One-State or Two-State, that is the Question.

The initial proposal of the Partition Plan drafted by the UN in the form of Resolution 181 in 1947 was the first notion of a two-state solution, following the mass migration of Jews that caused clashes between those seeking refuge from the antisemitic movement in Europe and the native Arabs that were being displaced by the thousands because of this migration.

The proposal was based on separating the region based on ethnicity, however the Arabs immediately rejected the draft as it was unbalanced, providing the Jews with 56% of the land when they only comprised approximately 15% of the population. The Jews were initially unhappy with the UN Resolution because Britain promised them the entire region, but decided to accept it as their first opportunity to establish a homeland.

The Jewish decision was heavily influenced by the strong Zionist movement within their ranks. Arabs always considered Zionism a threat to the demographics of the region, especially following Jabotinsky's original account of the colonial plan of the region in his 1923 essay "The Iron Wall".

In the essay, Jabotinsky describes the behaviour of a native people towards the prospect of being colonized, which lead to the blunt realization that it would be impossible to expect a "voluntary agreement" with the Arabs. He realized the only way to achieve a state where the Jews were the masters of the land rather than a people absorbed within the population as a minority, was to use force.

Jabotinsky questioned it himself; why would the Arabs want to concede an area they inhabit for a colonial entity that wants to enforce a majority of its own? Why would any native throughout history ever want that? The only real solution to achieve colonization as he saw it, would require a "transfer" of Arabs in order to make the migrants the majority of the region. Even under British occupation and before that under the Ottoman Empire, Arabs were ruled by the respective authority's security forces, but the demographics were never threatened.

When conflict ensued following the proposal, the Arabs were not able to hold their position and maintain their territories only to concede it, which resulted in redrawing armistice lines and demilitarized zones. While some Arabs even now refuse to acknowledge the defeats they faced and stubbornly mention a non-negotiable one-state solution, those who do, feel they can only approach the conflict with one compromise based on the last known legitimate truce regarding borders; the Armistice "green line" Agreement of 1949, or popularly known as the pre-67 borders.

The one-state solution isn't ideal for Israel since the Arabs outnumber the Jews. It would mean a pure democratic process where all people who have a claim on the land, displaced or otherwise, have equal rights to vote and that would result in Arab leadership. Israel would face the same fate as the South African democratic process which ended white minority rule.

Ironically Israel claim it is the "only democracy" in the Middle East, yet a pure democratic process inclusive of all its people would deny Israel's entire existence. Democracy and Zionism therefore are mutually exclusive.

Fortunately for the Zionist movement, the Arabs are divided and do not possess the unifying strength to overpower Israel with its powerful backing of the United States, and therefore cannot force a hand in making such a bold claim for the one-state solution. Arabs have no other option but to approach the negotiation table with the two-state concept.

However, just as the Palestinian Papers have revealed, neither the issues surrounding the Right of Return, nor the ever-changing "land swaps" seem acceptable for Israel to agree to any terms that would make the two-state solution viable, regardless of the extreme concessions made by the Palestinian Authority (PA) even on key issues surrounding Jerusalem.

That's because the two-state solution doesn't really work for Israel either, even if the PA agree to all of Israel's preconditions. Zionism, as Jabotinsky puts it, is the colonization of the region, and any final agreement for a two-state solution would put an abrupt halt on the ongoing growth of the "Jewishness" of the land.

The real answer for Zionism is to maintain the status-quo. As long as they are in a state of conflict and the Palestinians don't have an official state, the Israeli government believe that the occupied territory can be annexed by Jewish-only settlements since there is no "official claim" to the land, regardless of what could potentially be part of a future Palestinian state.

The key question that arise from this dilemma is how Israel can get away with building settlements that encroach on a potential future state of Palestine. Even the United States government - Israel's only ally - has admitted that the core issue preventing peace negotiations from resuming is the ongoing settlement activities. These settlements have been deemed illegal by International Law as per the 4th Geneva Convention which was drafted for the protection of civilians, stating that an occupying entity must maintain the identiy and integrity of the occupied people on the land it occupies.

"Might is right" is the unfortunate reality. While the United Nations was established never to allow such atrocities to repeat itself as witnessed during WWII, it is ironically the very mechanism Israel is using to maintain this current state of conflict. That is because the US have in fact been guilty of being Israel's "lawyer", rather than their "honest broker" due to the Israel lobby in the US.

While rest of the world acknowledges the illegal settlements, the US with Israel have been able to stop UN Resolutions being passed in order to avoid halting the settlement activities. The UN Security Council voted to "immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory", but the US have been able to prevent it using a very powerful weapon given to them by the UN; the veto.

It is the very contradiction of democracy on the international stage. The ability to cancel any vote made by the nations of the world with a single trump card that can be used at the discretion of any of the five permanent member nations to control the world's decision-making by playing their political games for strategic advantages. Incidentally, the concept of permanent members only exists because the five members were part of an alliance that were the victors of WWII, which is clearly a sign that the very foundation of the UN is already outdated.

Ultimately, the veto is the true power behind world decisions, not the voices on the UN Security Council.

The best way to rectify such a deadlock in the Arab-Israeli conflict, is to have a "majority" vote in the UN rather than a concept of a veto, where the definition of "majority" could be determined based on the weighting of a nation's contribution to the UN Security Council.

That would end Israeli occupation in a heartbeat and the building blocks of a viable solution could finally transpire, whether it is to establish one state or two.

Is the solution for the West against ISIS to be passive?

The solution to the Middle East has never been one that needed bombing.The real problem lies with foreign funding.

Too many times in the history of the Middle East have we seen attempts to fight fire with fire only to see the flames increase. Terrorist groups like ISIS are looking for a fight. Don't give them one. They are isolated on the international stage and even the majority of Sunnis don't recognize them with any form of legitimacy.

There are too many political games being played via the UN where Russia and its bloc prevent the West from getting too involved and vice versa. The area is too critical for anyone to allow the other to have full control. When Assad was protected with a veto to protect his regime against the people's uprising, that's when the Syrian Spring went from civil disobedience, to protests, to violence, to radicalization.

Recent history has also shown that attempts to overcome political stalemate was by engaging in a proxy war i.e funding radicals to counter the radicals.

We saw it with Afghanistan where the Soviets funded one group and the Americans funded the other, creating a civil war which ultimately created the Taliban.

The first gulf war left Saddam Hussain in power and that only festered.

Israel's attempts to create discourse amongst the Palestinians by creating and funding Hamas to defy the PLO backfired on them.

Egypt's military regime receives the second largest foreign aid from the U.S. which makes it virtually impossible to have a democracy, even when the people tried, then failed.

Israel receives the largest foreign aid from the U.S. and we've seen what decades of war have done to the region with that funding.

The best solution is to stop pretending the West knows how to "solve the Middle East problem" and let them deal with it on their own.

The renaissance age that grew during the Fatimid era when the Arab world grew naturally, provided the world with science and philosophy, while Europe was busy burying "witches".

If we leave them to fight their own battles without puppet dictators or funded terrorists running the show, they might engage on a level playing field and eventually stability will come from the power of the people. It might not come overnight, but it needs to start sometime.

ISIS is only a result of a chain reaction that came from the Arab Spring where Assad was unchallenged. His regime was part of the alliance that formed with Nasser and called themselves the Arab League. That league was formed to break from the yolk of the monarchies that ruled the Middle East. Those monarchies were a product of WWI's dismantlement of the Ottoman Empire where the victors Britain and France played with the "spoils of war" by dissecting Arabia into the countries we see today and planting the seeds of subservient monarchs.

Terrorist groups like ISIS have never been the real problem, because when they are defeated another group like them will arise from the ashes unless the root cause is dealt with.

That root cause is "interference".

Why is Israel Considered a "Rogue" State?

There are a number of issues concerning Israel's commitment to adhere to international law. The jurisdiction of these concerns fall beyond Israel's own foreign policy and what it interprets as justified. Since the surrounding Palestinian Territories are not actually part of Israel's sovereignty, the international community has the authority to determine whether or not Israel is defying international law, regardless of what Israel defines for its own rules of engagement.

There are a number of concerns that the international community have raised, which Israel has ignored or refuses to take part in, which is why many deem Israel a "rogue" state.

Currently, Israel undergoes what is considered illegal settlement expansion in the territories it has occupied since 1967. These areas are found in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Occupation itself is not illegal, however the means in which Israel conducts its occupation of these territories has been deemed illegal based on the Fourth Geneva Convention.

There are currently about 500,000 Jewish colonists living in approximately 200 colonies in the West Bank. During the seven years of the Oslo peace process, the number of Israeli colonizers in the Occupied Territories increased by more than 50 percent. (AL Sep. 8. 2003. MDE 15/085/2003)

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states:

‘. . The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population in the territory it occupies.’

The UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1998 reiterated its view that "Israeli settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are not only illegal under contemporary international law but are an obstacle to peace and to the enjoyment of human rights by the whole population in the region."

According to Amnesty International. "the Israeli Army has destroyed some 4,000 Palestinian homes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as vast area of cultivated land, hundreds of factories and other commercial properties. roads and public buildings.” (MDE 15/091/2003)

Article 53, Fourth Geneva Convention states:

‘Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons... is prohibited.

Employees and mobile units of the PRCS and ICRC are regularly detained and harassed. Noteworthy violations include: A PRCS ambulance used as an assault shield by the IDF (Jan. 8, 2004): A tank assault on a PRCS ambulance, shattering the front windshield and injuring the driver (Jan. 28, 2004): During the destruction of the Jenin Refugee Camp in April, 2002. the ICRC was prevented from offering services to the injured and dying for six days.

Article 19 of the First Geneva Convention states:

'...Mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked. . .'

Article 24 of the First Geneva Convention states:

'Medical personnel exclusively engaged in the search for, or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded or sick... shall be respected and protected in all circumstances…'

More notably, Israel is one of only four states in the world who refuse to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The reason Israel refuse to be part in this treaty is because it has an undeclared arsenal of an estimated 80 nuclear weapons. The fact that the US Congress and Netanyahu refuses to address this issue while trying to punish Iran who is part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is developing legitimate civilian nuclear energy under this signed treaty is hugely hypocritical.

In 1965, Israel stole over 200-600 pounds of weapons-grade uranium from the United States.

Recently revealed documents prove not only that Israel has nuclear weapons, but actually tried to sell some to Apartheid South Africa. Who else Israel approached to sell nuclear weapons remains an unasked question.

Does Iran have Nuclear Weapons?

The main person pushing this idea is Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Israeli political leaders have been warning for more than 20 years that Iran is at a "breakout capability" for developing nuclear weapons.
It has developed into a boy-who-cried-wolf type scenario.



In 2012 Netanyahu stood before the UN General Assembly and promised that Iran were "within months" of developing a nuclear weapon.
In the most recent speech to US congress he said that negotiations with Iran were "paving the way for an Iranian nuclear weapon in a matter of weeks".

Netanyahu mentioned in his last speech to congress to ignore intelligence agencies, and to "just Google it". The reason why he doesn't want to rely on intelligence estimates is because according to both the US intelligence estimates and Israeli intelligence estimates Iran is not on a path to enrich uranium for the development of nuclear weapons, and in fact they've concluded that Iran have not even pursued research in that regard since 2003.

So what we keep seeing from Netanyahu in his speeches to the US Congress and the UN General Assembly is the same old rhetoric and fear mongering.

The fact that Iran has allowed the UN Nuclear inspectors to visit their uranium mines shows the level of ongoing cooperation Iran is willing to conduct, and that in itself shows these theories to be extremely weak.
U.N. nuclear inspectors in Iran to visit uranium mine

Netanyahu's insistence that Iran have no nuclear capability whatsoever including those that are illicit for it to have and to develop under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty points to the hypocrisy of his stance, since there are four nuclear rogue states who refuse to sign the treaty, one of those ironically is Israel.

The reason Israel refuse to be part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is because it has its own undeclared arsenal of an estimated 80 nuclear weapons. The fact that US Congress and Netanyahu refuses to to address this issue while trying to punish Iran who is part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is developing legitimate civilian nuclear energy under this signed treaty is hugely hypocritical.

Whats even more hypocritical is the stance the US has taken when it was the only nation in the entire history of mankind to actually use nuclear bombs on an entire population of civilians, twice, and has not been held accountable for the atrocities it inflicted in arguably the worst terrorist attack humanity has ever seen.

[cited: Josh Ruebner, Jewish-American author, political analyst]

Diplomacy or Militancy? That is the Question

A UN bid for the state of Palestine has been greatly debated with a significant split in opinions amongst Arabs regarding whether or not there is an advantage to Palestinian statehood.

Amongst many critics is the claim that a statehood based on the 1949 Armistice Agreement or "pre-67 borders" removes any legitimate claims for the Right of Return of 4.5 million Palestinian refugees currently residing on the outskirts of historic Palestine, and in countries such as Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan.

Naturally this would be a great advantage for Israel. So why is Israel afraid of a UN application if the Palestinians believe it removes legitimate claims for a large percentage of Palestinians who were invaded and violently displaced from their homes? Wouldn't removing responsibility for the refugee problem be exactly what the Zionist movement wants?

Currently Israel claims that Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank) is in fact "disputed" territory rather than "occupied" territory. By this definition, it would allow them to justify land annexation which from Israel's perspective, is by de facto "uncharted". This ultimately denies them seeing the reality, that it is in fact inhabited by the indigenous population of Arabs who have lived there for centuries.

The implication is extended further by proclaiming that there isn't any official recognition of West Bank borders because the Armistice Agreement was only just a truce, and in effect is not recognised by International Law. However there is one problem with this argument. Such a claim effectively defines Israel as a state without official border lines either, and only just an official state body.

Abbas himself has acknowledged that the final agreements for border negotiations cannot be done in the UN, so a simple bid for "official recognition" would suffice for the PA's cause with noteworthy mention that it should be based on the pre-67 borders and not defined by the borders. This creates a dilemma for Israel whereby having two recognised states as UN members with undetermined borders would result in a level playing field, and negotiations could resume between two official state bodies for any border lines.

That is completely outside Israel's comfort zone, especially when the dynamics of the region would significantly shift further away from the status quo that is sitting in their favour. That, along with the mounting pressures of international isolation could only mean political disaster for the state that already declared independence unilaterally in 1948.

On the flip side, there are those amongst the Palestinians, and Arabs in general, who refuse to believe in the legitimacy of the UN altogether because of the irony it demonstrates towards democracy from an organisation that fundamentally provides five permanent members with the ultimate power to overrule and destroy a resolution with a veto if they wish to do so.

However this argument is also flawed. Denouncing such an organisation plays a dangerous game which removes any argument proclaiming that Israeli settlement activities in the West Bank are indeed illegal, especially since they are defined as illegal by International Law based on the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is in fact endorsed by the United Nations.

There are those who also refuse to believe Israel exists altogether, and that denies the reality of confronting a very real opponent on any level. This forces the situation into a more militant scenario and as we have seen in previous attempts by Fatah's rivals Hamas, its almost like punching the Apartheid Wall with their own bare hands. Hamas have been popularly condemned for causing more harm than good to their people without any viable solution to end their plight.

While Fatah have also been condemned for the atrocities against the people of Gaza after the first and only democratic elections in the Strip, they have also been accused of rubbing shoulders with the West. This opinion has slightly changed amongst some as they heard first-hand Abbas' firm stance in front of the entire world against the diplomatic pressures made by the nations who have supported Fatah as a puppet regime. It might not have won their hearts completely, especially with memories of the betrayal exposed in the Palestinian Papers, however the evident defiance seems to have struck a chord.

With Fatah's approach through diplomacy to defy the powers that occupy the Palestinian people, and Hamas' approach through militancy to defy the powers that occupy the Palestinian people, there doesn't seem to be any other suggestions made by the critics except to play the waiting game for emerging powers in the region, which incidentally does not guarantee an honest alliance of any kind. The support of BDS movements can only provide a means to promote a general disapproval, however there are still no positive steps towards other forms of reform, regardless of whether it is to achieve a one-state or two-state solution.

A UN bid proves to be a rare political victory for Palestinians regardless of a result. A successful bid hastens the demise of legitimacy of Fatah and Hamas, who both lack the resolve to unify their establishments and their people, which in turn forces a hand for elections to take place for the official state body of Palestine; while a veto hastens the political isolation of the United States and Israel throughout the world, and especially in the EU where they have had stark negative responses for the earlier veto on halting illegal settlement activities in February. Saudi Arabia have also threatened to sanction the United States following the expected veto.

Regardless of the pros and cons of a UN bid and its effectiveness, the people must choose from a limited number of options to help achieve any kind of outcome: militancy, diplomacy or the waiting game in the hopes that some other external force tilts the balance of power in their favour before Israel annexes the entire region. This could create a limbo for the entire Palestinian population if we wait too long.

The Israeli deception

In light of a recent campaign by Israel's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Danny Ayalon, to try and justify the settlement expansions in the West Bank by considering the region "disputed" rather than "illegally occupied", there is one important point to note on his failure to mention the Oslo Accords of 1993 and the official agreement to recognize a Palestinian state around the 1967 borders.

This deception runs deep in Netanyahu's government.

Previously, Netanyahu himself has arrogantly described how his own lies were successful in removing relevance to this peace treaty, and how easily swayed the United States are into falling for his trickery.



The point here is that the current Israeli establishment works to find loop-holes in peace agreements made with the Palestinians to deny the rights of Arab legitimacy in the region. Being technically correct based on flaws or not, the fact that peace talks with the Palestinian Authority are not in good faith, in effect denies the state of Israel from being considered a "beacon of peace and hope" in the Middle East. Rather it is one of the causes of violence and oppression because of this deception.

How then can one question the Palestinians for working on establishing a sovereign state of Palestine unilaterally in front of the United Nations when there is evidence to suggest that they would have less of a chance with Israel's lack of cooperation?

Israel's Nuclear Armament

This article has been taken from Iran vs Israel: What the media wants you to forget

The corporate media have been given their orders to throw the focus back on to Iran.
Here is a recap of what they are trying to make you forget:

1. Last Spring, Rose Gottemoeller, an assistant secretary of state and Washington's chief nuclear arms negotiator, asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel refused.
2. The United Nations passed a resolution calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.
3. The IAEA asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.
4. Iran's formal notification to the IAEA of the planned construction of the backup fuel-rod facility underscores that Iran is playing by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran has signed.
5. Iran allows IAEA inspections of all its facilities.
6. Contrary to face-saving claims, it appears that the US and Israel were both caught off guard by Iran's announcement. The reasoning is simple. Had the US or Israel announced the existence of he new facility before Iran's notified the IAEA, it would have put Iran on the defensive. As it is now, the US and Israel seem to be playing catch up, casting doubt on the veracity of Israel's claims to "know" that Iran is a nuclear threat.
7. The IAEA and all 16 United States Intelligence Agencies are unanimous in agreement that Iran is not building and does not possess nuclear weapons.
8. In 1986, Mordachai Vanunu blew the whistle and provided photographs showing Israel's clandestine nuclear weapons factory underneath the reactor at Dimona.
9. Israel made the same accusations against Iraq that it is making against Iran, leading up to Israel's bombing of the power station at Osirik. Following the invasion of 2003, international experts examined the ruins of the power station at Osirik and found no evidence of a clandestine weapons factory in the rubble.
10. Recently revealed documents prove not only that Israel has nuclear weapos, but actually tried to sell some to Apartheid South Africa. Who else Israel approached to sell nuclear weapons remains an unasked question.
11. In 1965, Israel stole over 200-600 pounds of weapons-grade uranium from the United States.
12. Declassified documents from the former South African regime prove not only that Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades, but has tried to sell them to other countries

Letter of response to Obama's Speech

Friday, May 20, 2011

Dear Obama,

Your speech was very informative in raising awareness of our story of freedom, and as an Arab I very much appreciated it. It was as “hopeful” as the speech you gave in Cairo two years ago.

I could only truly falter one comment in an almost perfect speech. You mentioned that Palestine should be a “sovereign non-militarized state”. I foresee this proposal would be an exceptionally unpopular card to play in negotiations. If it is a matter of "trust", do you also believe that we as Arabs would trust Israel to be the only military force? Ironically, this is the current status-quo that cannot provide stability, and you mentioned the problem of instability in the very same speech.

Israel has shown time and time again that they cannot handle situations in a non-violent manner.
There is the matter for them to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as the subject on illegal use of white-phosphorous chemical weapons.

Could you not propose to make them non-militarised as well? That would most likely mean that international security would be required in the region until true stability is reached on either side when they are BOTH able to provide a legitimate defence force. That would definitely provide a peaceful solution for BOTH to enjoy.

This would of course also mean ownership of responsibility with regards to the U.S. foreign aid which is used specifically for the Israeli war machine that should be halted just as urgently as the illegal settlements you mentioned in your speech.

If there is no pure intention of “courage” to act on your powerful words, then it is otherwise a lovely display of smoke and mirrors.

Arabs are not entirely naïve and I hope respect and dignity will be shown to provide a level playing field in which both Arabs and Jews can enjoy the harmony they once experienced many centuries before colonisation plagued their lands.

I'm sure as a leader of an Independent country, you would most definitely agree.

Regards,
Adel Helal

Sent to the White House via http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

---

RE:

The White House, Washington

June 10, 2011 Dear Friend: Thank you for writing.  I have heard from many Americans concerned about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I appreciate your perspective.  I remain committed to a sustained diplomatic effort to promote peace in the region, because achieving a secure and lasting peace is critical not only for Israelis and Palestinians, but also for their neighbors and the United States.  Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict demands our immediate and continued attention.  For generations, the conflict has taken a terrible human toll, and continued instability in the Middle East makes us all less safe.  We must open a more hopeful chapter in the story of the Holy Land. Through comprehensive and sustained efforts, we can achieve the goal of two states:  a Jewish state of Israel and a viable Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.  This approach requires working with Israelis, Palestinians, and other stakeholders over the long term, and my Administration will do just that. I encourage you to join me online and read more about my Administration's approach to this complex issue and other critical foreign policy matters at:  www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/foreign_policy. Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts.  Sincerely, Barack Obama

Western interests in the Middle East

US foreign aid sent to Israel currently stands at a total of $3.6 billion annually which is the largest foreign aid given to any country in the world. With regards to budget for military aid alone, the following figures have been proposed for the next few years:

Military Aid to Israel FY2009-FY2018

• FY2009 $2.55 billion
• FY2010 $2.77 billion
• FY2011 $3.00 billion
• FY2012-2018 $3.09 billion annually

Source: U.S. State Department

This strong US support has been maintained for many decades and goes well beyond any Presidential administration. It is too strong an alliance for anyone to challenge, and as the Obama administration found, it is extremely hard to put pressure on Israel with a lobby seemingly embedded at the core of Congress.

This "Israel First" lobby is a result of a deal that the two nations struck when the US and Israel acknowledged they had common interests vital for strategic power in the Middle East that stemmed primarily from the 1967 Israeli invasions. This event was quickly followed by the significant influx of funds to help the new state thrive in military and agriculture.

Allowing Israeli control of the region results in the following two strategic benefits:

1. For the US: Instability in the region would lessen the threat of the Arab and Muslim world on the West. Arabs have two extremely important commodities that could potentially cause serious ramifications that would spread throughout the globe as had happened in the 1950's with the Suez Canal crisis and the embargo of the largest oil deposits in the world. Sanctions on either of these would give enormous power to any Arab demands.
2. For Israel: The Jews can fulfill their ancient religious beliefs of a Greater Israel and ultimately their prophetic "Promised Land".

Despite these advantages, Obama realises that persistent strain on the region may cause the bubble of power to burst and the "Arab Spring" revolutions have shown a potential breach in the stability of their dominance. However as Obama has realised this, his attempts to draw it to Netanyahu's attention has been spat back in his face.

The tension between Netanyahu and Obama from their back and forth dialogue was a result of the fear that the Arab revolutions might actually spread to Israel's occupation of Palestinian Territories.

Obama's Middle East speech was more an urgent cry to Israel to show some flexibility to their violent occupation, in the fear that Israeli rule could potentially be ousted just like Egypt's powerful dictator Mubarak was ousted - who incidentally received the second largest US foreign aid in the world totaling $2 billion annually to help silence the masses regarding the genocide occurring on the other side of their border.

In the eyes of the Israelis, his speech was a minor hiccup in an otherwise unblemished friendship.

Ultimately, this deadly alliance with the US government has helped Israel stand uncontested with regards to the ongoing land confiscations, home demolitions, settlement expansion, systematic deportations, civilian displacements, violent checkpoint misconduct, water resource reallocation, residency revocation, border blockades, airspace "no-fly" zones, and maritime seaport isolation, regardless of any condemnation coming from the International Community requesting Israel to adhere to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Complete support for Israel provides a significant boost to America's dominance internationally, however it is seriously affecting national responsibilities. It basically comes down to what would be considered more important for the United States: being a super-power, or providing their own citizens with a better lifestyle.

Priority on the latter seems to be the lesser of the two.

Obama is looking at solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the wrong angle. If the US pulls out funding for this balance of power, then the two parties might actually approach each other on a level playing field, and negotiations could then be taken seriously on both sides. At the moment it is just a staged formality. Israel is getting exactly what they want so why would they need to negotiate?

One would seriously doubt that a few blind Al-Qassam rockets over the borders are a threat against Israel, who incidentally is one of the top 10 most powerful military forces on the planet possessing state of the art tanks, Apache choppers, F16 fighter jets, anti-missile "Iron Dome", remote-controlled drones, heat-seeking missiles, white-phosphorous chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, and $3 Billion to spend on a force that provides the state with unlimited ammunition. Israel could quite literally take over Gaza, the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon in a matter of days if they decided to. Lets face it, they actually did invade those regions in just six days in 1967.

It is a pretty hard PR game to play to try and convince the world that Israel is trying to "defend" itself from being driven out to sea.

Unfortunately what has happened now is that this generous foreign aid has been taken for granted by the Israeli government, and they are not afraid to express their disapproval of US opinions if anything but their own unilateral policies are accepted. The US has no choice but to submit to the overwhelming pro-Israeli support in Congress.

"Since the peace process began with the Oslo accord of 1993, the number of Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank has risen from around 110,000 to more than 300,000. The government of Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu refused to agree even to the extension of a temporary halt, despite an offer of jet fighters worth billions of dollars. American aid has been running at around $8.5 million a day for many years but obviously doesn’t buy much influence."

[Bernd Debusmann - Reuters]

"For far too long many American officials involved in Arab-Israeli peace-making have acted as Israel’s attorney, catering for and coordinating with the Israelis at the expense of successful peace negotiations. If the United States wants to be an honest and effective broker ... then surely it can have only one client: the pursuit of a solution that meets the requirements of both sides."

[Aaron David Miller - Middle East negotiator and adviser, US State Department - Washington Post 2005]

Emily Hauser Political Writer speaks to RT

Terrorist acts

What does the U.S. government hope to achieve by all these raids on the cities of Afghanistan? Do they really think if they keep bombing Taliban resources with air and ground strikes they will hope to find Bin Ladin amongst the many dead bodies found after their assault? Over 30 innocent have already been reported on the second day of the “American Terrorist Act” including 4 United Nations’ representatives.
The U.S. has only shown the Middle East what has been constantly occurring for the past 50 years.

Gaining alliance with half the population of the world exclaiming, “You are either with us, or against us” provides a separation between supporters and non-supporters of the U.S. attacks.
If a nation fails to support the American occupation in Afghanistan, they are considered to be amongst those who commend ‘terrorist acts’.

The only thing these events have accomplished is to create a huge migration of refugees to the borders of Pakistan. The U.S. government is simply destroying the very aspects of freedom that these refugees need in the midst of their poverty.

Reports have mentioned this attack as simply a means of "unsettling" the Taliban forces. Though with all the U.S. government's promises of attacking Afghanistan in the past month, important Taliban leaders including Bin Ladin would have anticipated this attack weeks in advanced. These Taliban leaders would obviously be located in remote areas, far from these assaults.

These useless attempts of "unsettling" the Taliban, could be mirrored by the Sept. 11 attacks which contribute to the possibility that the cause was to also unsettle the American government. The U.S. claim those attempts proved to be a failure in “denting American pride”. What makes them think this attack would consequently unbalance the Taliban's overconfidence?

Successfully arresting Bin Ladin after so many buildings are crushed, and after so many people die in the aftermath, the U.S. government would rejoice in victory… what then?
Sentence Ossama Bin Ladin to life imprisonment? Execute a man who is willing to die for his extremist regime anyway? The only thing accomplished would be the rage of many more extremist supporters who would attempt to echo the efforts of September 11 in a far more brutal assault.

While the American government concentrates so firmly on Bin Ladin in a fit of rage, knowing their only goal is to confine him, they fail to see an outcome. The findings of why it was done in the first place were excluded.

Of the many interviews with White House representatives, the same conclusions were obtained. The simple theory that, “people like Bin Ladin cannot be reasoned with. They hold a sense of pure hatred towards America and its people” was enough for President Bush to order the attacks in Kabul. Yet a recent video released by the Taliban of a speech made by Bin Ladin, proclaimed that, in his own words Bin Ladin himself would not let the American people feel a sense of freedom in their own country so long as they continue to uphold their ridiculing views of the Arab world. Bin Ladin continues to say, “If there is no justice in the Arab world, there will be no peace between me and America”.

You don’t have to be a supporter of Bin Ladin’s brutal methodologies to understand that the U.S. government is going in the wrong direction. The solution that they are trying to find is far from their attempts in finding it.

As Bush so eloquently put it, “America was targeted for attack because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world”.

The results of these retaliations and the delusions of justification have only proven that terrorist acts don't necessarily have any distinction.

The Irony of 9/11

Safely to say, all Muslims as a whole completely condemn the taking of innocent lives. It is against all humanity and all reason on earth.

Sadly to say, the world we live in creates scenarios where such acts are carried out simply from pure hatred and despise. Unfortunately these acts occur on such nations as the United States for the deprivation of freedom that their government warrants on weaker nations. The U.S. government's persistence on sanctions proved only to back fire in their faces.

If it has not become obvious already, these attacks were aimed directly at the U.S. Government itself... What makes the U.S. government so powerful are the very buildings that were bombarded. It was an incident waiting to happen and no one is to be blamed but the U.S. government itself. While this government hides behind their civilians using remote weaponry such as nuclear ammunition against their enemies, extremists find their methods the only means of retaliation.

Many innocent people died that day, and all were mourned world wide. Not to mourn them would be regarded heartless, yet the world fails to notice the increasing death tolls of other nations who see these chain of events on a daily basis. Completely defenseless, these forgotten people are, if anything, among the accused for these horrific events in the U.S.

The U.S. President is so bold in proclaiming a promise that the "terrorist extremists" involved, would be wiped off the planet. What better way to threaten this group of people than with his atomic bombs, hence killing millions of other innocent men, women, and children.
Strange though that this act would be credited, and considered "justice" rather than act of hatred from another "terrorist extremist". But who could possibly call the President of the U.S. such a thing? The seemingly invulnerable defense of his government has proven to be vulnerable, and the President is acting out of pure hatred and despise.

The U.S. boasts about its power and greatness, yet this power is abused, only to use it as a means of threatening any nation that stands up to it. If the U.S. is a real pillar of strength they would have stopped the massacre of hundreds and thousands of innocent men, women, and children currently dying in places such as the West Bank and Gaza a long time ago. The onslaught that Israelis persist on having, continues to happen, and many people are powerless to help. The only nation capable of stopping this watches as these regions collapse in front of their own eyes.

"A state of siege has been imposed not only on the West Bank and Gaza, but also within these territories, to transform each village, town, and city into an isolated prison thereby destroying every aspect of human life, including economic, educational, health, and social cohesiveness in an attempt to sever every fiber of the fabric of normal life. Israeli occupation troops using tanks, helicopter gun ships, F-16s, military barges, and checkpoints not only render a whole Palestinian population captive in 64 isolated Bantustans, they also use the full force of their military power against a vulnerable and defenseless people. Daily, they shell Palestinian homes, assassinate Palestinian activists and leaders, destroy crops and fields, indulge in cold-blooded murder of children and other innocents while implementing a policy of deliberate humiliation and suffocation at every checkpoint...

Onslaughts on Christian and Islamic holy sites and activities while banning Palestinian worshipers from reaching their holy places of worship betray a willful policy of intolerance and a violation of the right and freedom to worship...

In Jerusalem, land expropriation, ID confiscations, home demolitions, withholding of building permits, and the importation of settler colonies within and around the city have become constant elements of Israel's demographic engineering through ethnic cleansing."

[Hannan Ashrawi - Spokesperson for Palestine]

With the U.S. Government providing the artillery to Israeli forces, what possible choice do the Palestinian resistance have? A rock to throw back...
Hardly an even contest, yet somehow a false symmetry has managed to be manufactured, and the media proclaims the calls on both sides to stop the violence as though they are both guilty of warfare.

With all these occurrences, who sympathizes? Only the Muslims and Arabs around the world, and those who know the truth. Many of us wish to stand up to these horrific violations of humanity, but are powerless to do so.

The U.S. government have the technology and the authority, along with the egotistic sense of power, yet are contempt with the current situations and only persist to allow these inhuman acts to continue.

There is no sense of guilt. The one nation that can help stop the occurrence of these crude incidents are not allowing a strand to fall out of place from their neatly brushed hair for the sake of those in need outside their own soil.

They feel the world must stand still on a heart beat for the sake of their own citizens, yet care nothing less for the people beyond their borders.

We Muslims and Arabs alike sympathize for the human race, and condemn anyone guilty of the crimes and punishments that occur around the world. If the U.S. fail to sympathize for us and for the rest of the world's war torn cities, then why do they expect the world to sympathize for them? Yet we all still do.

The people who argue these statements believe that as long as the Muslims and Arabs stay quiet they will gain the respect of the U.S. government. The fact is the U.S. have always portrayed us as an evil nation, and no matter what happens their media will continue to try to show this.

The real question is do the Muslims and Arabs really need the respect of a country that will never accept them no matter how hard they try to gain this esteem? If people want to listen they will listen.

We respect ourselves, our religion, our God, and our fellow people of the human race. That stands above all, no matter who we have to please to achieve it. We need to prove nothing, but simply believe that our nation is strong and will remain strong, as long as we believe it to be strong. No atomic bomb can overcome this strength.

We live in a world where many innocent lives are taken every day. Expecting someone to approach us saying everything will be fine, will prevent us from seeing the reality.