Winds of War - Israel and Lebanon
The Israeli government has recently threatened that should Hizbullah join Beirut's incoming government, it would respond to any attack launched by Hizbullah by targeting Lebanon itself. Israel stated that if Hizbullah attacked any Israeli anywhere it was prepared to attack targets on Lebanese soil. Hizbullah officials stated in response that the organization was even stronger today than at the beginning of the Second Lebanon War in 2006, and that its armed wing was well prepared for any possible confrontation with Israel. The officials also stated that Israel would not dare start a new war with Lebanon since the United States would not support such a move at the current time. Although both sides claim that there are no winds of war in the north, they seem to be acting just as they did before the 2006 war. Both continue to prepare for the next battle while claiming that nothing serious is going on. A 'settlement freeze' is not enough
Last week, Congressman Robert Wexler (D - FL) , a supporter of Israel and a
close political ally of President Obama, stated his belief that Israel would say yes to settlement freeze.
According to Wexler, Israel would not stand to lose much by making this
necessary move aimed at making Arab states - who say they are ready for
normalization with Israel - lay their cards on the table. The coming of the third intifada?
Since its establishment, the State of Israel has largely depended on its security forces and intelligence agencies to ensure its national security. Today, Israel believes that diminished Palestinian attacks is a result of the successful efforts of its security and intelligence forces. Israel began building its intelligence and security forces even before the declaration of the state of 1948. Jews in Palestine did not trust the Arabs who lived among them, and often offered bribes to the Arab population in exchange for information about Arab plans in Palestine. The Israelis also went about recruiting inside the Arab world, across the Middle East, and around the world. A new chapter in US-Arab relations?
The US has been showing brave policy shifts towards the Muslim world and the Israeli-Arab conflict. This change is mostly noted in America's view on the importance of finding a solution for the Israeli-Arab conflict. The changes started as soon as President Obama took office. Both Europe and America have indicated that ending the conflict in the Middle East would be beneficial to the Western world and would help bring about international security. Is Israel starting to feel US pressure?
Last week, Israel started to feel the pressure from the US as plans for a new peace initiative proposed by Obama were said to be in the works. Obama was said to deliver the contents of the plan on his visit to Cairo next week, but recent reports have suggested that his speech will focus on American ties with the Muslim world and not on the new peace plan which is rumored to refer to east Jerusalem as the future capital of an independent Palestinian State. Since then, Israeli politicians have not stopped talking of the importance of getting Israel out of this situation in any way, including the removal of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Iranian code and Arab support
There are growing suspicions that the US will apply pressure on Israel to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Prime Minister Netanyahu started his international tour by visiting Jordan where he said that the Arab world and Israel share a common threat - Iran. However, any agreement between Israel and the Arab world on the importance of limiting Iranian influence in the Middle East would not bear fruit unless Israel showed an interest in ending the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Middle East mystery
Israel has stated that the Iranian threat must come to an end and that it is impossible to live with the idea of someone like Ahmadinejad - who has said that he is ready to "wipe Israel off the map" - having nuclear weapons. PM Netanyahu recently said that he would take responsibility and prevent anyone from causing the Jewish people another holocaust. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made several important statements regarding the Iranian threat and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Clinton said that the United States and Israel will lose the Arab support in facing Iran if the latter keeps denying the Palestinians' right to their own state. Clinton also stated that the US will not stop its financial support for the Palestinian Authority because of Hamas; according to her, the United States did not stop its financial support to the Lebanese government even though Hizbullah was a part of it. Clinton said that it is in America's interest to keep good relations with the Arabs. Is it real silence..or silence before a real storm?
The relative quiet we've seen so far with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems to be coming to an end. The new Israeli government has been formed and the international community wants to see real progress in the negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. During his recent visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories, US Middle East envoy George Mitchell said that the two state solution is the only way to end the conflict. Avigdor Lieberman, the new Israeli foreign minister, stated in the presence of Mitchell that Israel will work to improve the Palestinian economy. The latter responded by saying that the Israeli plan to improve the Palestinian economy must be a part of a complete plan to end the conflict by having two states for the two peoples. In a meeting held between White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Jewish leaders in the United States, Rahm stated clearly that the interest of the White House is to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a period of four years with a result that includes two states; one Israeli and one Palestinian. The Art of Conflict
In the 2004 Supreme Court case Beit Sourik vs. The Government of Israel and the Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank, in which the legality of Israel's decision to erect the separation barrier (and the route of the barrier) was challenged, the IDF claimed to be acting as a belligerent occupier as defined in the Hague Conventions. The Supreme Court agreed this established the normative framework in which to decide the case. However, Israel also claims that as the disputed territories were not under sovereign control prior to 1967, international law does not apply insofar as Israel's responsibilities to the Palestinians are concerned - which is the same argument it makes with regard to the lands taken in the 1948 war. In other words, Israel's justice system is selectively recognizing international law to further its own interests in a manner that has nothing to do with the peace process. The Blame Game
Outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated in one of his farewell speeches that the Palestinians should be blamed for "lacking the courage" to conclude a peace agreement with Israel. In doing so, Olmert was merely following in the footsteps of Israeli leaders who came before him. It seems blaming the Palestinians has become something of a ritual which Israeli leaders perform during their last days in office. Ehud Barak blamed Yasser Arafat for not concluding a peace agreement at Camp David - for not being ready to compromise. Although Olmert had said in the past that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was a partner for peace, and had in recent days also said that "unprecedented, dramatic and painful concessions" were necessary to achieve real peace, in the end he laid the blame for the failure to reach an agreement at the door of the Palestinians, just as Barak did |
 |
 
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs
Top Rated Posts
Tags:Blogroll |
Comments (45)
