Oversion

((WHALE)) response to Robert Fisk with one more blast from Israel Palestine Inbox

Quite stark reportage from Robert Fisk. It does seem to be true, and it also
points only to an eventual obliteration of the Palestinians, over time perhaps.
Massive massacres paid for by the US, the payment already signed for
by the Obama Administration, despite their disapproval.

Any mention of it seems to be considered anti-Semitic.
There is very nearly a new law in Canada which forbids discussion.

I’m bringing it up hoping you’ll have some view on it, some thoughts on it,
that will make it seem less like an instance of the world having its head nailed to a board.
We’re supposed to sit back, pretend something, and then periodically watch
massive bombardments of trapped people.

The Palestinians have no move of any kind. If they fight they’re slaughtered
and the land is still taken; if they don’t fight the land is taken and they’re demeaned,
harassed, deprived of rights, and blamed. This seems very obvious to everyone.
So what are the rhetorical and realpolitik theories holding it all together?

So perhaps we admit, there are no “good guys” anywhere.
That all of the world is dominated by for itselfs, however defined,
that no one is the sweet shining moral way, and that everyone rides
in some sort of power structure, Canada’s golly gee nice guy ethos
presiding over containment strategies on First Nations and immigrant communities
keeping it all Sydney Crosby. While leaning into America’s grasp at the world
catching as catch can overseas, to gain from resources of other continents, “free trade”
as America battles on to keep a stake in nearly every country in the world,
fellow dolphin Canada also goes there and sets up it’s slightly more advantageous deal
and with the combined military backing for any objections as may arise.
But that’s just taking money from them, exhausting their resources
to live fine lives on yachts. All part of the free flow of commerce
and of the vast systems of coercions planet wide. Our system.

With millions of refugees flooding the world now, there’s probably nowhere to go.
One or the other living their dream of Jerusalem.

I’m pretty open to concepts and possibilities other than the inevitable gradual genocide.

Progressives could rally within Israel for instance. Netanyahu’s party gets nowhere near
a plurality of electoral support.

I’ve never actually known any Palestinians. Ive simply seen a few documentaries and
perhaps a movie. They’re the people that can’t exist, and they try to eke out a life anyway.
Past saying that, you have to leave behind generalization. Some would like to run a
small modest business and have families and live in peace; some would in fact
destroy Israel if they could.

So what is to be done?

The Prescriptive Journalist went out of fashion a century ago.
There was a time when a journalist writing a characterization of circumstances
so bracingly and harshly would feel organically behooved to launch into a
‘so this is what should happen.” It’s unfashionable to do that any more,
but intensity like that demands just that. Something that one could morally get behind.

The characterization of the Gulf States and France and Australia, Russia..
Who can want any of this world? It seems to be what humanity is.

Also, the intriguing way he makes it out to be the biggest “volcano”
among all those other stories, other wars and catastrophic disasters.
What’s he not saying? Is he suggesting it has impact elsewhere?
In a way that South Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, do not?
Does it change something in all the other equations?

Is there some other message that comes with this?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/paris-peace-conference-israel-palestine-settlements-two-state-solution-middle-east-impossible-a7529141.html

The Paris peace conference was beyond useless – everyone
knows a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine is
impossible now

Anyone who’s visited the West Bank these past few years,
looked at the Jewish colonies built on stolen Arab land,
witnessed the occupation and the filth of Gaza and observed
its brutal Hamas militia leaders – and realised that
Netanyahu will soon be the most
left-wing member of his increasingly racist government –
knows very well that the ‘two-state
solution’ vanished long ago

Robert
Fisk
@indyvoices
Monday 16 January 2017

As peace conferences go, this was the most miserable of all.
Pathetic, hopeless, hapless, woebegone, dead before its
time. Trump sent nobody, Netanyahu called it “the last
twitches of the world of yesterday”, the autocratic
Mahmoud Abbas didn’t bother to turn
up and Theresa May’s secretary of state for buffoonery
only sent a clutch of underlings. John Kerry, who said two
years ago that peace between Israelis and Palestinians had
at the most 18 months to succeed “or it’s over”,
announced lamely that the gathering
of 70 nations in Paris had “moved the ball forward” –
whatever that means. So what was it all for?

No doubt François Hollande – an emperor with no clothes
if ever there was one – wished to restore France’s place
among the nations while the EU nations and the Arabs wanted
to “twitch” one final time – if only to clear the
decks for failure and avoid all blame.
Two-state solution? Jerusalem as a capital? Occupation?
Land theft? Refugees? We gave it one last go. Can’t say we
didn’t warn you. Don’t blame us, guv’. Even the
Russians only sent their Paris ambassador to the “peace”
conference. But what did they all expect?

That Trump’s new ambassadorial stooge to Israel would
choose to stay in Tel Aviv? That Benjamin Netanyahu, the
Coloniser and Settler-in-Chief, would make no more
territorial demands? That the Palestinians, losing acres by
the day to Israeli land theft but saddled
with a leader whose legitimacy depends on Israel rather
than them, would restart negotiations with their occupiers?
And so it came to pass that the great and the good in Paris
spoke thus: thou shalt not prejudge the outcome of
negotiations by taking unilateral
steps. And this, announced a French spokesman, was a
“subliminal message” to Trump.

Ye Gods! Trump doesn’t receive “subliminal messages”.
He sends tweets. “Stay strong Israel.” How do you answer
that? But maybe the lads and lasses in Paris got the
message. Not once did they utter the word “occupation”,
let alone “apartheid”. Why, they didn’t
even mention the little matter of moving the US embassy to
Jerusalem. This would be “inappropriate”, quoth the
mighty Kerry. And this was supposed to be a “strong
message” to the Prime Minister of Israel (clearly Trump)
and the President of the United States
(obviously Netanyahu) that the two-state solution really
was the only game in town.
And so the Palestinian tragedy continues its slide down the
domestic news schedules – to Israel’s delight –
sandwiched somewhere between hospital trolley deaths and
academy awards, but way behind Trump and Putin, Russia in
the Middle East, Isis, Brexit, European
migrants and global warming. The world’s biggest volcano
is bubbling away in Palestine but one of the world’s
largest icebergs is about to break off from the Antarctic.
Guess which gets the bigger headline?

What has got into our leaders? Theresa May’s charlatans
are worried that the Paris conference may “harden”
Palestinian positions – may “harden” the Palestinians,
for heaven’s sake – while Australia continues to view
Obama’s first veto on a UN anti-settlement
resolution as “deeply unsettling”. It seems that
Malcolm Turnbull finds it unsettling to discuss Israeli
settlements while everyone else finds the settlements
unsettling. So which is worse: Turnbull’s pusillanimity or
May sucking up to the Kremlin’s top spy-to-be
in the White House? No British Mandate in Palestine for
her.

Seriously though, what was it all about? Anyone who’s
visited the West Bank these past few years, looked at the
Jewish colonies built on stolen Arab land, witnessed the
occupation and the filth of Gaza and observed its brutal
Hamas militia leaders – and realised
that Netanyahu will soon be the most left-wing member of
his increasingly racist government – knows very well that
the “two-state solution” vanished long ago. Why, did we
really think it would survive the political surgery of our
beloved former Middle East
panjandrum, Tony Blair? As he would say if he was honest,
the whole charade is “absolutely and completely”
over.
And the rest of the Arabs? Oh lordy, lordy. We embrace the
head-choppers of the Gulf, the dictator of Egypt and the
“rebels” of Syria. We sell weapons to the Saudis to bomb
the Yemenis – which may “harden” the Yemeni position
quite a lot – and send money to
Lebanon to keep the Syrian refugees in situ because their
further presence among us would be “deeply unsettling”.
We loved the rebels of Aleppo and hate the rebels of Mosul
and any comparison between them would no doubt be highly
“inappropriate”. Now that’s
a “subliminal message” if ever there was one. It’s
called “moving the ball forward”.

014a

Advertisements

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: