|
|
Friday, January 21, 2005
About peace in the Middle East
|
IT's not going to happen, not if the powerful Israeli lobby in America has anything to say about it. Sure, Israel will give up Gaza, but for a better hold on the West Bank ( http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=485491 ) .
Even so, the Israeli lobby is hard at work trying to convince Ariel Sharon that the very reason for his disengagement (Palestinian demographics) is a myth ( http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=525265 ).
For the real obstacle to peace in this country - the believers in the End Times ( http://www.astandforjustice.org/christian.htm ) - any land for peace deals would block their doomsday scenario in which the Jews must settle all of Palestine for the Second Coming of Christ.
There likely won't be any peace unless Bush stops taking orders from Sharon, and unless this lobby is sidelined.
America needs a foreign policy made in Washington, not Tel Aviv. And clearly, our foreign policy is still being decided by neocons.
This latest move by Israel is not something one would expect from a nation that is truly after peace. This conflict is and always has been about the land:
Gov't decision strips Palestinians of their East J'lem property
The Sharon government implemented the Absentee Property Law in East Jerusalem last July, contrary to Israeli government policy since Israeli law was extended to East Jerusalem after the Six Day War.
The law means that thousands of Palestinians who live in the West Bank will lose ownership of their property in East Jerusalem.
Government officials estimate the assets total thousands of dunam, while other estimates say they could add up to half of all East Jerusalem property.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=529510
Buchanan sums it up in the latest edition of the McLaughlin Group on PBS -
Question: Notwithstanding these setbacks, are we on the threshold of a new era of relations between Israelis and Palestinians? Pat Buchanan.
MR. BUCHANAN: Well, I'd have to say yes to that, John, for the simple reason that there were no relations with Arafat and the situation was as bad as it had ever been, virtually.
But I think this. Anyone who thinks we're going to get any kind of agreement, I think, is na‹ve, because Ariel Sharon is not going to share sovereignty with Jerusalem. He's not going to remove the wall from Palestinian territory. He's not going to give up any significant part of the West Bank. And there's going to be no right of return for the Palestinians.
He cut that deal with the president of the United States last April. He's not going to give the new leader, Abu Mazen, anything in that sense. The new leader will not be able to sign an agreement. So you're kidding yourself if you think you're going to get an Israeli-Palestinian agreement.
...
Secondly, Mr. Sharon's deputy said, "Yeah, we're going to withdraw from Gaza, but the purpose of that is to embalm the peace process. We've got what we want on the West Bank." Anyone who thinks Ariel Sharon, who put up those settlements on the West Bank, given the trouble he's got in Gaza, is going to take them down, is, I repeat --
http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=449
posted by Somebody @ 7:25 PM Permanent Link
 
0 Comments:
<< Home
|
| |
