Friday 29th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

not the language of peace yet......

Proposals for Gaza by the EU’s foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell reflect long-standing European concerns, and show an aspiration to become more involved in a cooperative solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Can these European concerns and aspirations have some tangible bearing on Palestinian political prospects?

 

“EU has to learn to use the language of power” says Borrell    By Benedict Moleta

 

Five weeks after Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel, European Union (EU) proposals for a post-war Gaza were aired by Josep Borrell, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Borrell then visited Israel and the West Bank on November 16 and 17. Meetings were arranged with Israel’s Foreign Minister Eli Cohen and President Isaac Herzog, as well as Minister Benny Gantz and opposition leader Yair Lapid, but not with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In 2019, when Borrell was appointed to the top EU diplomatic post, Israeli officials had expressed reservations due to the veteran Spanish politician’s well-known critical stance on Israel – Borrell having referred in the year before his EU appointment to Netanyahu’s “warlike arrogance”. Objection was again voiced in March 2023 by Foreign Minister Cohen, who criticised Borrell’s op-ed comment that Israeli settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank appeared to proceed “almost always with impunity”. Nevertheless, on 16 November Borrell did meet with Cohen and Herzog, and met the next day with the Palestinian Authority’s President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh, then proceeding on a regional diplomatic tour visiting Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. In an exercise of concerted EU diplomacy in the Middle East, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen travelled to Egypt and Jordan in the same week, to meet with President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and King Abdullah II.

In the EU-supported post-war scenario that Borrell described, there were no surprises in the three futures that he said would be unacceptable: displacement of Gaza’s Palestinian population, occupation of the enclave by Israel, and a resumption of rule by Hamas. To endorse the first would be to endorse a repeat of the forced displacement of Palestinians in the 1948 war. To endorse the second would be to endorse expansion of Israel’s territorial occupation. To endorse the third would be to endorse government by an organisation the EU already considered terrorist before October 7.

As for what was proposed instead, all three of the contributors to a viable post-war Gaza that were aired by Borrell lack credibility. Firstly, the notion that a “reinforced” version of the Palestinian Authority should be cultivated is nothing more than a platitude. An effective and politically authoritative Palestinian Authority has been awaited since this provisional entity was created in 1994, as part of the Oslo process. Borrell’s suggestion that the required reinforcement now come via “a legitimacy to be defined and decided upon by the [UN] Security Council” intimates only another period in which Palestinians would have the political legitimacy of their statehood aspirations framed and managed by outside parties. As a proposal that would need to be put to Palestinian factions, to Israel and to the United States, this is surely a dead letter.

Secondly, Borrell’s exhortation that a Palestinian governing body must be reinforced by “strong commitment from the Arab States” is pontifical, in urging concord among a supposed group of disunified polities. The joint meeting of the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation on November 11 in Riyadh demonstrated that Arab and Muslim leaders – including the Saudi Crown Prince and the Iranian President – are willing to convene to condemn Israel. But it seems unlikely that exhortation from the EU’s chief diplomat will inspire a selection of members of these groups to formalise a unified commitment to the future of Palestine. Considering Borrell’s candour in describing the difficulty of coordinating a joint statement on Gaza among the 27 member states of the EU, counselling unity among “the Arab states” seems an immodest EU proposal. It is also improbable in terms what kind of “strong commitment” to Palestinian government the EU would find acceptable. For example, the resumption of diplomatic relations between Arab states and Syria was evident in President Basha al-Assad’s attendance at the November Riyadh summit. Four days later France issued an international arrest warrant for Assad, in connection with the use of chemical weapons in 2013. Would Borrell consider a “strong commitment” to Gaza by Arab states acceptable, if it came from a cooperating group that included the government of Bashar al-Assad? And if such a commitment were formalised, would Borrell expect France to find it palatable?

Thirdly, Borrell proposed greater EU involvement in the “construction of a Palestinian state”, saying: “We have delegated the solution of this problem to the United States. But Europe must become more involved.” This third proposal is the one that reveals the most about the gap between EU aspirations for Gaza in the short term, and the realities of Palestinian statehood aspirations in the long term. The intrepid Middle East diplomacy by Borrell and von der Leyen in November 2023 can be seen as a gesture toward bridging this gap. It can also be seen in relation to what von der Leyen proposed as the need to become a “geopolitical Commission” when she was appointed in 2019, and that she then made the centrepiece of her Mission Letter to Borrell. Accordingly, Borrell said in his 2019 confirmation hearing “The EU has to learn to use the language of power,” and that “if we don’t act together, Europe will become irrelevant.” During Borrell’s time in office, war in Ukraine has made it clear that there is no shortage of geopolitics still emanating from within Europe. But as Borrell approaches the end of his five year-term, it is not equally clear that geopolitically decisive diplomacy or foreign policy can be led by the EU’s High Representative – even when earnestly aspired to.

Hamas’ 7 October attack on Israel occurred fifty years after the 1973 October War. In an essay published that year on combined European foreign policy, Wolfgang Hager asked: “What can Europe do to influence the central conflict of the area, the Arab-Israeli confrontation? The answer must be: very little directly.” Josep Borrell’s proposals for Gaza do not immediately indicate that a concerted European approach to Israel and Palestine is more plausible today, than it was at the time of Hager’s assessment in 1973.

https://johnmenadue.com/josep-borrell-on-gaza-geopolitical-european-counsel/

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW...........

minimalist 500 kg bombs....

Israel resumed the Gaza war having said that Hamas violated a week-long truce by firing rockets at the Jewish state. The White House echoed that the Islamist group is to blame for the resumption of hostilities. Is Team Biden interested in expanding Tel Aviv's operation?

The re-eruption of Israel's war against Hamas came hot on the heels of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken's meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv.

During the meeting Blinken lauded the expansion of the humanitarian pause: "The pause in fighting has demonstrated success in securing the freedom of hostages and in delivering humanitarian aid to Gaza – we want to see it continue," the US secretary of state said on Thursday. Yet the conflict resumed the very next day. What is behind this contradiction?

 

"I think Blinken’s visit yesterday must be perceived within the constant supportive context the US announced from the beginning of this war for Israel, therefore the US seeks may be for new tactics which could reduce the ethical embarrassment Israel causes for the US department through the randomized killing for civilians, this is why Blinken mentioned everything but the ceasefire," Dr. Muhannad Alazzeh, former Jordanian senator and international legal and human rights commissioned expert told Sputnik.

 

https://sputnikglobe.com/20231201/was-resumption-of-gaza-war-linked-to-blinkens-visit-1115333089.html

 

 

 

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - The United States has delivered 100 units of 2,000-pound BLU-109 bunker buster bombs among thousands of other ammunition and weapons systems to Israel in the war against the Palestinian movement Hamas in the Gaza Strip, US media reported on Friday.

Among the nearly 15,000 bombs and 57,000 artillery shells delivered to the Israeli military following Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, the United States has also transferred 100 BLU-109 bunker buster bombs, media reported, citing US officials.

The BLU-109 bomb, created to cause maximum damage, carries a 2,000-pound warhead capable of penetrating concrete shelters, it was reported. Israel could use such bunker buster bombs to penetrate Hamas’ vast network of underground tunnels and installations.

However, several security analysts have pointed out that the delivery of such bombs to Israel is inconsistent with the calls made by senior US officials, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, to protect civilians and minimize human loss of life.

 

https://sputnikglobe.com/20231201/us-reportedly-shipped-100-blu-109-bunker-buster-bombs-to-help-israel-fight-hamas-1115337975.html

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.............

more bombs...

By Kyle Anzalone / Antiwar.com

The Wall Street Journal published details about the White House’s secretive arms transfers to Israel since October 7. The US has provided Israel with 57,000 artillery shells and 15,000 bombs, including over 5,000 with 2,000-pound warheads.

According to a list of weapons obtained by the Journal, the US has shipped Israel “more than 5,000 Mk82 unguided or ‘dumb’ bombs, more than 5,400 Mk84 2,000-pound warhead bombs, around 1,000 GBU-39 small diameter bombs, and approximately 3,000 JDAMs.”

The US has additionally shipped 57,000 155 MM shells to Israel. NBC News previously reported in October that Washington sent Tel Aviv artillery rounds that are cluster munitions.

 

https://scheerpost.com/2023/12/03/us-sent-israel-15000-bombs-since-october-7/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.............

insanity of revenge......

 

BY SCOTT RITTER

 

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” This quote is often attributed to Albert Einstein, although there is no direct evidence he either wrote or spoke it, let alone came up with it himself. But the wisdom of the saying is unescapable.

The attack carried out by Hamas on October 7 against Israeli military positions and settlements which, collectively, formed what is known as the “Gaza barrier system”, triggered a massive Israeli military response. There are two aspects of this cause-and-effect relationship that stand out. First, and perhaps most importantly, it was the goal and objective of Hamas to have Israel respond impulsively. Hamas did not have to think out of the box, so to speak, to imagine such a reaction—since 2006, it has been established and well-known Israeli policy to conduct military campaign based upon the premise of collective punishment of a civilian population. Moreover, given the Israeli predilection for revenge that dates to the massacre of Israeli athletes during the 1972 Munich summer Olympics, a massive military incursion into Gaza to hold to account those responsible for the October 7 attacks was likewise as predictable as snow falling in Siberia in the wintertime.

 

Second, and less predictable than the first, was the poor performance of the Israeli security establishment, including the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) and Israeli intelligence. Not only did the Israeli security forces fail to act on what appears to have been ample evidence pointing to a Hamas attack along the lines of that executed on October 7, but once the Hamas attack began, the failure of the IDF to defend against the attack, and the plodding, indiscriminate nature of the Israeli counterattack, which appears to have inflicted significant casualties on Israeli civilians that the Israeli authorities have attributed to the Hamas attackers, seriously eroded the notion of the invincibility and infallibility of the Israeli military and security establishment.

But this was only the beginning of what would amount to a strategic Israeli defeat at the hands of Hamas. The Israelis proceeded to mobilize some 300,000 reservists, most of whom were sent to the Gaza front. While these forces were assembled, the Israeli Air Force began a bombing campaign against the civilian infrastructure of Gaza, including hospitals, mosques, schools, and refugee camps, which shocked the world in terms of its lethality. By ignoring the fundamental precepts of international humanitarian law, Israel allowed itself to be characterized as a practitioner of genocide, and its actions against Gaza as war crimes.

 

This is the core of the Hamas victory—the political defeat of Israel on the global stage, where international sympathies rapidly aligned with the people of Gaza and Palestine, and away from Israel. War, the Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz famously noted, is politics by other means. Hamas has proven the maxim to its fullest extent, accomplishing politically that which could only be initiated by Israel’s criminal use of force against the Palestinian people.

But even as international pressure began to accumulate for Israel to halt its offensive, Hamas was able to achieve what many outside observers had believed to be unthinkable—it fought the IDF to a standstill in Gaza itself, inflicting significant human and material losses on the IDF. After declaring that Israel would never agree to a ceasefire or an exchange of prisoners with Hamas, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suddenly caved into international pressure to sign up for what became a six-day “pause” where humanitarian goods were delivered to the Palestinian civilians in Gaza, and Palestinian prisoners held by Israel were exchanged for hostages seized by Hamas on October 7. One of the major reasons for this decision lay not in the extreme pressure being put on Israel by the United States and its European allies for such an outcome, but the fact that the IDF was suffering serious losses on the battlefield in Gaza and along Israel’s northern border with Lebanon, where Hezbollah was engaged in military operations in support of Hamas. The casualties among Israeli main battle tanks were unsustainable, and the morale of the IDF soldiers was collapsing—indeed, Israel had to courts-martial two IDF officers who withdrew their battalion from the Gaza battlefield under pressure from Hamas.

 

For Benjamin Netanyahu, his administration of hard-right Zionists, and the Israeli security establishment, the ceasefire was a curse. Israel was compelled to enter such an agreement with Hamas by a combination of geopolitical and battlefield realities. But for an embattled politician such as Netanyahu, who was already facing a political crisis brought on by his undermining of the independent character of the Israeli judiciary in a blatant effort to make himself immune from prosecution on serious charges of corruption, the ceasefire created a window of political normalcy inside Israel which gave the Israeli population time to begin asking questions about October 7, and who was to blame for what has emerged as Israel’s greatest defeat in its history.

All fingers pointed to Netanyahu, which meant that to survive politically, Netanyahu needed to get his country back on a war footing. The Israeli decision to terminate the negotiated pause with Hamas was inevitable and predictable—Netanyahu’s political future depended on the chaos and violence that such an action would provoke.

But nothing has changed. Israel continues to slaughter innocent Palestinian civilians, generating even greater levels of international condemnation. The IDF continues to be pummeled by Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah on Israel’s northern border. The geopolitical and military situation for Israel will only worsen.

This was all predictable.

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”

Israel is, in fact, insane. While this insanity can be linked to the desperate political situation Netanyahu and his ruling coalition of hard-core Zionists have found themselves in, the reality is that the situation Israel finds itself in today was predictable.

Just ask Albert Einstein. While the insanity quote may not be his, Einstein can be quoted both about Zionism and the Israeli state.

In 1947, Einstein wrote a letter to Jawaharlal Nehru in which he addressed the need for a Jewish homeland in the Middle East. “The advent of Hitler,” Einstein wrote, “underscored with a savage logic all the disastrous implications contained in the abnormal situation in which Jews found themselves. Millions of Jews perished...because there was no spot on the globe where they could find sanctuary...The Jewish survivors demand the right to dwell amid brothers, on the ancient soil of their fathers.”

Einstein worried about the potential of a clash between the citizens of this new Jewish state, and the Arabs who lived on the land that would be incorporated into what would become Israel. “Can Jewish need, no matter how acute, be met without the infringement of the vital rights of others?” Einstein sked. “My answer is in the affirmative. One of the most extraordinary features of the Jewish rebuilding of Palestine is that the influx of Jewish pioneers has resulted not in the displacement and impoverishment of the local Arab population, but in its phenomenal increase and greater prosperity.”

Einstein penned these words in 1947, ignorant of the history that would come in less than a year, when Israel carried out the Nakba, of mass murder and expulsion of the Arab population of Palestine.

But Einstein should have known better, going with his gut instinct about the reality of an exclusively Jewish state. Speaking in New York City in 1938, Einstein noted that “I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state... My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power...I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain.”

Looking at the harm caused by Israel under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu, and successive generations of Israelis and Israeli leaders dating back to the creation of Israel in 1948, the inner damage to Judaism has been immense. And the damage will only continue to accrue so long as Israel persists in its insane campaign against Hamas and the Palestinians of Gaza.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20231206/scott-ritter-israel-headed-for-strategic-defeat-in-gaza-1115409414.html

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.............