America is not an honest broker in the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Throughout the varied and violent history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, American reporters have consistently characterized the US’s involvement by way of a kind of national superhero: he is…the Honest Broker!

Who is this Honest Broker, you ask? A real stand-up fella, that’s who! The Honest Broker is a measured, impartial mediator — simply helping the Israelis and the Palestinians get along, and very much dedicated to facilitating a swift, and efficient peace-process!

Back in March, The Honest Broker hit the headlines again, as a supposed confrontation between the U.S. and Israel reared its head. The source of the beef? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “walk back” from his pre-reelection support of a two-state solution, which President Obama claimed was “unacceptable.” Esteemed outlets like The Atlantic, POLITICO and the New York Times wasted no time in penning articles chastising Bibi, while lauding the Obama Administration for rhetorically sticking it to the hypocritical politician.

The Honest Broker saves the day!

The only problem with The Honest Broker is that he’s a work of total fiction. The national media’s peddling of this absurd nationalist caricature horribly misrepresents our actual relationship to the conflict. In truth, the U.S. is probably the biggest force blocking the peace-process, not facilitating it:

America: An “Honest Broker” for Peace?  

Actions speak louder than words — or so we’re told. There’s no doubt that, in terms of rhetoric, the Obama Administration has been incredibly supportive of a two-state solution. On March 14th, 2015, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that Obama was “committed” to the creation of a sovereign Palestine. As quoted by the International Business Times:

// //


The position of the United States with respect to our long-expressed hope, [among] the Republicans and the Democrats alike [and] many presidents of the last 50 years or more, has always been for peace, and President Obama remains committed to a two-state solution.

While this sentiment was nothing new — past speeches made by Presidents Clinton and Bush, along with Obama, show concerted harmony on the issue — it was interesting given how little it reflected policy decisions.

For instance, approximately three months before Kerry said this, he was instrumental in the U.S.’s rejection of a proposal from the UN security council to recognize Palestine as its own state along the 1967 borders. The resolution would’ve ended Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and set a three-year timeline to establish a sovereign Palestinian state. At the time, in late December of 2014, the U.S. threatened it would veto any resolution with “unilateral moves.” These “moves” were described as any language that might indicate:

  • Setting a timeframe for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank
  • Recognizing Palestine as a member state of the UN

This is not new behavior for the Obama administration. The president personally made a bid to block a two-state solution in 2011, and has — as a matter of general principle — perpetually sought to undermine the legitimacy of Palestinian nationhood. A report from CommonDreams on the veto record of Susan Rice gives a pretty clear account of the U.S.’s role in the peace process since early in Barrie’s presidency:

In December 2009, the U.N. General Assembly passed 18 resolutions on “The Question of Palestine” which, among other things: reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people over their natural resources, including land and water; reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and their independent State of Palestine; reaffirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem; and reaffirmed that Israel’s settlements in Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and economic and social development. The United States under President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Ambassador Rice, voted against each of these resolutions. Overall, Obama, Clinton, and Rice, by voting with Israel, voted against 16 of 18 General Assembly resolutions in 2009, which were otherwise approved by an overwhelming majority of U.N. member states.

Since then, things haven’t changed much. In 2014, the U.S. voted against and/or abstained from action in 14 UN resolutions to give general assistance to Palestinian refugees, and to assist in the remedying of the human rights nightmare occurring in the occupied territories. The majority of the International Assembly urged the U.S. to aid in the fallout from:

…the conflict in and around the Gaza Strip in July and August 2014, and the civilian casualties caused, including the killing and injury of thousands of Palestinian civilians, including children, women and the elderly, as well as the widespread destruction of or damage to thousands of homes and civilian infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, water, sanitation and electricity networks, economic, industrial and agricultural properties, public institutions, religious sites…

Despite these pleas from over 160 countries, and despite the fact that 2014 was the most deadly year for Palestinians since 1967, the U.S. abstained from or voted against draft resolutions to send aid to Palestinian refugees, to decolonize the Syrian Golan and to allow displaced Palestinians to return to their homes.

Of course, in case you’re looking to blame this all on President Obama, it’s important to acknowledge that his position is not unique. Our efforts to undermine Palestine date back to the 1970s when our relations with Israel became especially friendly. If actions truly speak louder than words, then the U.S. has been pretty loud (albeit not at press conferences or in televised speeches) about what it actually wants. The full list of security council vetoes that the U.S. has cast over the decades is staggering for its consistency, the aim of which is simple: no two-state solution.

Unofficial U.S. Policy: Protecting Israel, Unconditionally

By contrast, the degree to which the U.S has supported Israel is truly mind blowing. We are, in many ways, solely responsible for its continued existence in the Middle East, in that we subsidize massive sectors of their tech industry, their infrastructure and economy; we bolster their population with immigration programs, and we are pretty much the only country that defends their breach of international law. We also quietly ignore Israel’s unofficial nuclear program.

Yet the most striking expression of our unbridled enthusiasm is the U.S.’s massive subsidization of Israeli defense systems. Analyst Jeremy Sharp reported that “U.S. military aid” over the decades has effectively turned Israel into a military state, and that we have “helped transform Israel’s armed forces into one of the most technologically sophisticated militaries in the world.” This massive financial assistance program is part of the U.S.’s agenda of giving Israel a “qualitative military edge” (QME) over “neighboring militaries.” QME is a concept unique to Israel, into which untold funding and legislation has gone. Some of this legislation and funding includes:

  • A mandate obligating the U.S. President to conduct an “empirical and qualitative assessment” of Israel’s QME, and to report the findings to the Israeli government every four years.
  • Laws prohibiting U.S. arms contractors to sell to any countries in the Middle East that may “adversely affect Israel’s qualitative military edge.” If you consider how absurdly powerful the U.S. arms industry is, this is a huge deal.
  • Hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies for various Israeli defense programs: these include state of the art anti-rocket systems like the Iron Dome, David’s Sling and the Arrow programs; a number of F-35 Joint Striker Fighters; batteries for homing Hawk and Patriot missiles; X-Band radar to detect airborne attacks; and much, much more.

Out of all of these subsidies, however, nothing is more symbolic of the U.S.’s unconditional support for Israel than the fact that Arabs are literally being killed with American bullets. Not only does the U.S. subsidize Israel’s defense systems, but it stockpiles $1.2 billion worth of its own military equipment in Israel for emergency use, and for Israel’s use in times of war. As Israel is perpetually in a state of war, it uses this equipment. A lot. During Israel’s 2006 conflict with Lebanon, for instance, it was American tanks, missile launchers and machine guns that were used in a conflict that left thousands of Lebanese civilians wounded and dead. The use of American firepower had to be, and was, specifically authorized by the United States.

Benjamin Netanyahu and John Boehner, via Creative Commons

Benjamin Netanyahu and John Boehner, via Creative Commons

This bolstering of Israeli military might is foreseeably endless. In 2007, the Bush administration agreed to sponsor “a 10-year, $30 billion military aid package for the 10-year period from FY2009 to FY2018” to Israel. Since then, we’ve shown no signs of slowing down. Obama agreed to continue Bush’s aid package, and his proposed aid to Israel for 2015 reportedly dwarfs all other foreign military funding (FMF) worldwide, accounting for a little over half of the U.S.’s total FMF for the year. As Sharp reported, “Annual FMF grants to Israel represent 23% to 25% of the overall Israeli defense budget,” making the U.S. the indispensable sponsor of Israel’s militant initiatives. Furthermore, this is just the the most recent stage of a subsidization process going back decades — one that makes Israel:

…the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $121 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance.

What We Get Out of It

That’s a lot of dough, and the U.S. doesn’t give away billions of dollars out of the goodness of its heart. We always want something in return. Benefits of our military assistance may seem obscure at first, but some consideration of the mutual goals of Israel and the U.S. provide answers. What do we get?

  • Geo-strategic Positioning. This is the big one. In a region of timeless political/economic significance, the U.S.’s relationship with Israel gives us an ally in one of the most important places in the world. Because of our unconditional support for them, we expect Israel to act as a client-state for U.S. interests and, more importantly, as an implicit threat to other Middle Eastern countries. Our relationship is a means of asserting regional dominance.
  • Israel/Iran via Shutterstock.

    Israel/Iran via Shutterstock.

    Mutually Assured Production. Our interest in the arms trade makes us natural partners. The U.S. is almost solely responsible for the creation of the Israeli arms industry, and has since the 1980s worked hard to make it rank “as one of the top 10 suppliers of arms worldwide.” This has conveniently opened the door to collusive trade partnerships between U.S. and Israeli contractors. Many of these deals also bear political value. Back in 2013, a 10 billion dollar arms sale to Israel, as well as Saudi Arabia and the UAE (United Arab Emirates) helped put pressure on Iran, which has been a longtime target of the U.S. for containment.

  • It’s always nice to have a friend. Aside from defense, many steps have been taken to strengthen ties between Israeli and U.S. corporate, scientific and academic communities. Add to this the rampant collusion between U.S. government officials and Israeli support groups like AIPAC, and you have yourself a true bromance — a perfect melding of financial and geopolitical interests.

Funding Palestine, Very Conditionally

It should be noted that the U.S. funds Palestine too. Since the 90s, we have given about 5 billion dollars of aid to the Palestinians. But don’t let that fool you: Our contributions to the Palestinian Authority (PA) bear a drastically different purpose than those given to Israel, and are subject “to a host of vetting and oversight requirements and legislative restrictions.” Some of the qualifiers to Palestine receiving aid are:

  • The aid to the PA must not go toward Palestine’s defense capabilities
  • The PA must not allow co-governance with Hamas
  • The PA must not make a bid for UN member status

If the U.S. is serious in its commitment to establishing a viable Palestinian state, then these conditions for aid make zero sense. They undercut basic tenets of statehood: secure territory, defense and membership in the international community. On the whole, the U.S. has shown a total disinterest in allowing Palestinians the freedom to self-defense and democratic self-determiniation.

In particular, the threat of an “armed” Palestinian state is immensely disconcerting to U.S. officials. So desperate has our government been to thwart any Palestinian administration with the capacity for self-defense that in 2007 the Bush administration went as far as to attempt a coup against the democratically elected Hamas-backed government in hopes of driving the country into an implosive civil war. The attempt failed, speaking both to the resilience of the Palestinian people and to the enduring goal of the U.S. to undermine and destroy their sovereignty.

Another profoundly consistent agenda of the U.S. has been to deny Palestine a voice in the international community. The right of UN member status, though pursued by Palestine for many years, and overwhelmingly supported by the International Assembly, has been kept from realization by the power of the U.S. security council veto. After many years of obstruction by the U.S., the PA recently switched tactics, and sought the status of “Non-Member Observer” — a position that would allow them to appeal to other international coalitions like the International Criminal Court (ICC) for support in their conflict with Israel. Though overwhelmingly supported by the international community, the U.S., again, deeply opposed the bid, and Congress threatened to cut PA funding if the status was pursued.

The continual refrain heard from the U.S. as rationalization for this perpetual process of subversion is that to do otherwise would “threaten the peace process.” A footnote in Jim Zanotti’s Palestinian financing report, however, gives a more apt description of what the U.S. might feel “threatened” by:

One possible reason that some Members of Congress have shown reluctance to continue funding the PA in light of Palestinian initiatives within the U.N. system is a possible perception of these Palestinian initiatives as an attempt to undermine the U.S. role as “honest broker” and guarantor of the peace process.

The next few lines of the footnote seems to clarify the broader implications of this “perception” [emphasis added]:

U.S. lawmakers and officials also may view Palestinian action in international fora as a sign that U.S. attempts to use aid for political leverage with the Palestinians are unproductive. However, in testimony offered to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, on May 8, 2014, Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies said, in addressing the possible consequences of a U.S. aid cutoff to the Palestinians, “You know, if we zero out Palestinian funding, then here is the big problem. You are going to have someone else come in and they are going to be worse. More than likely, you are going to see the Saudis, the Iranians, the Qataris, the Turks. They are all going to come in and they are not even going to hold the Palestinians to account at all. The important thing from my perspective, if we are going to keep the funding going, we need to make sure that we have tighter controls. We need to demand performance. And, in my opinion, we have just simply failed to do so.

Reading through the political euphemism here, it is clear that what U.S. politicians fear most is not the breakdown of peace negotiations, but that their work as The Honest Broker will be usurped. The U.S. aids Palestine, yes, but this aid isn’t meant to facilitate the peace process; it’s meant to control it. By vetoing resolutions of international aid, American politicians keep their power to broker and direct policy to the Palestinian Authority. By denying that this assistance go towards armed resistance, the U.S. bolsters Israel’s QME, and takes steps towards establishing a defense-vetted neighbor, whose territory is largely regulated and controlled by Israeli militia.

Where does this all leave legend of The Honest Broker? Firmly in BS-land, unfortunately. It would appear that, far from being the impartial mediator of a swift peace process, the U.S.’s real role is imperialist grand planner. Not only are we the single biggest impediment to the UN’s attempts to remedy the Palestinian situation, but we are using our self-created relationship with Israel to direct events in the Middle East to our advantage. Geostrategically, Israel is the U.S.’s greatest proxy: it’s our window to the Orient and our muscle in the Middle East. It provides a strong platform from which to direct operations in regions of great economic consequence; and, in this sense, our desire to craft a castrated and ineffectual Palestinian neighbor to our subsidy-laden warhorse Israel is — while morally bankrupt — a pretty slick move.

Lucas Ropek is a journalist based in Massachusetts. He worked for the Working Families Party in NYC on issues of income inequality and worker rights. His interests include U.S. foreign policy, pop-culture, and freedom fries.

Share This Post

46 Responses to “America is not an honest broker in the Israel-Palestine Conflict”

  1. marc cepeci says:

    When will Hamas the democratically elected body of the Palestinians in Gaza call for a two state solution? Their charter clearly calls for the complete destruction of Israel and the Genocide against Jews living everywhere in the world.

  2. Sharon4562 says:


  3. Olterigo says:

    I skimmed it for the 60% number and didn’t see it, the “article” talks of 23-25%.
    So, if China decides to invest and promises similar conditions of diplomatic cover, do you think Israel will not change its alliances, especially seeing how the Israeli electorate has little confidence in the peace process (aka your plan to flood Israel with a poor population of Muslim refugees) and the US wants to pivot away from the Middle East and other US allies have started acting accordingly?

    Saudi Arabia and friends did not inform the US government that it was about to start bombing Houthis, for example. Many US allies were presumed not to participate in China’s new development bank, yet, there was a veritable stampede for it. Turkey, Egypt, Jordan have signed agreements with Russia to build nuclear power plants. We’re pivoting away, we’re moving away from our former foreign policy stances, and it’s already costing us.

  4. Jackanapes11 says:

    Well, if you’d read the above article, you’d know where I’m getting my numbers. And given how deeply entrenched Israel’s economic, military, and technological industries are with U.S. subsidy and interests, I doubt very much that they’ll be starting a relationship with China anytime soon.

  5. Olterigo says:

    Not sure where you’re getting your numbers, but I doubt it will lead Israel to allow the West to push it into a 2-state “solution” with PA, which is unable to stand on its own feet, or with Hamas, which openly says its goal is to kill all Jews wherever they live. Instead, it will probably free Israel to start cooperating on military technology with China, the only thing currently preventing it being the relationship with the US.

  6. Olterigo says:

    I don’t know… Perhaps it has a bit to do with inability to deal with dissent whether in the attempt at national socialist regimes or the reaction to it under the flag of political Islam.

  7. Jackanapes11 says:

    I never said we should fight Israel haha. That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. But given that we subsidize 60% of their military operations in the Middle East, it wouldn’t be very hard for the U.S. to coerce them into ceasing most of those operations, pursuing decolonization, and going forward with a two-state solution. But we don’t want to do that.

  8. Jackanapes11 says:

    Why, exactly, do you think most of the Muslim world is a “wasteland”? How do you think it got that way?

  9. Olterigo says:

    So, instead of fighting their fundamentalism, you’re going to fight a state and a people which managed to create a semblance of normality and achievement in the region sorely lacking both. Ok.

  10. Olterigo says:

    I don’t need to imagine it. Among other things they invaded what is now Israel, they invaded Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa, etc. If they don’t like Israel – too bad. The Jews will not be pushed into allowing another failed Arab state in place of Israel. If you think Israelis will just lay down and allow their country to turn into a wasteland like most of the Muslim world, you’re sorely mistaken.

  11. Jackanapes11 says:

    I mean, Israel isn’t the ONLY thing Islamic fundamentalists have against the West. There’s also the fact that we’ve supported dictatorships in many of their nations for almost a century, that our corporations make a killing off of their resources, and that we, as a regular practice, start decade-long wars in their countries. There is at. But Israel is a big part of their dislike for us.

  12. Jackanapes11 says:

    Well, try to imagine how you and other Americans would feel about muslims if Arabs were to invade and occupy New Jersey for 60 years–in the process killing and displacing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Even if you didn’t live in New Jersey, I don’t think you would exactly like the occupiers.

  13. Olterigo says:

    So, once Israel gives up the Golan, there will be peace in Syria and it will turn into a technological paradise that decades of dictatorship failed to create? Is that the point you were trying to make?

  14. Olterigo says:

    Yes, in the whole territory from Nigeria to Russia, from Morocco to China “the rise of radical fundamentalist Islam and its implicit hatred of the West is directly linked to Israel’s (and thus our) 60 year occupation of those territories.” Little Israel, the size smaller than New Jersey is causing Arabs and Muslims, who have never stepped foot in Israel, West Bank or Gaza, to “have been brutalized, displaced, and killed” by Israel. Keep telling yourself that.

  15. Jackanapes11 says:

    You do realize that the rise of radical fundamentalist Islam and its implicit hatred of the West is directly linked to Israel’s (and thus our) 60 year occupation of those territories, right? That the occupation, and thus the hundreds of thousands of Arabs who have been brutalized, displaced, and killed, is one of the biggest reasons that Osama bin Laden flew airliners into the WTC on 9/11? It’s a self-created problem, and one that’s getting worse. It may be an unstable time in the Middle East, but that’s largely our fault; and if we don’t take careful steps to make substantial peace-offerings to the people who we’ve been attempting to eradicate and pacify for more than half a century, we’re going to be bogged down in an endless, economically draining, and increasingly uncontrollable, global war.

  16. Olterigo says:

    Ha! Another idiot thinking Israel should give “decolonize” Golan. Yeah, Israel should give up the Golan and especially now, when Syria is in disarray, with Hezbollah, Assad, Al Qaeda affiliates and the Islamic State all making sure Syrians have a good time. Sometimes I think that the people on the left mean well, but when I see something like that, I realize that sometimes it’s quite clear for whom the word “peace” really means “peace of the cemetery.”

  17. Olterigo says:

    Map 4 – Actually reflects a post-Oslo, post-Wye-Plantation reality, where the Palestinians and Israel have come to an agreement and Palestinians actually got back some control over their individually- or communally-owned land. So, Map 4 really should have been a map without any Palestinian land, since Israel only recognized post-1967 and pre-Oslo individual Palestinian communities, not the Palestinian Authority. Map 4 could have been Map 5. And this is still missing Map 6, which would show that Israel has withdrawn completely from any territory in Gaza.

    Reality would also benefit from including the Sinai peninsula (with its oil supplies), but that would not help your narrative, would it? But including the Sinai and Gaza withdrawal would not benefit your narrative, wouldn’t it?

  18. Olterigo says:

    Map 3 – another distortion. It’s nice to change “Jewish land” to “Israeli land.” The problem is though that in that case, shouldn’t the other label also reflect reality? The West Bank should be referred to as “Jordanian land,” while Gaza should be labeled “Egyptian land” or, alternatively, “Jordan-occupied” and “Egypt-occupied.” But they’re not labeled like that, are they?

  19. Olterigo says:

    Map 2 is a distortion as well as it omits a big part of the Partition Plan – creating a corpus separatum for Jerusalem and Bethlehem, which would mean it wouldn’t be included in the green territory.

  20. Olterigo says:

    The map does not “truthfully tell” the history.

    Map 1. It pretends like somehow Palestinians owned all the land, while in reality it is conflating the private ownership with various levels of communal and government-owned land. An easy point to make: you see that white spot in the first picture? Everything below it is actually a desert, throughout the year it can hardly sustain any agriculture (there are currently several Israeli kibbutzim sustained there thanks to improvements in irrigation and moving water). Now, are you saying that some Palestinian Arabs were stupid enough to pay for the desert, when they would need to be paying tax on it without getting any money out of it?

    You’re also mixing in a nominally “Palestinian” land, like that owned by the various churches, which are among the top land owners throughout the Holy Land. (E.g., Israeli Knesset is actually located on land leased long-term from the Greek Orthodox, if I remember correctly.) Back in the day, the vast majority of the churches’ hierarchies there consisted of foreign clergy, and to a large extent they still do, though not like before. So, calling it “Palestinian” would make sense now, but not back then.

    And that is compared to private ownership by Jewish individuals and specifically Jewish organizations, with the vast majority of the land being used for agricultural purposes or directly for housing or institutions, meaning that most of that land was actually in use.

  21. Guest says:

    ☠☮☯♠Ω♤♣♧♥♡♦♔♕♚♛⚜ Let”s Make M0ney At H0me…. I started working online, completing some basic jobs that only requires from you a computer and internet access and I am happier than ever… It’s been 6 months since i started this and i got paid so far total of 36,000 bucks… Basicly i profit close to 80 bucks/h and work for 3-4 hrs most of the days.Best part to whole this thing is that you can decide when to work yourself and for how long and you get a paycheck at the end of each week.

    Just Click On This Link .,, its So Quick And Easy

    ➨➨➨➨ http://www.MakeM0neyAtH0me.C0m


  22. dave3137 says:

    I would be the last to dispute the emotional point that others have raised. But “the government of the State of Israel” is NOT Judaism. We do everyone a disfavor if we conflate “Bibi” with Judaism. The US has long since consider “Israel” to be above reproach. We have vetoed every single UN Security Council resolution that reproaches anything that Israel (the state) has done. So now we dare to object to some things??? The four billion still flows, but OMG, the US suddenly doesn’t think the State of Israel can do no wrong? Oy veh.

  23. Guest says:

    GO With Work yahoo google youtube and americablog< i started working online, completing some basic jobs that only requires from you a computer and internet access and I am happier than ever… It's been 6 months since i started this and i got paid so far total of 36,000 bucks… Basicly i profit close to 80 bucks/h and work for 3-4 hrs most of the days.Best part to whole this thing is that you can decide when to work yourself and for how long and you get a paycheck

    at the end of each week. SEE DETAIL HERE’S<–


  24. I agree, it’s totally correct vice-versa; but world isn’t totally black or white; it’s actually different shades of gray. Metaphor or proverb not literally…

  25. Guest says:

    ♡♦♢♔♕♚♛⚜ Let”s Make M0ney At H0me…. I started working online, completing some basic jobs that only requires from you a computer and internet access and I am happier than ever… It’s been 6 months since i started this and i got paid so far total of 36,000 bucks… Basicly i profit close to 80 bucks/h and work for 3-4 hrs most of the days.Best part to whole this thing is that you can decide when to work yourself and for how long and you get a paycheck at the end of each week.

    Just Click On This Link .,, its So Quick And Easy

    ➨➨➨➨ http://www.MakeM0neyAtH0me.C0m

  26. Guest says:

    GO yahoo google youtube and americablog…< i started working online, completing some basic jobs that only requires from you a computer and internet access and I am happier than ever… It's been 6 months since i started this and i got paid so far total of 36,000 bucks… Basicly i profit close to 80 bucks/h and work for 3-4 hrs most of the days.Best part to whole this thing is that you can decide when to work yourself and for how long and you get a paycheck

    at the end of each week. SEE DETAIL HERE’S<–


  27. Neutral Zone for the whole Jerusalem, the bone of contention, was proposed in the 1947 UN Partition plan, but it was unacceptable to Palestinians as well as surrounding 22 Arab Nations, while Israel accepted it. I believe that America’s religious heritage i.e. Israel, is better in the stewardship of Israel than Palestine. Currently, in Israel all religious places are open to all sorts of people, believers or atheists. You need to go back only to pre-1967 era when West Bank and East Jerusalem were under Jordanian control (Jordan is a majority Palestinian country); Western Wall was off-limit to Jews. Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron (where Abraham, Isaac, Jacob are buried with their wives) was arguably a Mosque and off-limits for non-muslims. None spared, all Synagogues were vandalised and turned into horse stables and Bethelehem (where Jesus was born) was open to Christians only on a couple of Festivals. Even now, Palestinian WAQF controls Temple Mount and you can’t pray on the Temple Mount if you are a non-Muslim because it is a Mosque and an exclusively Islamic area reserved for Mohammedans. So, you can only imagine when Palestinian rule comes with Hamas and Fatah as governing bodies. Look no further than the neighboring Egypt what’s happening to Coptic Christians. Now since all these holy places are naturally or arguably forcibly under Israel, anyone is free to go and visit and worship in any religious place there. You can only imagine what would happen with Palestinians at the helm of affairs with their narrow and bleak outlook towards Infidels.

  28. Indigo says:

    He’s metastasizing into a comfortable retirement.

  29. DRoseDARs says:

    While I would never accuse President Obama of “mansplaining” to a woman, his recent countering of Sen. Warren over TTP smelled dangerously of “Sit down, shut up, men are talking.” and made me very uncomfortable. The fuck is he doing? The “Trust us…” bit he’s doing isn’t new, but it seems to be getting worse. I like that since the midterms, he’s developed this “Republicans? Lol. *Error* No fucks found to give…” mentality but it seems to be metastasizing into something else.

  30. Jackanapes11 says:

    I would argue, actually, that you’re being duped if you believe politicians are spending billions of dollars and decades of strategic planning because of a subconscious emotional impulse. These people are a lot more basic and cynical than that. In effect it might be the opposite: i.e., them using these emotional stories to justify to you–the citizen–why they are basically committing genocide. Cultural narratives are classic means by which men of power justify their raw grabs for resources and land.

  31. Indigo says:

    The emotional point is real, as you say. It is not foregrounded the way it should be though. Jerusalem and environs is sacred to all 3 of the basic Abrahamic faiths and should probably not belong to any country. In the best case scenario it would function as a (UNESCO-sponsored?) neutral zone.

  32. Indigo says:

    I get it. It’s just that Barry’s one of the Wall Streeters, just like the other Wall Streeters. In Real World, that is. Thus the squint is fully appropriate. Anyhow, that’s how I see it. Barry’s one of us, quoth the Wall Streeters.

  33. Bill_Perdue says:

    That’s no excuse for mass murder and massive land theft.

    Palestine belongs to the Palestinians.

  34. You are missing out on the emotional point. Israel is for American Jews, most Republicans, and many Democrats (maybe not as many as Republicans) a place of utmost religious and emotional significance because the Temple Mount, Western Wall, Sepulchre, Bethelehem and all the important Judeo-Christian holy sites lie there. The Holy Land Concept for which happened the Crusades undergone by mostly the English and Irish forefathers of the present Americans. So that must be also taken into mind though outwardly it may not be obvious outright, but it’s there playing in your blood and subconcious mind.

  35. Hue-Man says:

    In a reversal of a widely-accepted position of 60 years’ standing, Canada’s Israel policy under Harper has been even more extreme than the U.S. “Harper: More pro-Israel than Israel itself” is the headline (there are dozens of similar articles from Canadian mainstream media):

    “On the issue of Israel-Palestine, the Harper government has demonstrated its commitment to completely shedding Canada’s image as an impartial and honest mediator. Mr. Harper’s identification not just with Israel but with the Israeli far-right has been complete. Between supporting Israeli military offensives against the Gaza Strip and Lebanon (even when Canadian peacekeepers have been killed in the crossfire), fighting the Palestinian campaign for international recognition of its nascent state, and implicitly recognizing Israeli control over East Jerusalem, Mr. Harper has made an unequivocal point that Canada is in fact not an impartial mediator to this conflict.

    Remarkably, Canada has taken positions which are ostensibly even more ‘pro-Israel’ than Israeli leaders themselves; arguing to cut aid to the Palestinian Authority when even Israel opposed such a move. That these policies have been unpopular among Canadians appears to have had little bearing on Mr. Harper’s calculus.” The entire article is worth a read.

    Having followed the story since the 1967 6 Day War, I have stopped caring. If the parties involved don’t care, why should I bother? At a certain point, a two-state peaceful solution was possible but now the Swiss cheese Palestinian territories are not viable as a nation. Israel’s Apartheid State is a fact and will continue until demographic disaster occurs. Like all revolutions, the result is unlikely to be orderly and neat.

  36. Bill_Perdue says:

    It’s a good map and what it shows is the timeline of mass murder and land theft that’s left uncounted tens of thousands of dead and grievously wounded Palestinians and millions more displaced and living in poverty.

    The crimes of the colonists have created the conditions for the end of their colony.

  37. DRoseDARs says:

    Here’s the thing: It would be Barry’s, not Barrie’s (simple grammar error and further proof that all of the copy editors are dead *boom-tis*) but the part sticks in my craw is that usually it’s those on the right that would refer to the president that way. I mean I’m assuming the author isn’t right-wing, and that AmBlog wouldn’t publish right-wing bilge, but that is just… strange… hence the Fry Squint.

  38. Indigo says:

    Barry’s one of us, you see.

  39. DRoseDARs says:

    “A report from CommonDreams on the veto record of Susan Rice gives a pretty clear account of the U.S.’s role in the peace process since early in Barrie’s presidency:”

    “…since early in Barrie’s presidency.”

    “…Barrie’s presidency.”

    Not sure what to make of that bit there…

  40. 2karmanot says:

    Wake me up when full sanctions are taken against apartheid Israel’s nuclear WMD arsenal.

  41. McMullans says:

    John Boehner is an American traitor and should be held accountable for his actions. Israel is a foreign nation! It’s not about anti-Jew. If Japan was wielding this much power or any other foreign nation for that matter, I would think the same. Our forefathers are rolling over in their graves. Ask not what your country can do about it, ask yourself, what are you going to do about it. Write/email your elected officials…

  42. mirth says:

    I have posted this map often whenever I read some commenter’s mewlings about the importance of “peace” in the region. Not only does it truthfully tell the dramatic loss of Palestinian land, but also of their water sources and their removal from the coast, the latter being in large part why the Mideast is being torn apart – to get oil and gas to Israeli ports for the use of Israelis. There is no better documentation of the fraud of all participants in the “process,” including the Palestinian leadership.

  43. Indigo says:

    Given the US history of violating treaties with the America Indians, there’s no grounds for assuming the United States is ever an “honest broker.”

  44. Bill_Perdue says:

    The state that governs the zionist colony in Palestine is a historical anomaly – a colony in the age of the death of colonialism. That anomaly will be corrected by the Palestinians themselves and by the general upsurge of workers and farmers in the region often call the Arab Spring.

    The Arab Spring is an ongoing proceeds that deepens every time the zionists engage in ethnic cleansing, every time the US invades another country and every time the US and it’s satellite states, including the zionists engage in mass murder or genocide.

    No two state solution is possible. Too many Palestinians have been murdered, tortured or lost their land. The only solution is the independence and reunification of Palestine and the absolute right of return of all those forced form their land by zionist terrorism using American weapons. Palestinians themselves are the final judges of all decisions regarding the restoration of Palestine.

    Americans have no legitimate role as that process plays out. In fact the Americans will have to be forced out of the region for any solution to work.

  45. mirth says:

    One of the better articles I have read on the “peace accords” ruse and illustrative of the lie that is our government. I am reminded again of why I chose to opt out of the voting game. If that means one of the republican scumbags currently at the fore is elected, then the issues and the fight become much more clear, upping the chance of rousing a docile and deluded populace.

    Keep writing here, Lucas. Judging by this post, I’ll like your thinking on substantial issues.

  46. nicho says:

    America is not an honest broker in [fill in the blank]. This applies to nearly every situation in which the US in involved.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS