MAY 2004

it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete
> return to the armistice lines of 1949 ... It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities. (emphasis added) This is a shameful capitulation. As the Reuters story notes, the statement overturns in one stroke almost 40 years of official U.S. policy -- a policy Shrub's father actually showed a fair amount of political courage in defending. For decades, Israeli leaders (Likud and Labor alike) have worked to create those "new realities on the ground" -- as the statement, with the usual neocon arrogance, describes them -- through illegal land expropriations, relentless discrimination against Palestinian landowners, and lavish government subsidies for Jewish settlers. And for decades, the U.S. government has refused to accept Israel's bully boy tactics, despite the relentless, continuous efforts of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington.
>
> That's gone now -- and probably for good, as I'll explain in a moment. Today's statement essentially guts the road map (itself a largely gutless process) by deleting the essential principle that the final status of the territories will not be determined by unilateral action on either side (which in the real world, means on the Israeli side.) It also negates the fundamental premise of UN Resolution 242 --   the bedrock of all peace efforts over the past 40 years -- that territory will not be acquired by force.
>
> Indeed, Sharon actually ends up with something better than an approved settlement list from Bush. He gets virtual carte blanche to keep any settlement he wishes to keep -- and indeed, to grab any part of the West Bank he wishes to grab, as long as it can be connected in some way to those "existing major Israeli populations centers." And if you know anything about Israel's settlement policies in the occupied territories, you know how good they are at connecting things.
>
> By stipulating, in the broadest possible way, the "facts on the ground" that must be incorporated into any final status agreement, the neocons have made a complete mockery of the U.S. commitment to a viable Palestinian state:
>
> The United States supports the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent, so that the Palestinian people can build their own future in accordance with the vision I set forth in June 2002 and with the path set forth in the roadmap.
> And what must Sharon do in return for all these concessions. Precisely nothing:
>
> The Government of Israel is committed to take additional steps on the West Bank, including progress toward a freeze on settlement activity, removing unauthorized outposts, and improving the humanitarian situation by easing restrictions on the movement of Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities. (emphasis added.) And who will define these weasel words -- additional steps, progress
> toward, easing restrictions? Who will decide how many illegal outposts will have to be removed? Take a wild guess. And since, as the Marines have been learning in Fallujah, entire populations can be engaged in "terrorist activities," it appears whatever minimal constraints the statement imposes on Israeli conduct in the territories can be easily side-stepped.
>
> The same logic apparently applies to the West Bank Wall -- the euphemistically named "security barrier" that Israel is constructing around and through the territory, cutting thousands of Palestinians
> off from their land, their villages and their neighbors. The wall, the statement says, must be a security, rather than a political barrier -- "as the Government of Israel has stated."
>
> Consider the Orwellian implications of that last statement. If the Israeli government says the wall is merely a temporary security measure, then that's what it must be -- no matter where it runs or
> how long it stays up.
>
>

To call this document the most craven, under-handed and one-sided agreement ever negotiated by the U.S. government would be unfair. There are, after all, those 19th century Indian treaties to take into account. But it's pretty clear that, rumors of their demise notwithstanding, the neocons are alive and kicking, and still have a death grip on the U.S.-Israeli relationship. It seems almost
> inconceivable to me that having plunged America into the bloody quicksand in Iraq, the neocons are now to receive as their reward an only modestly reduced version of their dream of a Greater Israel. Fuck up and move up indeed.
>
> The net result of this nasty little backroom deal won't just be further violence and random butchery in the territories and in Israel proper. It's also going to contribute to the progressive degeneration of the war against terrorism into the war against the Arabs -- if not the war against the entire Islamic world. The line in front of the Al Qaeda recruiting office is going to get a little bit longer; the struggle to stabilize a rebellious Iraq is going to become a little harder, and a future in which a large part of a major American city disappears in a nuclear firestorm is going to become a little more > likely.
>
> But the worst thing about this neocon smash-and-grab job is that it's probably irreversible. In the loopy world of the "special relationship," a presidential statement like this is regarded as the equivalent of a treaty with Israel ("Ratification? We don't need no stinkin' ratification!") It's a commitment that can't be walked back by any subsequent administration -- not without triggering the mother of all battles with the America Israel Political Action Committee and its various assets and instrumentalities on Capitol Hill.
>
> So there you have it: George W. Bush, the accidental president, has now locked the United States into permanent, full-fledged support for the creation of an apartheid Israel -- complete with bantustans. And even if Bush gets the pink slip in November, there doesn't appear to be a damned thing John Kerry can do about it, even if he wanted to, which I strongly suspect he would not.
>
> An ironic consequence is likely to be a fairly abrupt switch in the political rhetoric of the two opposing camps. Having spent his political career arguing that there must never be a Palestinian state in any part of Eretz Israel, Ariel Sharon is now going to insist on one. And the PLO, having lost any hope for even a viable bantustan, is likely to return to its original demand for a single, secular, democratic state, organized on the principle of one person, one vote and (if Chairman Arafat had his way) one time.


>
> Even more ironically, the only way the short-term consequences of this catastrophe can be mitigated is if Likud Party members reject Sharon's withdrawal plan in a scheduled May 2 referendum. This would at least would keep the pot from boiling over right away.
>
> Right now, the vote is expected to be close -- although Bush's endorsement may be enough to push Sharon over the top. There are still plenty of Likud bitter enders who insist on owning every square inch between the Jordan and the sea. The settlers movement is also loaded for bear (which means Ariel Sharon better remember Yitzak Rabin's mistake and be extra careful with his personal security.)
>
> Politics definitely does make strange bedmates, when a old Peace Now supporter like me is rooting for the ideological partners of Kahane Chai to win an election. But what the peace camp desperately needs right now is to prevent another fait accompli like the one that went down in Washington today. A year from now, Sharon and Bush may both be gone, and Israelis and Palestinians alike may be more willing to give peace -- real peace -- another chance.
>
> A forlorn hope, I know -- but better than no hope at all. Unfortunately, no hope is what I think we can realistically expect from the political process here in America. Bush's statement marks the effective end of any realistic chance that the United States will play a constructive role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Washington truly is Likud-occupied territory now, and resistance is almost certainly futile. For all intents and purposes, the world's only superpower has been bound and gagged.
>

A Higher Law

George W. Bush, man of principle:

Move Could Help Bush Among Jewish Voters

Republican officials in Washington said that while they are confident Bush made his decision for sincere policy reasons, they believe the potential impact on the politics of 2004 could be substantial. "This will make it that much harder for John Kerry to win Florida," said a Republican aide on Capitol Hill who refused to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue. Associates said Bush's strategists believe that even small inroads into the Jewish vote could mean the difference between winning and losing Florida, and several Republicans believe the announcement could further inhibit Kerry's fundraising in the Jewish community.

How can something as trivial as the war against Al Qaeda possibly compare to winning Florida's 27 electoral votes -- especially something as important as the right of 100,000 or so Israelis to live the Southern California lifestyle in the middle of a sea of impoverished Palestinian is also at stake?

John Kerry knows the buttered side from the dry, too:

That Bush's move was good politics was evidenced by Democratic rival John F. Kerry's quick move not to let Bush outflank him among pro-Israel voters.

"I think that could be a positive step," the Massachusetts senator said, approving of the Bush-Sharon action regarding both refugees and Israel's borders. "What's important obviously is the security of the state of Israel, and that's what the prime minister and the president, I think, are trying to address."

It strikes me that bin Laden has been going about this all wrong. If he'd just started his own PAC, and spread enough money around, he probably could have gotten Congress to vote to blow up the World Trade Center.

I mean, why bother with suicide bombers when you've got both major political parties on your side?

A friend of mine likes to call the Israeli-Palestinian issue the "Death Valley" of American progressives -- a hellish, blasted wasteland that sucks the life out of anyone who tries to cross it. Better not to go there, and instead work the land that can be watered and tilled: health care, the environment, econoimc policy, etc. And for a long time I thought that was good advice.

But since 9/11, I've come to think that the desert has to be crossed, otherwise the gradual descent into an endless war in the Middle East is going to doom whatever slim hopes there may be for a revival of progressive domestic policies in this country -- much as the coming of the Cold War did after World War II.

Combine that with the fact that the suitcase nuke that will obliterate downtown Washington has probably already been made, and is just waiting patiently for the first terrorist to get his hands on it, and it's pretty clear "Death Valley" is spreading faster than the Sahara -- gobbling up our futures and probably our childrens' future as well.

I was in a car crash once, when I was much younger, and the sensation I have now is the same one I had in the moment before impact, as I watched that telephone poll hurtling towards my windshield. It was an odd, detached moment -- like watching someone die in a movie -- and my last thought was something like "oh well."

Physics saved my life that day -- the truck I was driving was heavy enough, and moving fast enough, to break that telephone poll like a toothpick. I walked away with a broken nose and a slight concussion. But I'll always remember that moment of helpless resignation, when I realized there was nothing I could do to stop the crash.

It doesn't look like this crash can stopped, either. I guess that's one of the essential elements of tragedy -- the disaster can be seen but not avoided. Maybe it's the same feeling that John O'Neill had as he ran back into the South Tower that day, knowing what he had feared most had come to pass. I don't know. When the next major attack hits America, and the pressure to retaliate with genocidal force becomes impossible for our rotten political system to resist, maybe then I'll know.

I'm left at a bit of a loss here. What is to be done? The Popular Front isn't looking like a very viable proposition at the moment. Maybe it's just time to sit back and see whether the metaphorical truck breaks through the Middle Eastern telephone poll -- or wraps itself around it, turning the passengers into jelly. "Oh well."

> Posted by billmon http://billmon.org/



Sharon is a 'war criminal' who ordered his troops to use methods of barbarism against the Palestinians...  It is time to remind Sharon that the Star of David belongs to all Jews and not to his repulsive government.   His actions are staining the Star of David with blood. -- Gerald Kaufman, veteran Labour MP and Britain's most prominent Jewish parliamentarian - London, April 17, 2002