Don't count on America

[Violet_Crumble]

By Yossi Beilin

It never was President Bush's dream to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On the contrary, since it had been President Clinton's "baby" and everything connected to Clinton is treif as far as Bush is concerned, it was clear from the beginning that he would stay away from the region.

The wealth of the English language makes it possible to attach serious and respectable terms to inactivity. Thus, for example, the decision not to play an active role in finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is called "conflict management." In effect, the administration's decision says that as long as the Israelis and Palestinians kill each other at "low intensity," they can be allowed to go on bleeding. If the conflict intensifies, something has to be declared (like the pathetic "Bush vision" of June 2002, or the road map, which was delivered to the sides in April 2003 without any of its initiators or recipients treating it seriously).

Visitors to Washington nowadays cannot get free of the feeling that the administration is stewing in deep depression and wants to be left alone in its domestic political arena, without being troubled by international problems. The hurricane in the south exposed an administration that is incapable of handling it citizens' existential issues and largely abandons the weak and the poor. The blood of American soldiers and civilians continues to be spilled in Iraq, and the huge budget deficit created by President Bush, who inherited a budget without a deficit from Clinton, also contributes to the sense of American weakness - particularly since a large proportion of American foreign debt consists of U.S. bonds held by the Chinese.

<snip>

As for us, immediately after Bush was elected to his second term, there were those around him who said that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would take top priority in the president's foreign policy and that his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice would in effect become a special envoy to the Middle East. Now it is clear that the domestic scandals and the failure in Iraq have distanced the administration so far from us that it doesn't even notice if we're on fire.

The sole superpower in the world has for some time been running a policy of ducking responsibility. The American vision is based on the nonsensical notion of turning Gaza into a model of regional success like Singapore or Hong Kong, and the secretary of state shows up to deal with the evacuation of the rubble of the settlements of Gush Katif or the dramatic issue of the technical arrangements for the Rafah crossing.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/643701.html

[Coastie for Truth]

1. The exact issue of "Sykes-Picot"

as described by many scholars and analysts, i.e.,

In effect, the administration's decision says that as long as the Israelis and Palestinians kill each other at "low intensity," they can be allowed to go on bleeding. If the conflict intensifies, something has to be declared (like the pathetic "Bush vision" of June 2002, or the road map, which was delivered to the sides in April 2003 without any of its initiators or recipients treating it seriously).

This is the exact point of the British- French to carve up the ME while retaining hegemony.

William Engdahl, A Century Of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, has described the historic policy as continuing conflict to assure Big Power oil hegemony.

This is the same analysis as put forward by Daniel Yergin,The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power., and by Matthew Simmons, Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy.

This quest for hegemony over the "oil spigot" ("Hegemony over the oil spigot" is the term used by Mark Levine, Why They Don't Hate Us: Lifting the Veil on the Axis of Evil, to describe PNAC) is what drives the PNAC agenda - not any "Greater Israel".

As Beilin opines in the OP

In effect, the administration's decision says that as long as the Israelis and Palestinians kill each other at "low intensity," they can be allowed to go on bleeding.

This is a classical Marxist analysis - outside powers keep the Israelis and Palestinians killing each other at "low intensity" (i.e., Sykes-Picot) while the "Big Powers" exploit the mineral wealth of the Arab peoples.

Has it ever occured to some that maybe, just maybe, this exploitation of the Arab oil wealth by corrupt autocrats - and the wasting of the Arab mass's mineral wealth on frivolities is a cause of anger among both Muslim intellectuals and among jihadists.

See , better yet, actually replay last week's Senate Hearing while actually reading the , especially the Adobe Acrobat file

And, if you want some more background, try Kenneth Deffeyes two books, Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak, and Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage.

Bottom line-- as long as it in in the "economic advantage" (i.e., access to petroleum, control of the petroleum spigot) of the Big Players (US, UK, Saudi Royal Family, the mineral industry), the Israelis and Palestinians kill each other at "low intensity," <and> can be allowed to go on bleeding.