Friday, 8 December 2017

Trump Recognises Jerusalem: The Zionist End-Game Begins.

There Can be Only One: No matter how eloquently the partisans of a Jewish homeland reassured their Arab neighbours that they had nothing to fear from a future State of Israel, the brute logic of Zionism argued against the longevity of any such attempt at cultural and religious cohabitation. Sooner or later, the sheer impossibility of the two communities, Jewish and Arab, rubbing along together in peaceful coexistence would become apparent. And when that happened, one of those communities would have to go.

“APOCALYPSE IN THE VALLEY OF ARMAGEDDON”. The Daily Blog editor, Martyn Bradbury, certainly displays a gift for evocative language! On the subject of President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, however, I believe Martyn’s evocation of the apocalypse is premature. Trump’s decision is less a sign that Armageddon is imminent, and more a signal that the Zionists’ end-game is about to begin.

By announcing the United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Trump has sent two very important messages to the extreme Zionist elements in Israeli society. The first message is brutally simple: the so-called “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is dead. The second, to the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, is that, as the political logic of the two-state solution’s demise is followed to its inevitable and brutal conclusion, the United States has got Israel’s back. Not just at the UN Security Council, but everywhere Israel needs American support.

The political logic of the two-state solution’s demise is inextricably bound up with the relentless colonisation of the West Bank by extreme Zionist “settlers”. Essentially, the so-called “settlements” were planted on the West Bank in order to render the formation of a viable Palestinian state impossible. The larger those settlements grow, the tighter the hands of Israeli politicians are bound. The political cost of dismantling the settlements has risen so high that no sensible Israeli any longer believes that a Palestinian state is achievable.

This leaves the Israeli authorities with two options. They can either continue to act as an army of occupation on the West Bank of the Jordan River: controlling every aspect of the Palestinian people’s lives, while Zionist settlements metastasise into every corner of Palestine’s shrinking body. Or, they could simply transform the West Bank into a Palestinian-Free Zone.

This latter option has lain dormant in Zionism from its very inception. No matter how eloquently the partisans of a Jewish homeland reassured their Arab neighbours that they had nothing to fear from a future State of Israel, the brute logic of Zionism argued against the longevity of any such attempt at cultural and religious cohabitation. Sooner or later, the sheer impossibility of the two communities, Jewish and Arab, rubbing along together in peaceful coexistence would become apparent. And when that happened, one of those communities would have to go.

Ethnically cleansing the West Bank would, of course, be a gross violation of international law. It would constitute a crime against humanity on a scale not seen since the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, the Rwandan genocide and, more recently, the expulsion of the Rohingya people from Myanmar.

Protected by Donald Trump and the American veto in the UN Security Council, however, Israel is unlikely to much care what the world thinks or does. When all is said and done, isn’t its fifty-year occupation of the West Bank a blatant contravention of international law? And, haven’t Israel’s repeated incursions into Lebanon, and its brutal bombing of the civilian population of Gaza, occasioned many crimes against humanity?

If a decision to expel the Palestinians from the West Bank is taken by the Israeli authorities, it would undoubtedly provoke fury in the Arab world. So great is Israel’s military power, however, that launching any kind of meaningful retaliation against such forced expulsions would risk a potentially devastating Israeli counter-strike.

Some of the most extreme Zionists might even welcome an Arab attack. What better justification for levelling the Al-Aqsa Mosque and laying the foundation-stone for the Third Temple?

Certainly, the rebuilding of “Solomon’s Temple” and the expansion of the State of Israel to the full extent of its biblical boundaries would be welcomed by the tens-of-thousands of so-called “Christian-Zionists” (and fervent Trump supporters) living in the United States. In their eyes, such developments would constitute proof-positive that the “End Times” had well and truly begun.

“Apocalypse in the Valley of Armageddon” would only be the beginning.


This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog of Friday, 8 December 2017

18 comments:

thesorrowandthepity said...

A little bit of a yawn to read with the rapidity of the articles over seasoning with the word Zionist (a bit of a one size fits all catch phrase).
This is more about Trump taking oxygen away from the words Deutsche Bank, subpoena, & special counsel Robert Mueller.
That said if you look at the increase in West Bank settlers numbers since the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, coupled with the right wing political tendencies of immigrants to Israel from the former USSR since its collapse; it all paints a very depressing picture for the Palestinians

Charles E said...

In 1967 the countries around the UN created Israel attacked it with the aim of wiping it off the map and no doubt extending the Nazi genocide.
They not only lost, but were themselves nearly wiped out. In that huge failure they condemned the Palestinians to a much harder, but not yet impossible task of creating their own viable state.
It was not the first time the 'friends' of these people failed them by resort to war, and it would not be the last.
They have lost every war they started.
And what happens to people who start wars to wipe others out, and lose them?
They lose land and perhaps everything. That is not only the way of the world, but just.
So now today we see these 'friends' of the Palestinians trying to kill each other and doing so on a mass scale.
Therefore these are the people responsible for the Palestinians' loss, as well as themselves of course as they long ago rejected every chance at getting their own state. They wanted it all and in biblical fashion, their refusal to share meant they got nil.
Yet even now, I bet they could form a type of federation with Israel & Jordan, and right now would be the best time to propose it.

I was in Israel last year and Jordan is now a close partner of Israel, as is Egypt. Jordan is using Haifa as its preferred port and you can guarantee that partnership with Israel is part of their strategy to avoid the calamity that militant Islam has brought down upon Syria & Iraq. Same goes for the Saudis & Gulf states of course.
So the Palestinians last chance is coming perhaps. If they reject Hamas & Hezbollah they may have a chance at self-rule. Otherwise they will justly be 'wiped off the map' as a protean state, by their own hand and that of their 'friends'.
All this has little to do with Zionism. Zionism merely means support for a homeland for the Jews. So everyone who supports a two state solution, including the Palestinians and Winston Peters is a Zionist.
Sure there are religious Zionists making life harder for all but a large majority of Israelis are not religious, just like Kiwis, and given a realistic peace, would take it.

greywarbler said...

The Highlander film with Freddy Mercury voicing its powerful emotional driving spirit in Princes of the Universe is likely to be similar to the thinking of those driving Israel today.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ1WyBGG_Vw

Victor said...

Chris
I’m certainly not a defender of Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank. But I don’t think the occupation per se is illegal, as the territory was captured from Jordan in 1967 in a lawful struggle following an attack by that country upon Israel.

As I understand it, this made Israel the “protecting power” pending a peace settlement that has yet to emerge and is now unlikely to do so.

The problem is, however, that a whole heap of what Israel does in this role, including, most notably, the building of settlements, constitutes a violation of a protecting power’s duties to the “protected” and is, hence, illegal, as, of course, has been the formal annexation of east Jerusalem and the Golan.

Morally, I would agree that Israel long ago forfeited its right to be considered a protecting power on the West Bank. But I don’t think this affects the legal position.

By the way, although it didn’t look like it at the time, it could be argued that Israel was the aggressor vis a vis Egypt in 1967. Even so, it was Jordan that attacked Israel a day or so later in solidarity with Egypt and not vice versa.

It could also be argued that Israel is in violation of a series of UN resolutions calling for its withdrawal from the West Bank. But, again, I’m not sure that this has changed the legal status of the occupation.

So much for law. With respect to facts on the ground, and whilst appreciating the ever increasing logistic and political difficulties in achieving a two state solution, I remain of the view that no other solution has any long term viability.

Even if (horrendous to contemplate) the whole of mandatory Palestine was to be ethnically cleansed of Palestinians, they would undoubtedly continue their struggle in exile, with the support of a large swathe of Moslem and other opinion. Meanwhile, Israel certainly isn’t going away either.

There are those who favour a single state solution, with equal citizenship for all. At an emotional level, I have much sympathy for this approach. But if two communities can’t bring themselves to live side by side in two separate states, how much more difficulty will they have in sharing the same state? The experience of the mandatory period certainly isn’t encouraging.

So, it still seems to me that the choice is between two states and various forms of despair. Maybe despair is the more realistic option but I continue to hope otherwise. And, yes, I know that this sentiment sounds trite. But what else would you suggest of me?

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Post-World War II, what were essentially a bunch of Europeans were plunked down in the Middle East by Western fiat in a rather belated humanitarian response to the Holocaust. Locals were not consulted. A day or so before the actual declaration of Independence, the Zionists began a campaign of ethnic cleansing documented by Israel's own historians. This has continued – not enough to offend the West, but a gradual nibbling at Palestinian land which continues today. The fact the various Israeli leaders did not intend ever to stick to the nineteen forty-eight mandate, and that is documented by their historians as well.
In nineteen sixty-seven, as Charles said various countries tried to redress the balance and failed. Leading to further de facto annexations of Palestinian land and land that might have been allocated to Palestinians for a state of their own. It might have been "just" in Charles's terms, but the Israelis missed an opportunity to settle once and for all with a Palestinian state.
Since then Israel has refused to negotiate in good faith, and in fact Netanyahu has been caught on video boasting about sabotaging peace talks. So it doesn't really matter if most Israelis would accept a "realistic" peace, the present leaders at least won't allow it. No one in that country has the gumption to think more than a few years ahead. The only "realistic" long-term solution for the Israeli government at least, is going to be ethnic cleansing. And sure as eggs they will get round to it at some stage.
The role the United States has played in all this is a disgrace. They provide Israel with three billion dollars a year's worth of military aid, they allow some of it to be spent within Israel which is a huge concession, they also provide other types of aid and loans – which are invariably forgiven. So the US is the only country that can put pressure on Israel to make a just settlement with the Palestinians, and it won't. It's tried half-heartedly in the past, but the more the US heads towards the right, the less likely this will happen. Because fundagelical is think that Israel is going to bring on the end times and the return of Jesus..... Jesus!

Victor said...

Charles

Whilst I clearly differ from you over many aspects of the Israel/Palestine conundrum, I firmly agree that Jordan needs to be part of any realistic solution.

The trouble is, though, that Trump and Bibi are making it ever more difficult for the Hashemites to play a creative and useful role without placing their own legitimacy on the line.

sumsuch said...

Any more legalisms Victor?

The Israelis hold Palestine by sword-right following conquest.

However I sympathise with every step of their way.

I would like NZ to take half a million Israelis--given Zionists are much like South African whites but Jews are the greatest people there have ever been.

I'm for the Palestinians. If they would adhere to a system of ethics, I would even give them money for weopens.

Trump is an idiot, no matter how his lower lip mows up his upper. He's made an exhibition of himself--the opposite of a Presbyterian Scot's aims (his Mum). If he would turn 180 degree he'd be fine. I know several like him.

Don't believe in this expulsion Chris. Even, either the Israelis would fight it or everyone would know it was the death knell for the Jewish state.


Wayne Mapp said...

There is zero evidence that Israel is going to "ethnically cleanse" the West Bank. Suggesting it, even as hypothetical scenario, is simply demonising Israel with a gross war crime (as you note on the scale of Bosnia) for something they have not and will not do.

As Victor notes, the occupation is not per se illegal. But occupiers do have duties, and probably the most important is not to annex land. So far Israel has been careful not to do that, at least not in a legal sense.

Is the two state solution dead? I think not. What Trump has done has the effect of removing one of the points of debate. Israel has always said Jerusalem is its capital. Palestine has always said East Jerusalem is its capital. Trumps recognition of that does not undermine this situation. The city can be shared as a capital, the trick of any peace settlement s not to divide it like Berlin in the Cold War.

Israel knows it has a fundamental problem. It cannot have a one state solution that is both democratic and Jewish. Neither are they going to ethnically cleanse the West bak, not withstanding the inflammatory clim in the article.

I assume what Israel wants is a weak, disempowered state of Palestine, and have the Palestinians agree to that.

The nature of such a state can be discerned. Complicated border adjustments that include the main settlements around Jerusalem, Palestinian acceptance of many of the outpost settlements, presumably with Jewish police, a Palestine without an armed force of any significance, and virtually no right of return. Such a state would be obviously better for the daily lives of Palestinians than their current situation, but it is clearly results in a state that is rather circumspect compared to its neighbours.

countryboy said...

The real multiple crises that grips NZ is a hyper normalised, media-sold, tub of bull shit you could float a boat on.

Writing simplistically; What does NZ/Aotearoa need to function?
Money right? It's all about money. We earn foreign currency from export and we spend it here, isn't that correct?
Then, what happened? What's gone wrong? Since our primary industry produce foods and harvest fishes and trees and there's only 4.7 million of us, roughly the population of Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane then, as I asked lianne dalziel once after I pointed out that simple fact... "where's our money?"
She looked down at her feet and said " I don't know."
A one time minister of commerce and she didn’t know where our primary industry money was...?
And by the looks of things, neither does anyone else.
The last thing a leafy person would want to do when face down in a latte and a designer biscuit is to smell sheep or talk to a farmer covered from head to toe in their shit.
“ The effects of prolonged underfunding were beginning to be felt in New Zealand’s leafy suburbs as well as in its meanest streets.”
Defensively, I’d suggest fuck the leaves, suburbs and mean streets and focus on the leafier, meaner, lonelier, culturally impoverished dusty country roads for a change and try and find our money because not only did lianne dalziel not know where our primary industry money is but neither do those who make the things that is exported know either.

“Rather than build a broad consensus around the need for a substantial increase in public expenditure, funded by an equally large increase in taxation, Labour set out to convince voters of the exact opposite.”

That’s because Labour’s squawking the same tune as National and both know they can ill afford to tell us where our money went, who our primary industry are that we $-rely on entirely and of how much real wealth is missing after generations of legitimatised ( And I’m sure, not so legitimised ) swindling.
( BNZ? Government bale-out/ fay richwhite ? )
That’s about it really. I have nothing new to write. Yet. If I continue down this road I’ll just keep on repeating myself.
I will add just one thing though. Dig up the fancy designer lawn/ tussock/ pebbles combo and learn to grow your own.

David Stone said...

Hi Chris

I think it's worth reflecting on the political and sub-political makeup of Israel and the US. They are the same people . They all know each other personally or are related, they move back and forth in positions of power between the two states. They are one and the same.
The success of Syria with Russian and Hezbollah assistance in overcoming ISIS and al Qaeda (now being claimed in the BBC and US press as an American victory) , leaves Hezbollah as a well organise well armed experienced and efficient fighting force.
By their strikes on anything that looks like a weapons dump under Hezbollah's control in Syria it's clear that Israel is seriously concerned about where they are going to apply their attention next. It won't be a walkover like the 6 day war this time, with one side completely disorganised and uncoordinated , and the other equipped trained mobile and ready to go.
I think they are provoking a reaction to enable them to expand and secure the situation before the ISIS campaign is completely finished, to retain some strategic advantage. Poor Syria is likely to flow from on war straight into another.
But what is happening to the moral authority of the USA on the international stage. They can demonstrate their military authority all over the world but their standing as a force and influence for justice, peace and democracy is fallen off a cliff.
They are going to finish up fighting the rest of the world.
D J S

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"Neither are they going to ethnically cleanse the West bak, not withstanding the inflammatory clim in the article. "

Hmmm. Your analysis and predictions for the region haven't been great as yet Wayne. But I suspect you are correct in one sense and that they are not going to send in the army to shove people over a border. But they will keep nibbling away "legally" as you say, though they do make the laws to facilitate this. A bit at a time until they have what they want, which will be a greater Israel, from the river to the sea, with Palestinians in Bantustans and ghettos. You seem a little reticent on whether you think this is ethical, just, or as Charles would put it "realistic". Personally I think is a recipe for disaster, and I suspect you do too. In fifty years time, there will be a large poverty stricken population of Palestinians right for just about any eejit to stir up and instigate action against Israel. I must stress again there is no one there thinking long-term – ridiculous.
What I would really like to see is a couple of hundred thousand non-violent Palestinians, and they do exist, marching across the border led by a sort of Gandhi figure. So the Israeli army would be forced to shoot them, or let them in. I know it's not going to happen, I'm being a bit na├»ve – but if it did there would be very little Israel could do about it without being condemned by the whole world.

greywarbler said...

Nothing that comes out of Israel gives the impression of Jewish people having moments when they think of ordinary ie non-Jewish people having a fellow-feeling about life. So Jewish humour needs to be blown around the world, and perhaps good things will happen in its wake in that little nation state.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDkHRKQgOlY

Victor said...

Wayne

“I assume what Israel wants is a weak, disempowered state of Palestine, and have the Palestinians agree to that.”

I would agree that that’s what a majority of Israelis, including much of the military and security “top brass”, would probably like to see. But I’m not sure it’s Bibi’s game plan. I’ve long suspected that he prefers a perpetual state of low-intensity warfare to any sort of peace. He’s certainly a dab hand at the far from subtle art of placing blocks in the path of negotiations.

Why does he behave this way? Because, IMHO, an Israel living securely alongside its neighbours would have little reason to keep voting for Likud’s scandal-plagued, demagogic leadership, let alone its increasingly fascistic allies. Conversely, there’s nothing like the threat of terrorism and destruction to keep the punters opting for visceral blow-hards to deliver them from their foes.

That’s not to say that the Likud and its allies are the sole or even main contributors to the constant stoking of conflict. Both the (Shiite) Hezbollah and its oh-so-very-charming pals in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard can be relied on to play their part, as can Hamas and its associates within the (Sunni) Moslem Brotherhood network.

I would agree with you, though, that there’s little realistic chance of Israel opting for total ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and that Chris has been unjustifiably provocative in suggesting otherwise.

It would certainly be hard for any Israeli government to gain sufficient domestic consensus for such a move, which would also obviously alienate both open allies in the west and covert allies across the Middle East.

Trump might be happy to provide an umbrella of approval for this, as for other obscenities. But a successor administration in Washington might (as per Eisenhower and Herbert Walker Bush) suddenly decide that Israel was no longer its dearest ally. Similarly, it would mean the end of Israel’s burgeoning tech-based romances with Russia, China and India.

Having said which, I think that GS’s concerns about the “nibbling away” of Palestinian land are justified. And, though this process might not lead to ethnic cleansing, it will inevitably limit the viability of a peace settlement, thus, by my view, further serving Bibi’s project of continued low-intensity warfare and ongoing Likud rule.

Sumsuch

I engaged in legalisms in a previous post because Chris’s statement about the legal status of the occupation was factually incorrect and because the constant iteration of such rhetorical pseudo-certainties is one of the key feeders of this tragic conflict.

GS
Is ‘fundagelical’ your own coinage? It’s brilliant! Wow, just wow!

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Fundagelical? No Victor it's not original. It's quite common usage in the US. I frequent Patheos blogs a lot. At least the nonreligious section.
I must say, I think you are correct about Netanyahu. He's got the typical authoritarian populist tactic of "keep them scared" which comes in handy for everyone, whether it be government or organisation on the right or left. From the NRA to Donald Trump.

Charles E said...

GS says: 'In nineteen sixty-seven, as Charles said various countries tried to redress the balance and failed..' They started a war man, killed thousands and lost. The current situation is their fault. The Palestinians lost most, thanks to their mates who have now killed another 500,000 of their fellows in the region just recently.
Your words 'redress the balance' are weasel words indeed and the rest of your wee story is rubbish. You clearly have little knowledge of Israel and its history.

And what would have happened if Israel had created a Palestinian state in the West Bank? I expect that in recent years it would have been taken over by the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, or some other genocidal maniacs. So you can see why the current government, who are no angels I admit have been voted into power more than once. Until the threats from the murdering Islamists is gone Israel will not allow a new state next door. I bet you would not either.
It’s instructive that the dictator of Turkey, an Islamist is furious at the US recognition of reality in Israel. It was that country’s empire, then its state that joined the wrong side in WW1, and lost, helping to create modern Israel thereby. And did they make Jerusalem the capital of a free Palestinian state when they occupied it? No. Israel is the only state to have existed there. And not just once.

Victor said...

GS

'Netanyahu.....'s got the typical authoritarian populist tactic of "keep them scared"'

Yup, more or less so.

Most Israelis would, of course, deny being scared, as it jars with their collective ethos. But, as Bibi knows full well, it's easy to them anxious.

Why?

Firstly, because their situation is objectively scary.

Secondly, Jewish history is a potent and traumatic school for pessimism.

Thirdly, there is, I believe, increasing evidence that trauma can get passed on from one generation to another.

The problem is that, to a greater or lesser extent, all these considerations also apply to the Palestinians and many other Arabs.

This background would still be engendering mutual distrust if all the countries and groups in the region were led by peerless avatars of peace and reconciliation. But the fact is that they're not.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"You clearly have little knowledge of Israel and its history."
On the contrary Charles, I know quite a bit about Israel and its history because I have read Israeli historians which you obviously haven't bothered to look at. I notice you don't mention how parts of my story are rubbish.
These are facts.
1. Israeli leaders had absolutely no intention of sticking to the nineteen forty-seven agreement.

2. They began intimidating, killing and "cleansing" Palestinians out of villages they lived in for hundreds of years before the declaration of Independence.

3. Netanyahu has been caught on video boasting about sabotaging the peace talks.

There's three things you can have a look at Charles, debunk them if you can.

Unfortunately Charles you have a habit of making airy fairy statements with nothing to back them up, and similar airy fairy predictions which never seem come true. Time to get your teeth into some actual research.

Victor said...

Apologies for typo. Para 3 of my post of 16.04 yesterday should read:


"Most Israelis would, of course, deny being scared, as it jars with their collective ethos. But, as Bibi knows full well, it's easy to make them anxious."