Peace bullish or 'bullshit'

Barack Obama, the US president, has called for "direct talks" between Israelis and Palestinians irrespective of the continued illegal settlements [AFP]


By: Marwan Bishara

Source: Al Jazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/2010/07/201078154952387257.html


The good news: "Netanyahu to give peace process a 'robust push". The bad news, any rational person privy to the ideology and makeup of the Israeli government knows this not serious.

And yet, after their meeting, Barack Obama, the US president, has publically supported his Israeli interlocutor, saying he believed Binyamin Netanyahu would take "risks for peace" and praised the Israeli prime minister for easing the blockade on the Gaza Strip.

Obama also called for "direct talks" between Israelis and Palestinians irrespective of the continued illegal settlements.

All of which begs two questions: How does a defunct and discredited diplomatic process continue to masquerade as a success despite its utter failure? And why do the US and its Western allies continue to finance and pamper it when it creates more instability and conflict than peace and progress?

The short answer is bullshit.

In an attempt to define bullshit and theorise about its uses and meanings, Harry Frankfurt, the Princeton philosopher, has differentiated between bullshit and lies in his book "On Bullshit", and concluded that bullshit can be more dangerous than lying.

Bullshit is more than a word; it's a chronic widespread system of rhetoric and representation that mystifies the truth. It has increasingly become a way of communication not only in the private sphere but has become part and parcel of Western propaganda.

Falafel to fanfare

At times, according to Prof Frankfurt, sincerity also qualifies as bullshit. This is especially true when those uttering it are in denial over their true motivation. This explains why many of the stubborn advocates of the present peace process bullshit even when they are being sincere.

In fact, I cannot but shake my head in bewilderment whenever I am exposed to the "peace industry". Peace and co-existence initiatives by NGOs have used everything from falafel to fanfare and music but failed utterly to improve the situation. Instead, they have contributed to make the occupation look normal.

Having said that, I do not discount the great degree of lying in the process. But unlike the lies and deception, bullshit has created an aura around the peace process.

How many doubt that the timing of Obama's invitation to the Israeli prime minister ahead of the autumn midterm congressional elections is more about domestic politics than foreign policy.

As one Washington Post columnist commented sardonically, it would have been appropriate for Obama who reprimanded Netanyahu before, to have flown the white flag of surrender during the visit.


Mostly bullshit is about spreading half truths, fake statements that allow what amounts to a de facto war process of occupation and colonisation to masquerade as a peace process, causing major suffering and destruction.

Chimera

Since the so called "peace process" started two decades ago, all promises of progress, peace and prosperity, have turned into disappointment, conflict and regress.

After hundreds of meetings, tens of initiatives and seven interim agreements, the situation in the Israeli occupied territories might have "improved" in certain micro areas, but at a macro level it has notably worsened.

During that time, the peace process has bestowed the title of "peace partners" on an ever more aggressive Israeli occupier and increasingly discredited Palestinian Authority. In the process, colonisation deepened, the colonised suffered and nonsense triumphed.

Illegal Jewish settlements continue to proliferate and destabilise the West Bank and especially East Jerusalem, despite recent assurances to the contrary.

A report by the Israeli organisation B'Tselem, on the eve of Netanyahu's visit, on the proliferating Jewish settlements despite assurances to the contrary speaks volumes about Israeli deception regarding the settlement issue.


Now the Netanyahu government is promising "improvements" on its blockade of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, but the end result is clear: it will continue to police, and treat the impoverished and overpopulated refugee camp like the mega prison it has become.

Likewise, despite talk of economic revival under the Palestinian Authority, the standard and quality of living in the semi-autonomous areas of the West Bank is below 1980s levels, when the West Bank was under full Israeli occupation. In relation to Israel, which is now a member of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development - a club for developed countries, it continues to deteriorate.

It is mind boggling that the likes of Tony Blair, the International Quartet envoy, gets away with promoting improvement in life conditions and better "security" at the heart of the miserably occupied territories.

Netanyahu's focus on economic rather than political rights for the Palestinians has led to no real improvement in the movement of labour and capital, nor in true amelioration of the access to health or education, let alone to the outside world.

With the exception of a number of English speaking "peace process contractors" (those living off politically motivated Western aid), most Palestinians continue to live in destitution.

Comparing the situation between the refugee camps the moderates' administer in the West Bank and those run by "extremists" in Gaza is like comparing the situation in two prisons.

Bluffing is of course integral to, or even indispensable for diplomacy, but it generally has limits or is a side show for something more strategic. So what is the strategy behind the promotion of the defunct peace process?

Private club

Since the end of the Cold War, the Middle East peace process has emerged as the US regional order.

Entire peoples and states have been judged on where they stood on the peace process. Those, especially among the Arabs who supported it have been called moderates and those opposed as extremists.

The "Peace Process" became a private club whose membership carried a number of strategic advantages, while being on the outside risked sanctions, even war.

Paradoxically, over the last two decades, both the US, the sponsor of the peace process, and Israel, its ally and peace partner, have waged destructive and bloody wars in the region.

But both remained untouched as sponsor and partner in the peace process.

If these were any other countries, they would have been sanctioned, blockaded and bombarded, even occupied.

This explains why Israel's most infamous general was referred as a "man of peace" by George Bush, the self-proclaimed US "war President".

Promoting the peace process has become a strategic reality, even necessity, regardless of its realisation or implementation.

There are far better ways to free Israelis from the political and moral burden of their occupation, and bring Palestinians liberty and independence from foreign occupation.

But the peace process is the best way to maintain Pax Americana in the region, secure Jewish support in the US while pampering the special relationship between the US and Israel.

Given the choice between peace in the Middle East and peace between the US and Israel, the Obama administration has made its choice known this week.

US gives 'secret guarantee' to Israel

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=133957§ionid=351020202



The United States has secretly given a "written guarantee" to Israel that obliges Washington to sell Israel nuclear fission materials, Israeli sources say.

The materials will be used to "produce electricity," Israeli Army radio, which is an official Israeli news source, reported.

Washington has also vowed to "publicly announce" that Israel is a responsible entity and can "contain its capabilities."

Former US President Jimmy Carter has said Israel has between 200 and 300 nuclear warheads. A former Israeli scientist at Israel's Dimona nuclear site, Mordechai Vanunu, as well as aerial footage and decades of recurrent reporting have reaffirmed the possession.

The US has always supported Israel's policy of "nuclear ambiguity," in line with which Tel Aviv would neither confirm nor deny having the firepower.

Israel sensed a breach in the partnership two months ago when Washington supported an Egyptian proposal to hold a regional conference in 2012 on a nuclear-free Middle East.

The White House, however, said on Wednesday that US President Barack Obama had vowed to shield Israel from being "singled out" at neither the Egyptian-proposed meeting nor a September gathering of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), where the issue of Israel's nuclear weapons is expected to be top on the agenda, Reuters reported.

"We strongly believe that, given its size, its history, the region that it's in, and the threats that are leveled against us — against it, that Israel has unique security requirements," Obama as well noted.

Netanyahu heads to Obama talks

Source: Al Jazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/07/20107644151226524.html


Israel's prime minister is flying to Washington DC for talks with the US president as the two leaders look to downplay reported tensions between the allies over Israeli plans to build housing settlements in occupied East Jerusalem.

Barack Obama will host Binyamin Netanyahu at the White House on Tuesday, with discussions expected to focus the deadly raid on an aid flotilla, the blockade of Gaza, talks with the Palestinians, Israeli settlements and Iran.

The last time the two men met, Netanyahu was reportedly denied the privileges normally granted to visiting foreign dignataries, including the ritual hand-shake photograph.


But this meeting is likely to be a warmer affair than in March, with news coverage and a White House lunch planned for after the talks.

Dan Shapiro, a White House adviser, said that discussions in Washington will focus on "the progress that's been made so far in the proximity talks and the opportunity to make the transition into direct talks".


'Ready to meet'


Netanyahu is widely expected to tell Obama that he wants direct talks with the Palestinian Leadership over the stalled peace process.


"I am ready to meet [Palestinian] President [Mahmoud] Abbas today and tomorrow and the next day at any place," he said last week.


Direct negotiations have been frozen since December 2008, when Israel launched a 22-day offensive on the Gaza Strip that killed more than 1,300 Palestinians.


With mid-term elections scheduled in the US for November, Obama and other politicians are keen to appear cozy with Israeli leaders, as Democrats draw significant support from pro-Israeli forces in American domestic politics.


Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister and Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, met on Monday where they discussed "continuation of security co-ordination and economic co-ordination".


Both sides, however, said that the talks were separate from any direct or indirect negotiations on the preace process.


The March visit was soured by Israel's announcement of plans for 1,600 new housing units in occupied East Jerusalem during a visit by Joe Biden, the US vice-president, a move Washington called "insulting".


'Heart of the conflict'

Fawaz Gerges, a professor at London School of Economics, said that "the settlements lie at the heart of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict".

"This Israeli government has not given the international community, the American government or the Palestinian authority any reason to believe they are serious about the peace process," Gerges told Al Jazeera.

Yossi Shain, a profesor from Tel Aviv University, agreed that settlements were crucial, but told Al Jazeera that all parties must move on and recognise Israeli concessions on the issue.


"Netanyahu is the democratically elected leader of Israel, he already froze settlements and has to move ahead with Mr Obama," he said.


Last November, the Israeli government announced a 10-month suspension of new settlement building in the West Bank, but the move

Netanyhu and Obama are also expected to discuss Iran, where the US has recently imposed new sanctions.


'Iranian threat'

"Netanyhu is trying to convince the president that the Iranian threat tops any kind of a peace settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis," Gerges said.


"This has been a consistent Israeli strategy for the last two years.

"What the Americans now are saying is, and this is a very important point, is that what happens in the Israeli-Palestinian theatre affects the national security of United States.


"Many voices in America now are saying Israel represents a strategic liability rather than a security asset for the United States."

The Iranian issue is peripherally linked to the Palestinian conflict,

Shain said that the Palestinian conflict was only peripherially linked to the Iranian issue and was one area where the Israeli and US administration were currently in agreement.

"We have seen tremendous rapprochement on this [Iran issue]," he said.

"There is agreement on this issue. The sanctions that were imposed by the congress and signed by the president are certainly in line with the Israeli demand."