Connect with us

Middle East

Will Obama revise petrified US policy for Palestine at least now?

Published

on

As the fight for presidency by the republican and democratic candidates get intensified US with a very few candidates remaining for the contest, President Barack Obama must know his happy days at White House are coming to an end soon. World expects Obama to ensure peace in Mideast as his major achievement by arm twisting the unwilling fanatic and fascist regime Israel to agree for credible peace as per the Arab peace Plan of 2002 that would have full cooperation of the GCC and entire world frantically seeking a new peaceful ea in west Asia.

The question is will Obama care for world opinion at all when his opinions are not at all listened to by anyone including Israeli leaders? Does it not mean the Obama diplomacy has failed!

Israel, imposed on Mideast into Palestine in 1948 by USA-UK big twins, has over years of western aid and arms& technology supply has become a monstrous fascist and illegal nuclear power in the region, threatening the very existence of Palestinians. The Zionist regime has taken the ‘permanent’ US shield for all criminal operations against humanity for granted and so much that today Jews decide the foreign policy for USA especially for West Asia and South Asia.  

The US presidents make ritual trips to Israel not to declare the continuous US led Western support but in doing so Washington openly admits that the Israeli role in the foreign policy making of USA, especially in West and South Asia. It is not surprising that many countries like India are   trying to be in the good books of Israel and strike military deals for Zionist terror equipment. .

When he assumed power at White House, there was a strong belief in the world that US President Barack Obama would try to fight for world peace and get the Palestinians out of Israeli terror blockades and stop the Israeli illegal occupation and crimes against humanity, by ending their intermittent terror attacks. However, he disappointed the world by supporting the Israeli terror regime in Mideast because he was pursuing the US national interest in Mideast by using Israel.

As the regular US President, Barack Obama just advance the imperialist and capitalist policies very religiously. Though he protected the US-Israeli secret nexus and Pentagon supply of terror goods to Tel Aviv, Obama once famously said he would “always have Israel’s back,” may be rethinking that promise as aides begin weighing options in response to Israeli leader Netanyahu’s election criticism of Obama’s foreign policy and his disapproval of a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict.

When, some time back, President Obama warned that the United States would reassess its relationship with Israel though Israel did not think any new problem cropping up in the bilateral relations as it is the ‘prime duty’ of USA and its NATO allies to shield Israeli regime. However, following Obama’s warning that the United States would “reassess” its relationship with Israel, the White House was not only reconsidering the diplomatic cover along with veto it has long given Israel at the United Nations but was also looking at a range of other possibilities to put pressure on its historically close ally to help resolve the Palestine issue. Bu later, when Palestine pushed for full UN status for conducting international affairs as a soverign nation, Obama used its power to support Israel and oppose Palestine. Obama thus reveled his true Zionist color. Even US officials who hitherto promoted Zionist regime and shielded all its crimes against humanity by misusing media networks have begun take a strong position on Israel. .

As a fascist tradition, US presidents not only misuse the American parliament to support all Zionist crimes against humanity but also, in order to obtain political support of US Jews, encourage the criminal ruler so Israel to address the august body in Washington. But the US parliament is meant for Americans to pass laws, among other things.

Why should US leaders allow Israeli leaders to address the US lawmakers – is there something common between them? Do the US values like capitalism and imperialism plus fascism serve as the strong bridge between Israeli East and American West?

Americans should be ashamed of the fact that off and on Israeli leaders insist on addressing the US Congress to discuss Israeli politics and instruct US policy makers – both domestic and foreign – the course they are supposed to pursue in a given situation. When they persistently insist, the Republicans and even Democrats make the necessary ‘arrangement’ for hawkish Zionist rulers to address the US lawmakers. Israeli leaders address the US Congress and direct the president to execute what is necessary for the promotion of Israeli regime.

Let Israeli leaders are free to misuse their own parliament Knesset for mere anti-Palestine, anti-Arab propaganda purposes but how can they do the same of misusing US parliament for that purpose?

There is an emerging opinion among most Americans to let Israel defend its own actions and crimes against humanity and Washington should be less active in protecting Israel in international forums. The bipartisan leaders are finding new ways to reinforce the message of US opposition to Jewish settlement expansion.

Many Arab leaders and governments have come to view Israel’s occupation of Palestine and its behavior towards the Palestinians as strictly an Israeli-Palestinian problem, not an Arab one. That’s a departure from a bygone era when the struggle against the occupation was a central theme that brought Arab states together. Therefore, Qatar’s official foreign policy towards the occupation and the plight of Palestinians sets it apart from the majority of the Arab world.

Recently, the 16th Doha Forum has wrapped up with speakers from around the world touching on issues ranging from global and regional security to conflict resolution and climate change. Achieving Middle East peace directly linked to ending Israel’s occupation of Palestine and Israel must end occupation of Palestine, said Qatar’s foreign minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdurrahman Al Thani, while speaking at the 16th Doha Forum. He stressed the need to support human rights and bolster security for the people of the Middle East region – and around the world. “Repression, tyranny, double standards and violating human rights and basic freedoms constitute the underlying threats to elements of human security,” he said. According to Sheikh Mohammed, achieving peace in the volatile Middle East is directly linked to ending the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem. Al Thani also made it clear the main foreign policy instrument of his country is the soft diplomacy of “mediation” efforts, while at the same time “discouraging the use of force by Israeli regime to resolve disputes”.

Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s chief negotiator with Israel, spoke about his people’s need for international backing to force Israel to end its decades-old takeover of Palestinian lands. Erekat compared what he called the “right-wing extremism” of Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, with that of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) group. “What is the difference between one who calls himself the leader of the Jewish state, and another who calls himself as the leader of the Islamic State,” he said in one his many sharp rebukes of Netanyahu. “The two-state solution is the only possible solution that would put an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people,” he said.

Even as international outcry for the creation of Palestine state and internal discussions on containing Israeli aggression continue unabated, Obama seems not to be in hurry to solve the worst ever conflict in human history. The US double speak is evident from the way the USA plays mischief with Palestine and GCC at the same time by speaking for the Zionist crimes.

However, the White House appeared in no rush to lower the temperature in the worst US-Israeli crisis in decades, sparked by Netanyahu’s campaign declaration that there would be no Palestinian state on his watch. The White House officially made clear that it had little faith in Netanyahu’s effort to backtrack since winning election and insist he was in favour of a two-state solution, long a cornerstone of US Middle East policy.

Interestingly, there was no sign of any imminent move to turn the administration’s heated rhetoric against Netanyahu into a tangible shift in policy.

As USA was readying for a nuclear deal with Ira against the will of is real, some analysts questioned whether Washington was merely posturing to put the Israeli leader on the defensive at a time when an end-of-March deadline looms in US-led nuclear diplomacy with Iran that Netanyahu vehemently opposes. The Obama government put everything on the table except security assistance, thinking this would allow Netanyahu time to walk back his comments on Obama more credibly.

Obama eyed on the powerful US Jewish support for the Democrats in Presidency poll. The US officials privately were mindful of the risk that the diplomatic storm could drive a deeper wedge between the White House and the influential US pro-Israel lobbyist camp and cause problems for Obama’s fellow Democrats as the 2016 presidential campaign approaches. Many strategists voiced skepticism that the US government would shift its stance towards Israel in any substantive way, arguing that despite White House annoyance at Netanyahu, there would likely be too high a domestic political cost to pay for alienating pro-Israel Americans.  

But the White House pressure had other motives as well. There’s an effort to apply leverage to the Israelis to get the prime minister to move on some things when he has a new government formed, as there was a US wish to see Israel release frozen Palestinian tax funds and take other goodwill gestures.

Israel takes care not to annoy Washington beyond certain point as it depends on US veto to shield its crimes from any possible punitive measures against the criminal rulers for its crimes against Palestinians and humanity at large. Among the most serious risks for Israel would be a shift in Washington’s posture at the United Nations. If USA refuses to use its veto for Israel , all Jewish leaders would be in jails.

The United States has long stood in the way of Palestinian efforts to get a UN resolution recognizing its statehood, including threatening to use its veto, and has protected Israel from efforts to isolate it internationally. But most European governments incensed by Netanyahu’s campaign comments against Palestinian statehood, have joined in another push for such a resolution, ignoring US-Israel pressure tactics.

David Makovsky, a former member of Obama’s team in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that collapsed last year, said the question is: “Will the U.S. consider avoiding a veto over the parameters to a final-status deal with the Palestinians?”   “There’s no doubt that this approach will lead to a firestorm between these two governments if they go forward,” said Makovsky, now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Another option under consideration could also be controversial. A report from the government to Congress about US loan guarantees to Israel, including how much is used for settlements, could contain language critical of expanded construction on occupied land in the West Bank.

Observation

Today humanity is fully aware of destructive and anti-human nature of capitalism that promotes expansionist military trends like imperialism and colonialism. Occupation of and continued Israeli aggression against Palestine, like Indian brute occupation of neighboring Jammu Kashmir, does not let peace dawn in the world. Even countries that seek help from the USA, Israel or India also condemn the brutality and repression of these ‘rogue’ powers against the oppressed nations under their colonial yoke, notwithstanding the “help” being   offered by the colonialist nations.  

All these years ever since Israel was established in Mideast by the then big powers led by UK-USA twins, the western rulers pampered the illegal regime in Mideast with terror goods and technology, and money, today Israel has every reason not to take any warning from western capitals seriously and deny a chance for peace in West Asia. Comprehending the total failure of his triclomacy, President began supporting the Israeli fascism as part of NATO imperialism.

That is tragedy of the Palestinians and diplomacy itself.

Will Obama’s United States is not likely to reverse its opposition to the powerless Palestinians becoming a full-fledged UN member and a soverign nation? Instead of stopping   a large sized aid and terror goods supply to Israel, some fanatic US lawmakers already have threatened to push for a cutoff of the meager US aid to the Palestinian Authority whenever it talks about sovereignty from the Zionist fascist yoke or goes ahead with seeking justice and war crimes charges against Israel for war crimes in the Gaza Strip, killing thousands of innocent Palestinians, women their children inclusive.

Will Obama refuse meetings with Israeli leaders and their US lobbyist till he leaves the White House?

President Obama has to take hard decision to disobey US Jewish dictates and declare Palestine a soverign state and support the cause of Palestine UN, by using veto for the Palestine for a change. Will he?

Or, will the White House seeker Trump who is not sympathized with Palestinians make a shift in his approach by openly supporting the Palestinians cause, if he elected to presidency?

It is really funny that President Obama is unable to make Israel listen to him when USA offers huge aid packages to Israel but some American senators and Congress men – the traitors of US democratic foundations for freedom and peace – get sumptuous bribes from Israeli government and Jewish politicians to help the Israeli regime eat the US terror cake.

Obama has enough economic and military tools to get a positive response from Tel Aviv only if he has the will and broad-mind a true statesman should have!

Whether Obama decides to change the petrified US policy for Palestine and Arab world or not, time is overdue for US lawmakers and law-breakers to think seriously about the future of children of Palestine and protect its people as part of their international duty.

Enough of shielding the Zionist criminal wars!

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

The Turkish Gambit

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

The only certainty in war is its intrinsic uncertainty, something Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan could soon chance upon.  One only has to look back on America’s topsy-turvy fortunes in Iraq, Afghanistan and even Syria for confirmation.

The Turkish invasion of northeastern Syria has as its defined objective a buffer zone between the Kurds in Turkey and in Syria.  Mr. Erdogan hopes, to populate it with some of the 3 million plus Syrian refugees in Turkey, many of these in limbo in border camps.  The refugees are Arab; the Kurds are not.

Kurds speak a language different from Arabic but akin to Persian.  After the First World War, when the victors parceled up the Arab areas of the Ottoman Empire, Syria came to be controlled by the French, Iraq by the British, and the Kurdish area was divided into parts in Turkey, Syria and Iraq, not forgetting the borderlands in Iran — a brutal division by a colonial scalpel severing communities, friends and families.  About the latter, I have some experience, having lived through the bloody partition of India into two, and now three countries that cost a million lives.   

How Mr. Erdogan will persuade the Arab Syrian refugees to live in an enclave, surrounded by hostile Kurds, some ethnically cleansed from the very same place, remains an open question.  Will the Turkish army occupy this zone permanently?  For, we can imagine what the Kurds will do if the Turkish forces leave.

There is another aspect of modern conflict that has made conquest no longer such a desirable proposition — the guerrilla fighter.  Lightly armed and a master of asymmetric warfare, he destabilizes. 

Modern weapons provide small bands of men the capacity and capability to down helicopters, cripple tanks, lay IEDs, place car bombs in cities and generally disrupt any orderly functioning of a state, tying down large forces at huge expense with little chance of long term stability.  If the US has failed repeatedly in its efforts to bend countries to its will, one has to wonder if Erdogan has thought this one through.

The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 is another case in point.  Forever synonymous with the infamous butchery at Sabra and Shatila by the Phalange militia facilitated by Israeli forces, it is easy to forget a major and important Israeli goal:  access to the waters of the Litani River which implied a zone of occupation for the area south of it up to the Israeli border.

Southern Lebanon is predominantly Shia and at the time of the Israeli invasion they were a placid group who were dominated by Christians and Sunni, even Palestinians ejected from Israel but now armed and finding refuge in Lebanon.  It was when the Israelis looked like they were going to stay that the Shia awoke.  It took a while but soon their guerrillas were harassing Israeli troops and drawing blood.  The game was no longer worth the candle and Israel, licking its wounds, began to withdraw ending up eventually behind their own border.

A colossal footnote is the resurgent Shia confidence, the buildup into Hezbollah and new political power.  The Hezbollah prepared well for another Israeli invasion to settle old scores and teach them a lesson.  So they were ready, and shocked the Israelis in 2006.  Now they are feared by Israeli troops.   

To return to the present, it is not entirely clear as to what transpired in the telephone call between Erdogan and Trump.  Various sources confirm Trump has bluffed Erdogan in the past.  It is not unlikely then for Trump to have said this time, “We’re leaving.  If you go in, you will have to police the area.  Don’t ask us to help you.”  Is that subject to misinterpretation?  It certainly is a reminder of the inadvertent green light to Saddam Hussein for the invasion of Kuwait when Bush Senior was in office. 

For the time being Erdogan is holding fast and Trump has signed an executive order imposing sanctions on Turkish officials and institutions.  Three Turkish ministers and the Defense and Energy ministries are included.  Trump has also demanded an immediate ceasefire.  On the economic front, he has raised tariffs on steel back to 50 percent as it used to be before last May.  Trade negotiations on a $100 billion trade deal with Turkey have also been halted forthwith.  The order also includes the holding of property of those sanctioned, as well as barring entry to the U.S.

Meanwhile, the misery begins all over again as thousands flee the invasion area carrying what they can.  Where are they headed?  Anywhere where artillery shells do not rain down and the sound of airplanes does not mean bombs.

Such are the exigencies of war and often its surprising consequences. 

Author’s Note:  This piece appeared originally on Counterpunch.org

Continue Reading

Middle East

Could Turkish aggression boost peace in Syria?

Published

on

On October 7, 2019, the U.S. President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of American troops from northeast Syria, where the contingent alongside Kurdish militias controlled the vast territories. Trump clarified that the decision is connected with the intention of Turkey to attack the Kurdish units, posing a threat to Ankara.

It’s incredible that the Turkish military operation against Kurds – indeed the territorial integrity of Syria has resulted in the escape of the U.S., Great Britain, and France. These states essentially are key destabilizing components of the Syrian crisis.

Could this factor favourably influence the situation in the country? For instance, after the end of the Iraqi war in 2011 when the bulk of the American troops left the country, the positive developments took place in the lives of all Iraqis. According to World Economics organization, after the end of the conflict, Iraq’s GDP grew by 14% in 2012, while during the U.S. hostilities the average GDP growth was about 5,8%.

Syria’s GDP growth should also be predicted. Not right away the withdrawal of U.S., French, British, and other forces, but a little bit later after the end of the Turkish operation that is not a phenomenon. The Turkish-Kurdish conflict has been going on since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire when Kurds started to promote the ideas of self-identity and independence. Apart from numerous human losses, the Turks accomplished nothing. It is unlikely that Ankara would achieve much in Peace Spring operation. The Kurds realize the gravity of the situation and choose to form an alliance with the Syrian government that has undermined the ongoing Turkish offensive.

Under these circumstances, Erdogan could only hope for the creation of a narrow buffer zone on the Syrian-Turkish border. The withdrawal of the Turkish forces from the region is just a matter of time. However, we can safely say that the Turkish expansion unwittingly accelerated the peace settlement of the Syrian crisis, as the vital destabilizing forces left the country. Besides, the transfer of the oil-rich north-eastern regions under the control of Bashar Assad will also contribute to the early resolution of the conflict.

It remains a matter of conjecture what the leaders of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Russia agreed on during the high-level talks. Let’s hope that not only the Syrians, but also key Gulf states are tired of instability and tension in the region, and it’s a high time to strive for a political solution to the Syrian problem.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Turkey and the Kurds: What goes around comes around

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

Turkey, like much of the Middle East, is discovering that what goes around comes around.

Not only because President Recep Tayyip Erdogan appears to have miscalculated the fallout of what may prove to be a foolhardy intervention in Syria and neglected alternative options that could have strengthened Turkey’s position without sparking the ire of much of the international community.

But also because what could prove to be a strategic error is rooted in a policy of decades of denial of Kurdish identity and suppression of Kurdish cultural and political rights that was more likely than not to fuel conflict rather than encourage societal cohesion.

The policy midwifed the birth in the 1970s to militant groups like the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), which only dropped its demand for Kurdish independence in recent years.

The group that has waged a low intensity insurgency that has cost tens of thousands of lives has been declared a terrorist organization by Turkey, the United States and the European Union.

Turkish refusal to acknowledge the rights of the Kurds, who are believed to account for up to 20 percent of the country’s population traces its roots to the carving of modern Turkey out of the ruins of the Ottoman empire by its visionary founder, Mustafa Kemal, widely known as Ataturk, Father of the Turks.

It is entrenched in Mr. Kemal’s declaration in a speech in 1923 to celebrate Turkish independence of “how happy is the one who calls himself a Turk,” an effort to forge a national identity for country that was an ethnic mosaic.

The phrase was incorporated half a century later in Turkey’s student oath and ultimately removed from it in 2013 at a time of peace talks between Turkey and the PKK by then prime minister, now president Erdogan.

It took the influx of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980s and early 1990s as well as the 1991 declaration by the United States, Britain and France of a no-fly zone in northern Iraq that enabled the emergence of an autonomous Iraqi Kurdish region to spark debate in Turkey about the Kurdish question and prompt the government to refer to Kurds as Kurds rather than mountain Turks.

Ironically, Turkey’s enduring refusal to acknowledge Kurdish rights and its long neglect of development of the pre-dominantly Kurdish southeast of the country fuelled demands for greater rights rather than majority support for Kurdish secession largely despite the emergence of the PKK

Most Turkish Kurds, who could rise to the highest offices in the land s long as they identified as Turks rather than Kurds, resembled Palestinians with Israeli citizenship, whose options were more limited even if they endorsed the notion of a Jewish state.

Nonetheless, both minorities favoured an independent state for their brethren on the other side of the border but did not want to surrender the opportunities that either Turkey or Israel offered them.

The existence for close to three decades of a Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq and a 2017 referendum in which an overwhelming majority voted for Iraqi Kurdish independence, bitterly rejected and ultimately nullified by Iraqi, Turkish and Iranian opposition, did little to fundamentally change Turkish Kurdish attitudes.

If the referendum briefly soured Turkish-Iraqi Kurdish relations, it failed to undermine the basic understanding underlying a relationship that could have guided Turkey’s approach towards the Kurds in Syria even if dealing with Iraqi Kurds may have been easier because, unlike Turkish Kurds, they had not engaged in political violence against Turkey.

The notion that there was no alternative to the Turkish intervention in Syria is further countered by the fact that Turkish PKK negotiations that started in 2012 led a year later to a ceasefire and a boosting of efforts to secure a peaceful resolution.

The talks prompted imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan to publish a letter endorsing the ceasefire, the disarmament and withdrawal from Turkey of PKK fighters, and a call for an end to the insurgency. Mr. Ocalan predicted that 2013 would be the year in which the Turkish Kurdish issues would be resolved peacefully.

The PKK’s military leader, Cemil Bayik, told the BBC three years later that “we don’t want to separate from Turkey and set up a state. We want to live within the borders of Turkey on our own land freely.”

The talks broke down in 2015 against the backdrop of the Syrian war and the rise as a US ally of the United States in the fight against the Islamic State of the PKK’s Syrian affiliate, the People’s Protection Units (YPG).

Bitterly opposed to the US-YPG alliance, Turkey demanded that the PKK halt its resumption of attacks on Turkish targets and disarm prior to further negotiations.

Turkey responded to the breakdown and resumption of violence with a brutal crackdown in the southeast of the country and on the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP).

Nonetheless, in a statement issued from prison earlier this year that envisioned an understanding between Turkey and Syrian Kurdish forces believed to be aligned with the PKK, Mr. Ocalan declared that “we believe, with regard to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the problems in Syria should be resolved within the framework of the unity of Syria, based on constitutional guarantees and local democratic perspectives. In this regard, it should be sensitive to Turkey’s concerns.”

Turkey’s emergence as one of Iraqi Kurdistan’s foremost investors and trading partners in exchange for Iraqi Kurdish acquiescence in Turkish countering the PKK’s presence in the region could have provided inspiration for a US-sponsored safe zone in northern Syria that Washington and Ankara had contemplated.

The Turkish-Iraqi Kurdish understanding enabled Turkey  to allow an armed Iraqi Kurdish force to transit Turkish territory in 2014 to help prevent the Islamic State from conquering the Syrian city of Kobani.

A safe zone would have helped “realign the relationship between Turkey’s Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and its Syrian offshoot… The safe-zone arrangements… envision(ed) drawing down the YPG presence along the border—a good starting point for reining in the PKK, improving U.S. ties with Ankara, and avoiding a potentially destructive Turkish intervention in Syria,” Turkey scholar Sonar Cagaptay suggested in August.

The opportunity that could have created the beginnings of a sustainable solution that would have benefitted Turkey as well as the Kurds fell by the wayside with Mr. Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops from northern Syria.

In many ways, Mr. Erdogan’s decision to opt for a military solution fits the mould of a critical mass of world leaders who look at the world through a civilizational prism and often view national borders in relative terms.

Russian leader Vladimir Putin pointed the way with his 2008 intervention in Georgia and the annexation in 2014 of Crimea as well as Russia’s stirring of pro-Russian insurgencies in two regions of Ukraine.

Mr. Erdogan appears to believe that if Mr. Putin can pull it off, so can he.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy