The Secretary of State, of the United States, should one ever manage a peace settlement between warring groups will get fired if their plane doesn't fall out of the air, or better yet get 'blown up' by one of the parties that they supposedly worked for peace.
Never in the history of the USA from Monroe onwards has a US Secretary of State worked for Peace, they've only worked for Corporate profits. War produces 10 times the profits that the best of any economic times has ever produced, for the money lenders. It's rather misleading and gullible to think that a US Secretary of State is ACTUALLY working the Peace process, their job is to sabotage it. If I recall correctly, Kissinger was the "We come in Peace, Shoot to kill' fella, I was a tad young, though expected to be hamburger turned into gold for his efforts. ANY PLACE HE WENT, especially places that almost had peace treaties worked out, always went to war within weeks of his departure, or he kept returning till there was war. This isn't 2 centuries of coincidences. Scott > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > -----Original Message----- > From: Portside moderator <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 16:23:06 > To: <[email protected]> > Reply-To: Portside moderator <[email protected]> > Subject: John Kerryâs Doomed Peace Process is Deja Vu All Over Again > > John Kerryâs Doomed Peace Process is Deja Vu All Over Again > > August 3, 2013 > By Phyllis Bennis > Mondoweiss (August 2, 2013) > > In recent years it has become common to see Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, > Aaron Miller and others responsible for the 22 years of failed U.S. > diplomacy in the Middle East relying on their âveteranâ status as a > credential for continuing their careers. > > Secretary of State John Kerryâs latest foray into Middle East > negotiations should be called the Einstein peace process. Doing the same > thing over and over again and still expecting different results is the > great scientistâs definition of insanity. This time around, indications > are that Kerry actually believes, all evidence to the contrary aside, that > this latest iteration of the decades-old industry known as the âpeace > processâ might really succeed. But unfortunately for Kerry, his > political calculations are about to run aground on the unforgiving shoals > of political reality. > > Whatever Kerryâs beliefs, the timing of this latest version of the > talks clearly has a lot to do with the crises erupting across the Middle > East region. The escalating civil and regional war in Syria, the growing > sectarian and religious-secular divides exploding across the region, and > even the Pentagon-backed Egyptian militaryâs coup against the Muslim > Brotherhood all reflect broader U.S. weakness and failures in the Middle > East. The inability of the U.S. to respond strategically to those > challenges is certainly part of why plunging back into Israel-Palestine > talks, however repetitive of earlier failures, might have seemed a useful > move â for distraction, for reassurance of Israelâs backers, for > reassertion of a weakened empireâs fading but still extant power. > > But despite all those reasons, these talks are doomed to the same > failure > as the 22 years of failed diplomacy that precedes them. > > Part of the problem lies squarely in Kerryâs stated U.S. goal for the > talks: âending the conflict, ending the claims.â Not ending the > occupation, not ending the siege of Gaza, not ending the decades of > dispossession and exile of Palestinian refugees. Only ending the tension, > the dispute â regardless of which version of current reality becomes > the officially agreed upon final status. Then, in Kerryâs world, all > Palestinian claims will disappear, and the Palestinians, even if their > internationally-recognized rights remain out of reach, will smile, > applaud their brave leaders, and politely agree to suck it up. (Future > Israeli claims will not have to end, of course, because Israeli claims > are about âsecurity,â inherently legitimate and non-negotiable, while > Palestinian claims â to self-determination, real sovereignty, equality, > return â are simply political and up for grabs.) > > The appointment of Martin Indyk as U.S. envoy to the talks is a further > indication that no one intends to change the framework of the last 22 > years of failed U.S.-led diplomacy. Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to > Israel, former deputy research director of AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel > lobby, and co-founder of the AIPAC-linked Washington Institute for Near > East Policy, has been central to U.S.-controlled Israel-Palestine > diplomacy for years. (In recent years it has become common to see Indyk, > Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller and others responsible for the 22 years of > failed U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East relying on their âveteranâ > status as a credential for continuing their careers.) > > This round, like those before, will ignore international law, and > instead > be based on accepting the current disparity of power between occupied and > occupier. The pro-Israel U.S. arbiter will determine the Israeli > positions and Israeli-proposed âcompromisesâ to be âreasonable.â > Israel will continue to build and expand settlements in occupied East > Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank based on the thousands of permits > already in place, while likely offering some kind of short-term partial > slowdown in granting some number of new permits â and that will be > called a major compromise. More than 600,000 Israeli settlers will > continue to live in huge city-sized Jews-only settlements throughout the > West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the talks will be rooted in the > understanding that in any final arrangement Israel will be allowed to > keep all the major settlement blocs, the aquifers, and 80% or more of the > settlers right where they are. > Secretary Kerry announced proudly that this round of talks is different > â based on the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. But he slid over the small > U.S.- and Israeli-imposed âadjustmentâ to that plan, which stripped it > of its potential value. The plan originally offered Arab statesâ > normalization with Israel only after âfullâ withdrawal to the 1967 > borders, and a just solution to the refugee problem based on UN resolution > 194 guaranteeing their right of return. Kerryâs new version ignores the > refugees (at least so far) and adopts the U.S.-Israeli language on borders > (always said as one word) of 1967-borders-with-swaps. Those land > âswaps,â of course, mean Israel gets to keep all its settlement > cities, most of its illegal settlers, virtually all the Palestinian water > sources, while the Palestinians will be offered some undeveloped desert > land abutting Gaza, or perhaps a proposal to place Palestinian-majority > cities inside Israel, such as Nazareth, under the jurisdic > tion of the to-be-created Palestinian âstate.â (There is likely to be > no compromise even discussed on Gaza â Israelâs siege will remain, > strengthened by Egyptâs new post-coup government sealing tunnels and > tightening the closure of the Egypt-Gaza crossing at Rafah â and the > Palestinian Authority diplomats are not likely to make Gaza a major part > of their negotiating strategy.) > > Palestinians, of course, will be expected to accept Israelâs > âreasonableâ compromises as if both sides, occupied & occupier, have > the same obligations under international law. (Oh right, international > law doesnât have a role here.) The price, if Palestinians reject any of > Israelâs oh-so-reasonable proposals, will be U.S. and perhaps global > opprobrium for blocking peace. Right now some developing countries > (South Africa, Brazil) are hinting at somewhat more independent positions > towards Israel-Palestine. The European Unionâs new restrictions on > funding settlement entities, made public just before Kerryâs > announcement of the new talks and Israelâs acceptance of them, is > particularly important, reflecting the impact of even mild sanctions on > Tel Aviv. But while the civil society movement for boycott, divestment > and sanctions (BDS) continues to build, it remains unclear how the > governments tentatively backing away from U.S. positions would respond to > the collap > se of the U.S.-controlled talks, especially if the U.S. claim is that the > failure is the Palestiniansâ fault. > Israeli violations of international law, the Geneva Conventions, UN > resolutions and more remain. The U.S. does not set an end to those > violations as a goal of these peace talks â let alone as a precondition. > If it did, Israel would have to end its occupation of the 1967 territories > and recognize the Palestiniansâ right of return unilaterally â ending > violations shouldnât require negotiations. Thatâs why, ultimately, > these talks will fail. Until negotiations are based not on U.S. support > for Israeli power but on international law, human rights, and equality for > all, the âpeace process,â including this latest Einstein Edition, will > continue to fail. > ___________ > Fellow Phyllis Bennis directs the New Internationalism Project at the > Institute for Policy Studies(IPS). She is also a fellow of the > Transnational Institute in Amsterdam. She has been a writer, analyst, and > activist on Middle East and UN issues for many years. In 2001 she helped > found and remains on the steering committee of the U.S. Campaign to End > Israeli Occupation. She works closely with the United for Peace and > Justice anti-war coalition, co-chairs the UN-based International > Coordinating Network on Palestine, and since 2002 has played an active > role in the growing global peace movement. She continues to serve as an > adviser to several top UN officials on Middle East and UN democratization > issues. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > VIEW ONLINE: > http://portside.org/2013-08-03/john-kerry%E2%80%99s-doomed-peace-process-deja-vu-all-over-again > SUBSCRIBE: http://portside.org/subscribe > VISIT PORTSIDE.ORG: http://portside.org > TWITTER: https://twitter.com/portsideorg > FACEBOOK: https://facebook.com/Portside.PortsideLabor > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Portside aims to provide material of interest to people > on the left that will help them to interpret the world > and to change it. > > Submit via email: [email protected] > > Submit via web: http://portside.org/submittous3 > > Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq > > Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe > > Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive > > To unsubscribe, click the following link: > http://lists.portside.org/cgi-bin/listserv/wa?TICKET=NzM1MTEzIG1uYXBwc3RlckBTQkNHTE9CQUwuTkVUIFBPUlRTSURFIGW2VFdy5ytM&c=SIGNOFF > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
