Coalition Recalculation - Full article From the Desk of Reuven Kaminer October 31, 2013 COALITION RECALCULATION We have another brilliant article from Noam Chomsky. However, one important element in his analysis appears mistaken. We will deal with this element after endorsing Chomskys main thesis regarding the endless barren arguments about the one-state-two state solution to the conflict. israeli-occupation.org/2013-10-26/noam-chomsky-the-one-state-two-state-debate-is-irrelevant/. Irrelevant Debate Chomsky is quite right to emphasize the irrelevance of the one-two state debate. Neither of these two options is anywhere close to having a semblance of actuality. It is a shame that many progressive people of good will are still ready at this late stage to spend time and energy in a futile endless argument regarding the relative advantages of one or the other non-starters. I do have to confess that I was an enthusiast of the two state solution up to not too long ago. It is clear now that this was another case of the wish being the father of the thought. I and others wanted peace so badly that we began to look in the other direction when faced with mounting evidence that any such a solution was completely and clearly impossible. Now, most two-staters try to save that perspective by lowering the minimal prerequisites of what we can call a solution and what we can consider a state. It appears that the Palestinians must be ready to accept a virtual encyclopedia of limitations on their sovereignty thus emptying the idea of statehood of any real content. If you want to know when a state is not a state look at what Israel, the US and many others are trying to palm off on the Palestinians. No rights for refugees, total demilitarization, a fraction of the territory and integration into NATO are all somehow deemed to be consistent with having a state. Such a solution will solve nothing. And after all this, most of the surviving advocates of the two state solution have descended to the level of marketing the advantages of the two-state arrangement as a launching pad for war against Iran. As strange as it seems, there are many who favor a deal between Israel and the Palestinians sponsored by the US in order to pave the way to war with Iran. Make peace so that you can make war. Greater Israel is Here The one-two state options are supposed to achieve credibility by framing themselves as possible solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But such an outcome has been totally and fatally undermined by the processes on the ground, all of which are conducted on the basis of a firm Israeli-USA understanding. Chomsky describes the third option: The third option, taking shape before our eyes, is not obscure. Israel is systematically extending plans that were sketched and initiated shortly after the 1967 war, and institutionalized more fully with the access to power of Menahem Begin. The third option seems to involve lots of construction and business. Indeed for some in Palestine, business and construction are on the rise, but this does not have anything to do with solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The sense of activity on the ground is in effect an echo of the rise and development of a new, fully functioning entity, properly defined as the state of Greater Israel. This sovereign power intensely pursues its national agenda, while it conducts a constant flow of necessary administrative adjustments. The agenda of Greater Israel is quite simple. Use Greater Israels special status as the trusted, efficient, armed-to-the teeth ally of the US to expand the area under Israel control while taking every opportunity for advancing the expulsion and dispossession of as many Palestinians as possible. The name of the game is to settle Jews, to expel and build Greater Israel. Chomsky describes this process excellently and without any illusions. There is not, at the present juncture and in the prevailing relation of forces in the region, any possibility for advancing a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian people. Friends of the Palestinian people and democrats in Israel must mobilize against Israeli aggression in the region and against the repression of the national and human rights of the Palestinians in the occupied territories and in Israel. While it is important not to have any illusions regarding non-existent options, it is just as important to remember that we are living in a period of stormy change and transformations in the region. The chances for peace can and will reemerge as the battle for peace, democracy and independence in the region continues and develops. The force of habit has led many advocates of peace to search for progress on this issue in the diplomatic arena, but this path has been blocked by the US blind support for its main military partner in the region. Progress in these circumstances is simply not in the cards. Chomsky also presents in his insightful and lucid matter a detailed analysis of US-Israel policy on Iran. According to Chomsky, the Iran crisis is basically a US-Israeli provocation designed to prevent Irans growing political prestige. If anyone needs security guarantees it is the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, it appears that on one important issue, Chomsky may have it wrong when he argues: If the Israel-Palestine conflict is not resolved, a regional peace settlement is highly unlikely. That failure has far broader implications -- in particular, for what US media call the gravest threat to world peace, echoing the pronouncements of President Obama and most of the political class: namely, Irans nuclear programs. My sense is that a regional peace settlement may be or not be highly unlikely but such a settlement is not really linked or dependent on progress in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On the contrary, a regional rapprochement is quite feasible and not dependent on progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front. Recalculating? This view of the interrelation between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Iranian crisis might have been considered to be satisfactory until quite recently. Washington has for years based its Middle East priorities on the alliance with Israel and would continue to do so if the US interests could be thus served. However, the Syrian crisis has revealed a serious fault line in US strategy. Indeed the US would always tend to pursue policies which conform to Israeli policy and interests, as long as this option did not involve serious dangers to US interests. However, there appear to be more and more critical cases, such as Syria and Iran, where Israel is openly dissatisfied with Washington. Of course, Washington would like to balance its interests without an open break with Israel. But the Middle East has become a breeding ground for possible military complications. Israel thrives on such tensions but Washington fears major confrontations with Russia and China. This means that Washington must do some recalculation. The tendency to favor the needs of the US-Israel coalition, while still predominant, is increasingly difficult to pursue in the light of recent developments. Washington is faced at this stage with a new challenge. Is it willing to follow the Israeli lead of confrontation with all the independent forces in the region, even when this puts the US on a collision course with other major powers in the region? In other words, can the US continue to build its policy exclusively around a joint Israeli-US alliance, even as that alliance puts it on a collision course which involves major challenges to the US role? It is clear that Israel wants the US to maintain a monopoly over major events in the region. It is openly disgusted by the fact that the US is not willing to get into a proxy war on the basis of the Israeli strategic conceptions. And Israel is pushing for war against Iran and is doing everything possible to push the US into an open confrontation. Chomsky tends to believe that the US will allow its support for Israeli interests to block and prevent hopes and needs for any form of rapprochement in the region. But blind devotion to the Israeli cause might become increasingly problematic politically and strategically when the US might have to make serious compromises in the region in order to avoid a conflagration. Any local or regional action by the US in accordance with Israeli aspirations is just fine as long as the US can manage the region without involving itself in a major confrontation with the Russians, the Chinese and their local allies. But, we seem to be approaching a new stage in the regional dynamic. No one can be certain that the US will continue to be willing to go down the road to war in the region because of Israels short fuse. The US may well consider serious compromises with the other powers in the region even if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains on hold. Regional compromises between the leading powers in the region are possible and even likely despite objections from Israel and their hard line allies in Washington . We can see the development of this new tendency in the struggle to move the Syrian crisis from a proxy war to a new level of inter-power consultation and diplomacy. It would be facile to assume that this transformation in US diplomacy will occur smoothly and without hesitation. But the new feature in the picture is clear. The US must try and protect its interests without a major clash in the region and this attempt cannot be shelved or avoided because of any considerations connected with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Posted on: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:36:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015