The Obama administration has been describing a weaker and colder relationship between the United States and the Jewish state in light of Benjamin Netanyahu’s victory in Israel’s March 17 elections, with some saying the US could support a United Nations resolution setting down principles for Palestinian statehood.
Netanyahu’s campaign rhetoric — his statements in the days leading up to the election against a two-state solution and his election day comments on Arab voters — particularly angered the administration, prompting officials to say they would examine its future steps.
But more troubling to the White House were Netanyahu’s statements on a two-state solution, which the United States has been pursuing for decades in its effort to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In an interview with the NRG news website on March 16, when asked, “If you are prime minister there will be no Palestinian state?” Netanyahu replied, “Indeed.”
“I think anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state and to evacuate territory is giving radical Islam a staging ground against the State of Israel,” Netanyahu said.
The New York Times quoted several administration officials as saying that the US could endorse a United Nations Security Council resolution setting down terms for the formation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed land swaps.
A senior administration official who spoke to The New York Times on condition of anonymity said that one outcome could be a change in how the relationship between Israel and America is managed. Discourse between the two countries, for instance, would no longer be held between the heads of state directly. Instead, Secretary of State John Kerry and defense officials would act as go-betweens for President Barack Obama and Netanyahu.
Meanwhile, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki implied that although the US still prefers direct negotiations toward an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, she could not promise that the US would continue to defend Israel against unilateral actions in support of Palestinian statehood in either the International Criminal Court or the United Nations.
Animosity between Netanyahu and Obama has been growing for years.
Last year The Atlantic quoted an anonymous US official referring to Netanyahu as “chickenshit” in an article describing the “full-blown crisis” in the US-Israel relationship.
That crisis only worsened when Netanyahu agreed to speak in a special joint session of Congress on March 3. A senior official told Haaretz then that the “chickenshit” epithet was mild compared to the language used in the White House when news of Netanyahu’s planned speech came in.
““There are things you simply don’t do. He spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price,” he said.
President Barack Obama always gets what he wants. He circumvents the Constitution, and circumvents Congress, to do it, but he always gets what he wants in the end. I am sure it is frustrating to him that the Republicans refuse to be a rubber stamp for Obama’s foreign anti-American policies. But, despite the “obstructionists,” as he likes to call them, in Congress, Obama has succeeded in federalizing a number of issues, creating racial divide, and knocking America down a few notches on the world stage.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not as easy to bully, as are the cowardly congressional Republicans. Netanyahu is standing firm on his positions, and recognizes the dangers posed by his Islamic neighbors, and Obama’s liberal left calls for appeasement. The Iran deal that Obama, and fellow international leftists, are trying to negotiate is a dangerous one, and Netanyahu has called it that from the start. So, what does Obama do when those around him won’t play ball? He does as he’s done with Congress, and the Constitution. He circumvents them.
The two-state solution, as it is called, involves Israel giving up some of her territory to the Palestinians, so that they may have a country of their own. However, that will not create peace. Palestinians are not a people without a nation. They are refugees, they claim, seeking to return to their home, but in reality they are Jordanian and Crete rejects. They are Islamists intent on creating more havoc against Israel. Their solution is no Israel, and Netanyahu knows it.
Netanyahu’s attitude is unacceptable to people like Obama, so, the American President is working with the United Nations to circumvent Netanyahu, and the safety of Israel, intent on forcing the two-state solution upon the tiny Jewish State.
Liberal left believes that the unrest in the Middle East is all Israel’s fault.
Historically, the United States has always stood with Israel, and has rejected the United Nations idea of the two-state solution. Under Obama, the United States is ready to work with the U.N. to pressure Israel into accepting the resolution. This is why the White House was pumping money into Isaac Herzog’s campaign against Netanyahu. They believed Herzog would be more likely to accept the terms of a two-state solution.
Netanyahu is adamantly opposed to giving concessions to the Palestinians, and he’s continuing to surround himself with people in the Israeli government that think the same way. The prime minister has continuously rejected giving global organizations like the United Nations any control over the future of Israel, considering such a role intrusive, and recognizing that these global bodies fail to recognize that this is not just a matter of peace talks, but what is at hand is the very survival of Israel.
The political elitists believe they know what is best, and they are willing to force their will upon individuals in their own countries, and over nations like Israel on the global scale. They believe they are above everyone else, and only they know what is best. How could Israel, surrounded by an enemy intent on their destruction, know what’s best for their own security?
If a two-state solution is put into place, forcing Israel to lose the buffer zones of Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights, invasion against Israel is likely. If Jordan falls, as well, the last of the neighbors of Israel whose leadership is not intent of the destruction of Israel (Note that King Abdullah’s stance against ISIS is in conflict with 70% of the population of Jordan who supports ISIS, and supports Israel’s destruction), invasion of Israel by the tiny nation’s Islamic neighbors is inevitable.
A two-state solution will also, likely, include provisions demanding that Israel give up part of Jerusalem. A few years ago Obama already applied pressure on Israel about building Jewish settlements near East Jerusalem. Islamic leaders call the construction activity “illegal settlement-building in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
The reality of what will happen if a two-state solution is imposed on Israel was played out already when Israel retreated from Gaza. Immediately, Gaza fell into pro-terrorist hands, and immediately Gaza began to shell Israel with continuous attacks. And then, when that happened, the worldwide community accused Israel for being the aggressor.
After years of blocking U.N. efforts to pressure Israelis and Palestinians into accepting a lasting two-state solution, the United States is edging closer toward supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution that would call for the resumption of political talks to conclude a final peace settlement, according to Western diplomats.
For decades, Democratic and Republican administrations have resisted a role for the U.N. Security Council in dealing with the Middle East crisis. They have argued consistently that an enduring peace can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties. Israeli leaders have also strongly opposed giving the world body a greater role in bringing about a deal.
However, the prospect of direct negotiations appeared to evaporate with Netanyahu’s pre-election declaration that he would never allow the creation of a Palestinian state. The comment completely reversed the Israeli leader’s previous support for an independent Palestine as part of a permanent peace deal between the two sides.
Ilan Goldenberg, a former member of the Obama administration’s Mideast peace team, told FP that Washington might be inclined to support a Security Council resolution backing a two-state solution as an alternative to the Palestinian effort to hold Israel accountable at the ICC.
[The 'bottom line' in terms of this whole situation with Syria is seen in bold below]
What are the objectives of the global economic war against Russia? Will the West disconnect Russia from SWIFT? Will Europe and the USA impose more sanctions on Russia? What's happening to the oil prices? Will Syrian President Bashar Assad surrender? Pravda.Ru asked these and other questions in an interview with Ron Holland, author of many best-selling books
It has been a year since the US economic war against Russia began by the West. Which objectives have been set and have they been achieved?
I would suggest the objectives have been three fold but in fact I would date the sanctions war from Friday August 30, 2013. This was when President Putin offered a peaceful alternative at the last moment to stop the US military operation against Bashar al-Assad and Syria that was within hours of starting. Surprisingly the US called off the attack and this set in motion a series of events contrary to the goals of the US administration. I believe both Russia and China covertly played the Treasury debt card in order to protect their client states, Syria and Iran, from the impending US invasion.
I wrote in my September editorial at that time; Did Putin Quietly Play the Debt Card Over Syria that both Russia and China might have covertly played the Treasury debt card in order to protect their allies, Syria and Iran, from an impending US invasion.
Thus the planned Syrian invasion was to first secure the land route to build the Qatar-Turkey pipeline designed to end European dependence on Russian gas and pipelines. Second was to put US forces on the land border of Iran when they had secured Syria in order to ratchet up the pressure on Iran to give in to Washington demands. The third reason was to close any potential base options for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in the Mediterranean on the Syrian coast just prior to the move on Ukraine and Crimea both planned to vacate both the Russia fleet and bases as well as secure the oil and gas shipping pipelines and Black Sea transit. None of these objectives were attained.
Another major defeat was the Washington & London scheme to force Russia out of SWIFT, the Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, as this entity is how banks globally transfer funds. But on Monday March 9, SWIFT didn't kick Russia out but rather offered Russia a seat on the board.
Russia under Putin is not over indebted like almost all other western nations thus allowing Putin to exercise leadership independent of European and Washington demands and this makes Russia in their eyes a threat to the continuation of the fake debt democracy system across the West.
The ultimate goal is to destabilize Russia by destroying the economy and limiting government revenue and growth by holding oil prices at historically low levels. To do this they must depose Putin, the national leader with the highest poll approval rating in the world and replace him with a compliant quisling type of leadership submissive to western interests as has been done in Ukraine. This goal could be achieved due to Russia's extreme over dependence on energy resource revenue.
I would suggest that Washington is indeed acting rationally if their goal is to preserve their power base as well as the support of powerful banking and economic interests. The US Empire has indeed reached it's zenith of power and authority in the world and as America heads downhill as have all major empires in the past. Therefore it is crucial to buy time by attempting to conquer or control energy resources around the world hence why the US is involved across the Middle East and increasingly in the Ukraine and is surrounding Russia and Iran.
Yes, I believe Putin and Russia will survive this attack on Russian sovereignty and it's over emphasis on energy resource revenue which is a mistake made by Russia not by western interests. This economic war will end in stalemate because Russia cannot be subdued by invasion, history shows us that and the increasing alliance with China and other BRICS will help with better economic growth.
Russia is now engaged in an asymmetrical war with the American and European Union primarily over resources and the strategy and tactics really differ between the West and Russia. Washington failed in goading Russia into a military invasion of Ukraine as this could have drawn in other European nations thus further weakening the Russian economy but the economic, currency and financial warfare will continue hopefully short of military action.
As I've written in earlier editorials, Russia can win the financial/energy/economic war only by finding new sources of revenue outside the energy sector and playing on its unique strengths. A low tax rate and friendly regulatory environment to attract European/American industry and money is a start. It appears Russia is now moving to offer economic citizenships and tax advantages in order to attract entrepreneurs as I wrote a couple of months ago and this will help.
Finally Russia must get aggressive in the economic war. You can win this economic contest in 24 months, if certain special zones in Russia simply are allowed to copy Swiss banking rules and regulations, as wealth will always flow to secure locations where taxes are low. You know what banking privacy and security did for Switzerland, it made a poor country with few natural resources the wealthiest nation in the world. You will have foreign banks and financial institutions lining up to open offices in Russia if you can guarantee financial privacy to a degree and wealth protection in total.
This will break the monopoly of West in financial and banking as well as their power to threaten you. The coming bond debacle guarantees this will work as I've written earlier every nation has wealthy interests and their own oligarchs so why not build support for Russia from wealthy foreigners as they transfer a portion of their wealth as taxable income at a very low rate to your nation. This will end the economic war.
Will there be set peace in Ukraine in the near future? Which role will the US have in it?
No the Ukraine is caught between competing sides in the East VS West conflict. Sadly it will likely end up like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan as a battleground and non functioning state at least economically and maybe militarily caught between the US and EU verses Russia. Russia will protect the Russian speakers and likely will open a land route to the Crimea and maybe as far west as Odessa thus cutting off the Ukraine from the Black Sea. Still all Russia needs is a Ukraine non-aligned with the West or a member of NATO. The US will continue to promote instability in the Ukraine for the foreseeable future.
The battle of wills between Beijing and Washington over a China-sponsored development bank
for Asia is turning into a rout, and the Obama administration has found itself isolated and embarrassed as its top allies lined up this week to join the proposed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
for Asia is turning into a rout, and the Obama administration has found itself isolated and embarrassed as its top allies lined up this week to join the proposed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
In what one analyst dubbed a “diplomatic disaster” for the U.S., Britain became the first major European ally to sign on as a founding member of the Shanghai-based investment bank, joined quickly by France, Germany and Italy, which dismissed public and private warnings from the U.S. about the bank’s potential impact on global lending standards and the competition it could provide to existing institutions such as the U.S.-dominated World Bank.
lending standards and the competition it could provide to existing institutions such as the U.S.-dominated World Bank.
Luxembourg, a major global financial center, revealed this week that it would sign up. China also is also wooing Australia and South Korea, two of America’s closest Asian allies, to join before the March 31 deadline. A South Korean wire service reported Wednesday that Seoul was “seriously considering” the offer.
center, revealed this week that it would sign up. China also is also wooing Australia and South Korea, two of America’s closest Asian allies, to join before the March 31 deadline. A South Korean wire service reported Wednesday that Seoul was “seriously considering” the offer.
The reason for the stampede is clear: China’s market and its huge hoard of cash to invest override any concerns voiced by the U.S. Treasury Department and State Department over Beijing’s half-ownership stake in the bank.
override any concerns voiced by the U.S. Treasury Department and State Department over Beijing’s half-ownership stake in the bank.
With 32 countries on board and more expected in the coming days, Chinese state media have begun to gloat about the failure of the Obama administration to rally even its closest allies and trading partners to shun the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. They noted that U.S. officials have long lectured China, now the world’s second-largest economy, to take a more active “stakeholder” role in global economic affairs, but then tried to undermine the investment bank almost from the time Chinese President Xi Jinping floated the idea of an Asian development fund during a trip to Indonesia in October 2013.
Bank. They noted that U.S. officials have long lectured China, now the world’s second-largest economy, to take a more active “stakeholder” role in global economic affairs, but then tried to undermine the investment bank almost from the time Chinese President Xi Jinping floated the idea of an Asian development fund during a trip to Indonesia in October 2013.
As a new report details the devastation wrought upon Syria by four years of rebellion, a Virginia state senator who once thanked the Syrian government for defending Christians is worried about the fate of Damascus, the Middle East and Europe.
“If Damascus falls, the dreaded black and white flag of ISIS will fly” over Syria, Virginia state Senator Richard Black told RT. “Within a period of months after the fall of Damascus, Jordan will fall and Lebanon will fall,” he said, adding that the self-proclaimed Islamic State would then target Europe next.
Black is no stranger to the Syrian crisis. Last year, he wrote a letter thanking the government in Damascus for a “gallant and effective campaign” to liberate Christian villages on the border with Lebanon. Most Americans are not aware that Christianity started in present-day Syria, he pointed out.
Also see:
2 comments:
I thought that today's blog was one of the most important as far as the rapture goes. Since Netanyahu will not divide Jerusalem, the U.N. and the U.S. will force Israel militarily
to.
Gary - I have been having similar thoughts.
Additionally, we may be seeing a scenario in which Israel pulls the trigger on Iran, finally.
This election is another step towards the Trib
Post a Comment