Posted on September 26, 2012
Israeli Apartheid | by Latuf
Source: Roi Tov
At the 2012, 67th UN General Assembly, Israel Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu became irrelevant. The most overwhelming
sign of this were surprising commentaries in the Hebrew media. Despite
its main editors being under Netanyahu’s control, the media’s main
concern was what will Palestine President Mahmoud Abbas say and do.
Politically, Israel became subjugated to Palestine. This was the result
of dramatic events surrounding the UN General Debate. Israel publicly
lost the support of its main ally—the USA—on the issue of an attack on
Iran; it faces adiplomatic attack from its neighbor Egypt, and fears a Palestinian announcement on thedismantlement of the Palestinian Authority.
Netanyahu is not the man to face such harsh reality with equanimity; in
fact Israel panicked and brought out a confused plan to trick Mahmoud
Abbas into delivering a pro-Zionist speech. To fulfill this
Machiavellian plan, Israel recruited a Jewish Professor of Law at
Harvard Law School. But, I’m rushing ahead.
Prologue: The Entire World is Against Netanyahu
President Obama at UN 67th General Assembly
Apparently, President Obama gave up on the Jewish vote for the
imminent U.S. presidential elections. After all, never in American
history had this minority decided the election’s fate (seeRomney, Obama, and the Israeli Vote). Obama is not well-seen in Israel, where he is a popular target of
racist caricatures. According to Hebrew media, Obama and Netanyahu have
nil personal relations between them; both gave up on an improvement.
This is to such an extent that president Obama gave up not only on the
Jewish vote, but also on the Jewish money which is much more influential
during a presidential campaign. Oddly enough, this made President Obama
free to pursue American interests.
In recent months Netanyahu was trying to obtain a formal statement
from president Obama regarding the red lines that if crossed by Iran
would lead to an attack against it by the USA. The details requested by
Netanyahu included uranium enrichment levels and weapons development.
One week before the beginning of the UN General Assembly, Netanyahu said
“the sooner we establish [red lines], the greater the chances that
there won’t be a need for other types of action.” He was referring to
military actions by Israel and the USA against Iran. Secretary of State
Clinton replied on the same day “we’re not setting deadlines.” This was
emphasized by White House spokesman Jay Carney “It is not fruitful as
part of this process to engage in that kind of specificity.” In other
words, Netanyahu cannot start a war on Iran. He can’t even threat since
he obviously lacks support from America. The USA won’t sacrifice two
million sons for the sake of Israel’s belligerent goals.
As expanded in UN General Assembly: Egypt hits Israel,
the next one to spoil Israel’s game was Egyptian President Mohammad
Morsi. In an interview to the New York Times, which preceded his UN
speech, he said “If Washington is asking Egypt to honor its treaty with
Israel, he said, Washington should also live up to its own Camp David
commitment to Palestinian self-rule.” In other words, he politely
accused Israel of not honoring the peace agreement. Under such
circumstances, Egypt cannot be expected to observe it. Netanyahu faces
also a third threat, by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who is
threatening to dismantle the Palestinian Authority if the peace talks
with Israel don’t advance. The result of such a step would be a Third
Intifada, which will make the first two look like pale rehearsals to it.
Sweating profusely, Netanyahu pulled out of a dusty Mossad drawer an
Israeli Peace Plan | by Latuf
On September 24, 2012, Mahmoud Abbas met American Jewish leaders in
New York. Among them was Alan Dershowitz, who is a Felix Frankfurter
Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. A supporter of Israel,
Dershowitz asked Abbas to adopt the formula he had proposed on June 3,
2012, in a Wall Street Journal editorial and is known as the “Dershowitz
Formula.” Less dramatic than its name, it specifies the conditions for
the renewal of the negotiations between Israel and Palestine. Israel,
American Jews and Dershowitz himself claim he is in a perfect position
to make a fair offer that will be accepted by both sides. Considering
his Zionist connections, this claim is highly dubious.
The formula was stated by Professor Dershowitz as “Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu should now offer a conditional freeze: Israel will
stop all settlement building in the West Bank as soon as the Palestinian
Authority sits down at the bargaining table, and the freeze will
continue as long as the talks continue in good faith.” As typical in Jewish affairs,
oral conditions were included. In the meeting with Abbas, the Jewish
leaders requested Abbas to “recognize the Jewish link to Israel.” In
other words, the Jewish leaders asked the Palestinians to recognize
Israel’s Law of return, which defines automatic citizenship to any Jew
arriving at Israel. Typically, Israel never defined accurately “Who is a
Jew?” This semantic trap allows the Israeli Administration to do what
it pleases, regardless of its own laws.
Why should a Jewish-American law professor be considered a fair
facilitator in the renewal of the Palestinian-Israeli talks? Not even he
is smart enough to answer this. Moreover, he showed an astounding
amount of “chutzpah”—Hebrew for “insolence”—when asking something for
nothing. We have been there. Israel froze the settlements’ expansion a
million times. Every time it violated the fragile agreement achieved
with the Palestinians; the last time this happened was in 2011. There is
no reason to believe this time Israel will behave differently. In
exchange, Israel requests an important declaration from the Palestinians
which would be impossible to deny afterwards.
Netanyahu is trying to distract Abbas, trying to convince him to drop
what will probably be an historical speech and replace it with a
pro-Zionist speech. Will Abbas succumb to this entrapment attempt?
Thanks to: http://jhaines6.wordpress.com