Friends,
I've seen people describe the plight of the Palestinians
as being a form of apartheid, and one person even suggested
that the Israelis are playing a role toward the Palestinians
not unlike the role of the Nazis toward the Jews. There
are many possible comparisons with past historic episodes.
I suggest that the closest comparison is with the American
Indians. I can itemize the similarities, but the main point
is that the overall gestalt of the situations are identical.
In both cases you have a native population, and a
supplanting population. In both cases the supplanting
population considers the natives to be racially inferior,
and incrementally proceeds to displace them, massacre them,
remove them to reservations, undermine their economic
viability, and gradually push them into extinction.
The psychology that drives such genocide is, unfortunately,
not easily stopped. In order to begin the process of
supplantation in the first place, the invading population
must have an attitude of self-righteous superiority, and a
belief that what they are taking actually belongs to them.
In the case of Israel, these elements are readily apparent.
In the case of the American colonists, the attiudes were
remarkably parallel. America was considered the 'New
Jerusalem', a 'Promised Land' for the Christian settlers.
There was a heavy Old-Testament theme, an identification
with 'Israelites', whose land was occupied by 'Canaanites'
(Redskins). As the settlers kept moving West, they always
saw themselves as the victims, the ones beseiged by
surrounding hostile forces. This provided the plot for
many a Cowboy & Indian movie.
America is a big place, and in the end a few natives were
permitted to survive, either assimilated or on reservations.
Israel is a small place, and the establishment of the
Israeli 'settlements' makes it clear that there is no place
at all for the Palestinians.
I suggest that the survival of the Palestinians cannot be
accomplished by the Palestinians, and that it will not be
provided by the state of Israel. Only the U.S. has the
power to do anything about the situation, and its policy is
obviously guided by the most cynical of geopolitical
considerations. Public opinion is part of those
considerations, and we must take note of the increased
sympathy for Palestinians that is being generated by recent
media coverage. There is reason to believe that this
coverage is intended to create the political elbow room for
a new U.S. initiative, one which will not be to Israel's
liking.
A few years back, the Council on Foreign Relations
commissioned an "Independent Task Force" to report on "US
Middle East Policy". The scenarios the Task Force
considered were not identical to our current situation, but
they were close in their essentials. The report said:
... The United States should be prepared to station troops on
the Golan Heights as part of a multilateral peacekeeping or
monitoring force if such a force is necessary for a final
agreement between Israel and Syria.
Syria and the Golan heights may or may not be relevant, but
I think the strategic point being made here is that US
policy planners are willing to inject US troops into this
theater if that is what it takes to achieve a satisfactory
resolution. This will require an unprecedented firm hand
with Israel, which in turn requires a softening-up public
relations campaign to avoid a pro-Israel backlash.
The CIA is known to be working with the Palestinian
authorities, presumably adivising them on security and
organization. It is also possible that they may be covertly
encouraging the current uprising in order to create the
scenario for U.S. intervention. The modus operandi of
U.S. interventionism always requires a dramatic incident.
rkm
http://cyberjournal.org
Share: