to Israel as potential victim of a violent, despotic Egypt that might pull back from their 1979 peace treaty. Israel is reputedly the fourth most powerful army on earth. It has little real need of peace treaties. Thus, Israel has ignored the 2002 (again 2007) peace offers of the combined Arab League nations in exchange for Israel’s return of Arab territories (Golan Heights and Palestinian land) taken in 1967. Israel could make peace rather than present itself as potential victim of its neighbors.
Baylis Thomas
New York, Feb. 12
728 Amsterdam Ave.
New York, NY 10025
212-222-9378
Baylis239@gmail.com
The writer is the author of two histories of the Arab-Israeli conflict
Re “Israel Worries That Egypt’s New Face May Not Be a Friendly One” by Ethan Bronner (A4, Feb 12)
Mr. Netanyahu cites the possibility that “Egypt would go the way of Iran … [that] a dark and violent despotism” could threaten Egypt’s own people and “everyone else.” Previously, Netanyahu claimed that Israel could be the victim of Iran were it to have nuclear weapons, as Israel does. Now he alludes to Israel as potential victim of a violent, despotic Egypt that might pull back from their 1979 peace treaty. Israel is reputedly the fourth most powerful army on earth. It has little real need of peace treaties. Thus, Israel has ignored the 2002 (again 2007) peace offers of the combined Arab League nations in exchange for Israel’s return of Arab territories (Golan Heights and Palestinian land) taken in 1967. Israel could make peace rather than present itself as potential victim of its neighbors.
Baylis Thomas
New York, Feb. 12
728 Amsterdam Ave.
New York, NY 10025
212-222-9378
Baylis239@gmail.com
The writer is the author of two histories of the Arab-Israeli conflict
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Avnery
From the recent Avnery column in Gush Shalom:
"When Egypt moves, the Arab world follows. Whatever transpires in the immediate future in Egypt – democracy or an army dictatorship - It is only a matter of (a short) time before the dictators fall all over the Arab world, and the masses will shape a new reality, without the generals."...
"Peace with the Palestinians is no longer a luxury. It is an absolute necessity. Peace now, peace quickly. Peace with the Palestinians, and then peace with the democratic masses all over the Arab world, peace with the reasonable Islamic forces (like Hamas and the Muslim Brothers, who are quite different from al Qaeda), peace with the leaders who are about to emerge in Egypt and everywhere."
From me: I'm not so optimistic, whatever the necessity for peace. There are nuts out there.
"When Egypt moves, the Arab world follows. Whatever transpires in the immediate future in Egypt – democracy or an army dictatorship - It is only a matter of (a short) time before the dictators fall all over the Arab world, and the masses will shape a new reality, without the generals."...
"Peace with the Palestinians is no longer a luxury. It is an absolute necessity. Peace now, peace quickly. Peace with the Palestinians, and then peace with the democratic masses all over the Arab world, peace with the reasonable Islamic forces (like Hamas and the Muslim Brothers, who are quite different from al Qaeda), peace with the leaders who are about to emerge in Egypt and everywhere."
From me: I'm not so optimistic, whatever the necessity for peace. There are nuts out there.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Consequences of the Egyptian insurrection:
Consequences of the Egyptian insurrection:
The United States is in trouble because of its military support of Arab autocrats throughout the Middle East -- oil being the chief U.S. concern. Arab peoples who turn against their governments, as in Egypt, will consider the U.S. to be partly responsible for theirgrievances and could, if successful, cut off oil supplies to the U.S. The U.S. has historically feared democracy in Arab countries. The history of U.S. support of autocrats (despite rhetoric about democracy) has an extensive and established history: support of Marcos(Pilippines), the Shah (Iran), Duvalier (Haiti), Ceausescu (Romania),Suharto (Indonesia), Samoza (Nicaragua), Pinochet (Chile), Hussein(Iraq, until 9/11), King Fahd (Saudi Arabia), Mubarak (Egypt) and many others.
Obama has to be cautious, having recently praised Mubarak and needing to assure Saudi Arabia, which has ties to Mubarak, that the U.S. will continue its military support of Saudi Arabia in exchange for oil. Regarding Israel, also a supporter of Mubarak and sole solid U.S. ally in the Middle East, the U.S. cannot afford to disturb this relationship. Israel provides a military launching pad for U.S.armaments and would join the U.S. were war to erupt in the Middle
East. What this means is that the Palestinians will continue to be ignored by Obama despite his rhetoric about a two-state solution. The Palestinians, under the boot of the Israeli army and crowded out of land and livelihood, will pass into obscurity through neglect and, most likely diminish their numbers through emigration to surrounding
Arab countries. The tiny disastrous Gaza Strip, suffering malnutrition under Israeli siege, will likely be disposed of by being handed off to Egypt.
The United States is in trouble because of its military support of Arab autocrats throughout the Middle East -- oil being the chief U.S. concern. Arab peoples who turn against their governments, as in Egypt, will consider the U.S. to be partly responsible for theirgrievances and could, if successful, cut off oil supplies to the U.S. The U.S. has historically feared democracy in Arab countries. The history of U.S. support of autocrats (despite rhetoric about democracy) has an extensive and established history: support of Marcos(Pilippines), the Shah (Iran), Duvalier (Haiti), Ceausescu (Romania),Suharto (Indonesia), Samoza (Nicaragua), Pinochet (Chile), Hussein(Iraq, until 9/11), King Fahd (Saudi Arabia), Mubarak (Egypt) and many others.
Obama has to be cautious, having recently praised Mubarak and needing to assure Saudi Arabia, which has ties to Mubarak, that the U.S. will continue its military support of Saudi Arabia in exchange for oil. Regarding Israel, also a supporter of Mubarak and sole solid U.S. ally in the Middle East, the U.S. cannot afford to disturb this relationship. Israel provides a military launching pad for U.S.armaments and would join the U.S. were war to erupt in the Middle
East. What this means is that the Palestinians will continue to be ignored by Obama despite his rhetoric about a two-state solution. The Palestinians, under the boot of the Israeli army and crowded out of land and livelihood, will pass into obscurity through neglect and, most likely diminish their numbers through emigration to surrounding
Arab countries. The tiny disastrous Gaza Strip, suffering malnutrition under Israeli siege, will likely be disposed of by being handed off to Egypt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)