Skip to main content

In a big week, Bibi comes to town.....

First Palestinians and Syrians breached Israeli borders last weekend - and in the process Israel killed some 15 of them.

This week Bibi comes to the USA where he will meet Obama, address the US Congress and APAIC's annual conference. Meanwhile Obama is scheduled to make a statement on the situation in Arab countries and also try and ignite the now moribund Palestinian-Israel peace talks.

A roundup of commentary on what could be more than an "interesting" week.

"Frankly, we do not see how Mr. Obama can talk persuasively about transformation in the Arab world without showing Palestinians a peaceful way forward. It is time for Mr. Obama, alone or with crucial allies, to put a map and a deal on the table. The two sides will not break the impasse by themselves.

This is a singular moment of great opportunity and challenge in the Arab world. The United States and other democracies cannot dictate the outcome but must invest maximum effort and creativity to help shape it. There is no one-size-fits-all doctrine for dealing with disparate countries. The United States and its allies are right to balance values and strategic interests."

The New York Times editorial

"Obama, in turn, decided to use the Arab spring, and Osama bin Laden's assassination, to resume his charm offensive in the Middle East. There is much speculation about what he will say in his Mideast speech, but all indications are that – for now – he will only pay lip service to the two-state solution. His national security adviser, Tom Donilon, has already declared that Palestine must be established through negotiations – thus accepting Netanyahu's key demand and giving Israel a de facto veto on Palestinian independence. Netanyahu will probably get his standing ovation in Congress, and Obama will refrain from giving him a dressing down. Their showdown will be postponed; re-election takes precedence in Obama's mind.

But Netanyahu's diplomatic victory may be counterproductive. Reality is decided on the ground, not in Washington or New York. As the Nakba day protest across Israel's borders withSyria and Lebanon on Sunday – resulting in the death of several protesters – has shown, Palestinian frustration might well build into a third intifada, regardless of whether the Palestinians get UN recognition, and fight to implement it, or if their diplomatic gambit fails. And here lies Netanyahu's real problem: he can get the US on his side but he's got little to offer the Palestinians that might satisfy their quest for independence. Another round of Israeli-Palestinian conflict is therefore more likely as September approaches."

Aluf Benn in writing "Netanyahu and Obama: is this the final showdown?" in The Guardian.

"The fourth is that the Palestinian refugees are not likely to remain quiet if their interests are sidelined by Israel or by a Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations in September that fails to address their concerns.

The protesters in Syria and Lebanon showed that they will not be pushed to the margins of the Palestinian Arab Spring. That message will not be lost on either Hamas or Fatah as they begin negotiations to develop a shared strategy over the next few months.

And the fifth lesson is that the scenes of Palestinian defiance on Israel's borders will fuel the imaginations of Palestinians everywhere to start thinking the impossible - just as the Tahrir Square protests galvanised Egyptians into believing they could remove their dictator.

Israel is in a diplomatic and strategic dead end. This weekend it may have got its first taste of the likely future."

From "Is Israel at a Strategic Dead End as Palestinian "Arab Spring" Arrives?" on AlterNet

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...