Mitchell Meets Barak

Fearing a backlash from the US Congress, Barack Obama has already called Netanyahu, and has sent his special envoy, George Mitchell, to Jerusalem to appease Likud’s Zionist extremism. Jeffrey Heller reports for Reuters that: “Mitchell told President Shimon Peres his goal was to create conditions for ‘prompt resumption and early conclusion’ of talks leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state ‘side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state [Theodor Herzl's der Judenstaat] of Israel’.” (Emphasis added.)

King David Hotel After Irgun Attack

Not unlike the Afghan Taliban, and other so-called “Islamist” parties, who argue that Muslim majority states should be Islamic states–a position that the United States opposes not just with words but with covert operations and overt military action–Israel’s Likud Party, successor to the widely condemned terrorist organisation, Irgun, advocates that Israel should be a Jewish state.

This is, usually, a minority view; the majority viewpoint, as expressed, for example, by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (in his inaugural address to the Knesset on July 13, 1992) being that:

It is our duty, to ourselves and our children, to see the new world as it is now—to discern its dangers, explore its prospects, and to do everything possible so the State of Israel will fit into this world whose face is changing. No longer are we necessarily “a people that dwells alone,” and no longer is it true that “the whole world is against us.” We must overcome the sense of isolation that has held us in thrall for almost half a century.

With Likud’s recent victory, however, Israel seeks to turn away from a secular democracy (“a nation like other nations”) toward either a theocracy (if “Jewish” refers to a religion) or, not unlike Hitler’s conception of an Aryan nation, an apartheid state (if it refers to a race; in either case, a people that dwells alone).

On assuming office, Benjamin Netanyahu initially insisted that Israel be recognized by the Palestinians as a Jewish state before any peace talks could take place. On 20 April 2009, however, Netanyahu backtracked from this position in an official statement that he believes “it will not be possible to advance the diplomatic process and reach a peace settlement. However, the prime minister has never set this as a pre-condition for the opening of negotiations and dialogue with the Palestinians.” In advance of Barack Obama’s Cairo speech, however, Mr. Netanyahu’s office again released a statement that without such recognition, “it will not be possible to advance the diplomatic process and reach a peace settlement.”

The Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, has dismissed this demand. “I do not accept it,” Mr. Abbas said in a speech in Ramallah, in the West Bank. “It is not my job to give a description of the state. Name yourself the Hebrew Socialist Republic — it is none of my business,” he added, according to Reuters.The American Special Envoy’s statement, therefore, not only undermines the Palestinians, but also encourages Netanyahu in his hardline position.

It also goes against the long-held American position, first expressed by the 1919 King-Crane commission, which laid the foundation for America’s involvement in the Middle East.

[BEGIN QUOTE] (1) The Commissioners began their study of Zionism with minds predisposed in its favor, but the actual facts in Palestine, coupled with the force of the general principles proclaimed by the Allies and accepted by the Syrians have driven them to the recommendation here made.

(2) The commission was abundantly supplied with literature on the Zionist program by the Zionist Commission to Palestine; heard in conferences much concerning the Zionist colonies and their claims; and personally saw something of what had been accomplished. They found much to approve in the aspirations and plans of the Zionists, and had warm appreciation for the devotion of many of the colonists and for their success, by modern methods, in overcoming natural obstacles.

(3) The Commission recognized also that definite encouragement had been given to the Zionists by the Allies in Mr. Balfour’s often quoted statement in its approval by other representatives of the Allies. If, however, the strict terms of the Balfour Statement are adhered to – favoring “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights existing in non-Jewish communities in Palestine”- it can hardly be doubted that the extreme Zionist Program must be greatly modified.

For “a national home for the Jewish people” is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the “civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.

In his address of July 4, 1918, President Wilson laid down the following principle as one of the four great “ends for which the associated peoples of the world were fighting”; “The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery.” If that principle is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine’s population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine-nearly nine tenths of the whole-are emphatically against the entire Zionist program. The tables show that there was no one thing upon which the population of Palestine were more agreed than upon this. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted, and of the people’s rights, though it kept within the forms of law. [END QUOTE]

As is clear from this analysis, Barack Obama has done an about face not only from his Cairo speech, but from a long established American position, in supporting the extreme Zionist position that is a minority position even among Israeli Jews.

Obama Calls Netanyahu

As for Mr. Obama’s phone call a White House Press Release states: “The President and Prime Minister had a constructive, 20-minute conversation.  The President reiterated the principal elements of his Cairo speech, including his commitment to Israel’s security.  He indicated that he looked forward to hearing the Prime Minister’s upcoming speech outlining his views on peace and security.  The President also noted that Senator Mitchell would be in Israel again tomorrow as he starts his fourth trip to the region as the Special Envoy for Middle East peace.”

Meanwhile, YNet News reports that “Hamas  politburo chief Khaled Mashaal also plans to deliver a special diplomatic speech of his own, immediately after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s  speech next week, the London-based Arabic-language al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper reported Tuesday morning.”