By Ramzy Baroud
The US has decided to be 'flexible' regarding its once touted call for a total Israeli freeze on the expansion of its occupied territories' settlements, all illegal under international law.
A senior official spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity on August 27. “It was more important that the scope of a settlement freeze was acceptable to the Israelis and the Palestinians than to the United States,” Reuters reported, citing the senior official. This means that peace negotiations can resume while Israeli bulldozers are carving up Palestinian land, demolishing homes and cutting down trees.
It also means that the Israeli rejection of the only US demand, which has thus far defined President Barack Obama’s relations to the Middle East conflict, has prevailed over the supposed American persistence. In other words, the US has officially succumbed to Israeli and pro-Israeli pressures, in Tel Aviv and Washington.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
All those who thought that the election of Obama would mean a fundamental shift in US foreign policy have now lost their illusions. Faces change but the system remains.
ReplyDeleteI never thought that, but I didn't thing real change in foreign policy would come with any of the major-party candidates except maybe Paul and Kucinich.
ReplyDeleteHere's Paul Craig Roberts (no raving lefty he, a former Reagan Administration official) calling out the U.S. and Israel as "the true axis of evil" and saying both states are long overdue for "crippling" international sanctions:
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts09012009.html
Funny how these politicians, experts, diplomats and bureaucrats start to tell the truth once their personal interests no longer depend on spouting or endorsing lies.
ReplyDeleteWhat a pity they don't do so when they are in a position to influence developments.
While this is true, Roberts was never a supporter of Israel--and in any case he was assistant secretary of the treasury, not in any diplomatic or foreign policy position.
ReplyDeleteHe's in line with other paleoconservatives in this view, like Pat Buchanan (Buchanan has been called an anti-Semite and he may be one but he also, as a separate issue, opposes U.S. support of Israel), Justin Raimondo, and other anti-interventionist conservatives who see Israel as an untrustworthy ally that influences us to undertake needless wars and create needless conflicts with Arab countries.
I don't agree with these conservative pundits when it comes to economic or social policy issues, but I give credit where credit is due. Raimondo's writing on Israel is outstanding, and the American Conservative was one of the first magazines to oppose the war in Iraq. Meanwhile Obama's liberal supporters still can't find one word to criticize his escalation of war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. And all too many Democratic politicians are what some have called PEP: Progressive Except for Palestine.
It's true that politics makes strange bedfellows.
Point taken.
ReplyDelete