A US Peace Plan

Currently, we are worried about al Qaeda spreading around the world and about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet the key to solving both these problems is Israeli/Palestinian peace. Bin Laden recently reiterated that the root cause of al Qaeda's attacks against us has been our support of the brutal Israeli occupation, and the Iranian president, once again, speaking at the UN, emphasized the centrality of Israel's atrocities which prevent world peace.

It is clear that the Israelis and Palestinians can not achieve peace without our help. The charter of Israel's ruling Likud party explicitly opposes a Palestinian state in Palestine, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has no intention of stopping the illegal settlement expansion which inspires such anti-American hatred and violence.

Therefore, it is high time the US puts forth its own peace proposal. As noted in The Iraq Study Group Report, "The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict." and "The only basis on which peace can be achieved is that set forth in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and in the principle of 'land for peace.' "

In July 2000, President Clinton brought Palestinian President Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Barak to Camp David for peace negotiations, but Arafat was not offered a fair deal in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 242 which calls on Israel to withdraw from occupied territory including occupied Arab East Jerusalem, the location of Islam's third holiest site (after Mecca and Medina). As reported in Clayton Swisher's book The Truth About Camp David (p.327), Arafat said "If anyone imagines that I might sign away Jerusalem, he is mistaken. I am not only the leader of the Palestinian people; I am also the vice president of the Islamic Conference." "I am only asking that UN Resolution 242 be implemented. I am speaking only about 22 percent of Palestine, Mr President." "Do you want to come to my funeral? I would rather die than agree to Israeli sovereignty over the Haram al-Sharif." [The 22% refers to the fact that although the UN in 1947 partitioned Palestine roughly equally into a Jewish state and an Arab state, the 1967 UN Security Council Resolution 242 only accords the Arabs 22% of Palestine, ie the armistice line before the 1967 war. The Israelis ever since have been trying to whittle this 22% down farther through settlement expansion in Palestinian territory.]

After the failure at Camp David, President Clinton offered what has come to be known as the "Clinton Parameters" in December 2000. On territory, the Palestinian state would control 94-96 percent of the West Bank, with a 1-3 percent land swap from Israel proper...On Jerusalem, "Arab areas are Palestinian and Jewish ones are Israeli. This would apply to the Old City as well." (Swisher p. 396). Arafat had questions about the details but basically accepted the parameters in January 2001. (Swisher p.399-402).

Clinton's ideas were further refined at the peace talks at Taba, Egypt later that month, but by now George Bush was president,with his neocon-dominated administration, and forbade US participation. Nevertheless, the gaps lessened at Taba. (Swisher p. 402). Later, the Geneva Accord, an unofficial virtual peace accord, developed from the Taba talks. (Swisher p. 403)

In 2002, the Saudi Peace Plan was offered, calling for Israel's withdrawal from occupied territory in exchange for peace, diplomatic recognition and normalization of relations with the Arab world. Palestinian President Arafat accepted this plan in 2002. Still on the table as the Arab Peace Initiative, it has been endorsed by the entire Arab/Muslim world, including Iran. As Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal wrote in The New York Times, September 13, 2009, the initiative also calls for "the refugee issue to be solved later through mutual consent."

Late in President George W. Bush's term, Bush finally saw the light and re-started peace negotiations. Again the two sides came close to peace before Israeli Prime Minister Olmert had to step down due to corruption allegations. As reported in Newsweek June 22, 2009, by Kevin Peraino, "Olmert told me he met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in September 2008 and unfurled a map of Israel and the Palestinian territories. He says he offered Abbas 93.5 to 93.7 percent of the Palestinian territories along with a land swap of 5.8 percent and a safe-passage corridor from Gaza to the West Bank that he says would make up the rest. The Holy Basin of Jerusalem would be under no sovereignty at all and administered by a consortium of Saudis, Jordanians, Israelis, Palestinians and Americans. Regarding refugees, Olmert says he rejected the right of return and instead offered, as a 'humanitarian gesture,' a small number of returnees, although smaller than the Palestinians wanted--a very, very limited number.' "

The Economist ( February 14, 2009) has noted that the outlines of a Palestinian state have been more of less agreed to by sensible Palestinians and Israelis for the past decade: "Israel would return to the armistice line that existed before the 1967 war, with minor adjustments and territorial swaps of equal size and quality, and would probably keep the three biggest Jewish settlement blocks that bulge out from the 1967 line. Jerusalem would be tortuously but fastidiously divided, allowing each side to have its capital there, with international oversight of the holy places. Palestinians would have a symbolic right for their refugees to return on the understanding that only a small and carefully calculated proportion of them would actually do so. Palestine would be sovereign but demilitarized, with an international force, perhaps led by NATO, securing its borders, both along the Jordan Valley and maybe between Gaza and Egypt. A road-and-rail link, internationally monitored, might well connect the 50km (30 miles) or so between Gaza and the West Bank."

America should endorse a fair and just plan. As stated in The Economist (September 26, 2009), as the stalemate persists, president Obama "should not blink from the prospect of reducing aid to Israel and rethinking America's knee-jerk backing for it in such forums as the UN..." Compromises over land etc. "will not weaken Israel; rather, a two-state solution is the best guarantee of its future safety." Ours too.

Diplomacy With Iran

The Israel Lobby neocons have always opposed diplomacy with Iran or for that matter with anyone on their hit list. This is why they specialize in demanding preconditions designed to ensure that talks never take place. They dismiss such talks as "appeasement" and had been hoping that the election turmoil in Iran would cause President Obama to abandon diplomacy.

Fareed Zakaria writes in Newsweek (7/13/09) that "it is worth remembering that the United States still funds guerrilla outfits and opposition groups that are trying to topple the Islamic Republic." Seymour Hersh reported in The New Yorker (7/7/08) that $400 million was approved by Congress for this purpose of covert anti-Iranian regime activity. The idea has been to work "with opposition groups and pass money." All this must be taken into account when evaluating the significance of the current Iranian protests. We would no doubt object if a foreign country was passing out millions to disrupt our elections, especially to use as an excuse to ditch diplomacy.

US funding of Iranian dissident groups, including terrorists, occurs alongside of "Israel's Secret War With Iran," the title of a book and also a Wall Street Journal op-ed (5/16/09) by Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman. Bergman describes actions of the Israeli secret service, the Mossad, in sabotaging Iran's uranium enrichment program with "a series of apparent accidents: the disappearance of an Iranian nuclear scientist, the crash of two planes carrying cargo relating to the project, and two labs that burst into flames."

Newsweek (9/21/09) informs us that UN officials are worrying that the proliferation of misinformation which led to the invasion of Iraq is happening again with regard to Iran. Israel has been accused of exaggerating Iran's nuclear progress. Tariq Rauf, a senior official with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has written that the mainstream media are repeating the mistakes of 2003 by hyping unsubstantiated stories about the IAEA and Iran.

An example of this media hype is a recent headline (The Boston Globe 9/18/09): "UN document says Iran has the ability to make nuclear bomb." Yet when one reads the fine print one discovers the IAEA statement that the IAEA "has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapons program in Iran."

Indeed, The Wall Street Journal (9/15/09) reports that "it could take years for Iran to make a nuclear warhead and develop the ability to use it on a missile." The Washington Post (9/15/09) reported that although Iran may have enough low-enriched uranium to make one bomb, "such a move would require additional enrichment and overcoming numerous other technical hurdles." The Wall Street Journal (4/10/09) pointed out that American and UN officials emphasize that "they believe Iran has yet to master the technology to convert lower-enriched uranium into weapons grade material." And of course we recently shelved the anti-long-range nuclear-missile shield in Europe since Iran is nowhere near producing a long-range missile. It is no longer believed that Iran could produce one by 2015. Furthermore, "miniaturizing nuclear weapons for use on long-range missiles is one of the most difficult technological hurdles." (The Wall Street Journal 9/17/09)

Besides misrepresenting the Iranian nuclear program, the warmongering Israel Lobby neocons try to persuade us that an attack on Iran would help Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia. However, as reported in The New York Times (3/27/09), Syria's vice minister of foreign affairs Faisal Mekdad said that "our brothers in Saudi Arabia understand that the threat is not Iran, it is the Israeli nuclear capability. This policy of double standards is making all Arabs angry."

Meanwhile, Israel continues to threaten to bomb Iran. Newsweek (9/21/09) reports "Israel has signaled an end-of-year deadline for military action." The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens writes that such an Israeli strike could provoke retaliatory Iranian strikes against US targets in Iraq and the Persian Gulf in addition to $300 a barrel oil. (The Wall Street Journal 9/15/09) It's interesting that a recent collision between two US Navy vessels in the Persian Gulf spiked a sudden rise in oil prices. (The Wall Street Journal 3/21/09)

As the Israel Lobby neocons push for war with Iran, it is noteworthy that the 5-page talks proposal issued by Iran, "Cooperation for Peace, Justice, and Progress," called for "Tackling the root causes of terrorism" and stated that there should be joint efforts and interactions to draw a comprehensive equitable plan to help the people of Palestine achieve all-embracing peace, lasting security, and fundamental rights. This is the root of the problem.

No to Normalization

In an op-ed in The New York Times (9/13/09) entitled "Land First, Then Peace," Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal explains well the Arab position on the Israeli occupation. This position is based on justice and fairness.

Since 1967, Israel has illegally occupied Palestine and parts of Syria and Lebanon. The occupations and colonization (settlements) are in violation of international law, UN Security Council Resolutions and the Geneva Convention. For this reason, numerous nations do not recognize Israel, and for that matter, neither does Hamas. Hamas has been criticized for this, but it is important to note that Israel's ruling Likud Party Charter expressly opposes a Palestinian State in Palestine.

The Saudi prince writes, "The Arab world, in the form of the Arab peace initiative that was endorsed by 22 countries in 2002, has offered Israel peace and normalization in return for Israeli withdrawal from all Arab territories including East Jerusalem---with the refugee issue to be solved later through mutual consent."

This Arab plan is exceedingly generous since Israel gets 78% of Palestine, whereas the original 1947 UN partition divided Palestine roughly equally into a Jewish state and an Arab state, with Jerusalem left as an international city since it is holy to three religions. Palestinian President Arafat accepted this Arab peace initiative in in 2002, but the Israelis prefer continuous occupation out of greed for Palestinian land, water resources, etc. as the Jewish settlements keep growing and metastasizing.

The Israelis of course want creeping normalization without ever having to give up any land, and thus the Arab states are being pressured to make concessions. The prince is correct to just say no.

Confronting al Qaeda

In a 9/14/09 audiotape, Osama bin Laden addressed the American people, saying once again that "the cause of the quarrel with you is your support of your Israeli allies who have occupied our land, Palestine." He declared that not only Muslims but also Americans suffer because of the US Israel Lobby. He described the Palestinians under siege in Gaza who were pounded with US-made incendiary phosphorus bombs, and he called on the American people to achieve peace and security by freeing ourselves from the Israel Lobby neocons who dictate our foreign policy.

Certainly no one deserves to live under foreign occupation. President Obama has said that we are in Afghanistan to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda. However, al Qaeda has now spread around the world, and we manage to successfully kill al Qaeda leaders in various countries without US military occupation. For instance, just this week US Special Operations and attack helicopters killed a most-wanted al Qaeda ringleader in Somalia, (The New York Times 9/15/09), and a US missile-armed drone killed an al Qaeda commander in Pakistan (The New York Times 9/18/09).

Although it is said that we are in Afghanistan to prevent the establishment of an al Qaeda haven, former CIA counterterrorism chief Paul Pillar wrote in a Washington Post op-ed (9/16/09) that the notion that terrorists require such a haven is unproven: "The preparations most important to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks took place not in training camps in Afghanistan but, rather, in apartments in Germany, hotel rooms in Spain and flight schools in the United States."

Clearly preventing al Qaeda recruitment is very important, and there is no question that, just as in Palestine, our occupation of Afghanistan, with our civilian bombings, etc, fuels anti-Americanism. Even massive aid hand-outs does not necessarily win hearts and minds, as pointed out by Andrew Wilder, a Tufts University research director in a Boston Globe op-ed 9/16/09. Our aid often fuels massive corruption, and the Taliban's promises of better security, justice, and less corruption are more important to the people than new roads.

This is no doubt one reason Afghanistan president Karzai wants to negotiate a peace with Taliban leader Mullah Omar. The US government opposes this and in fact appears to oppose Karzai who has called for an end to our civilian bombings, a timeline for our withdrawal, etc. In fact, American UN official Peter Galbraith was recently criticized by his UN boss, Norwegian Kai Eide, who correctly said that it isn't the UN's role to appear to be taking sides in the election. (See The Wall Street Journal 9/16/09) (Peter Galbraith incidentally has been a longtime outspoken proponent of Kurdish autonomy/independence.)

Dragging out the political election turmoil makes peace talks less likely and prolongs our occuption indefinitely. As noted in The Christian Science Monitor 9/13/09, it costs 50% more to keep a soldier in Afghanistan, with its rugged mountainous terrain, than in Iraq. However, Israel Lobby neocons are pushing for more US troops in Afghanistan, just as they pushed for war with Iraq. For instance, Israel Lobby neocon William Kristol, son of the late neocon godfather Irving Kristol, founded the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) which sent the notorious 1998 letter to President Clinton calling for a "willingness to undertake military action" to remove Saddam Hussein. PNAC faded away after the Iraq debacle but appears to have resurfaced. William Kristol has now helped found a new organization, The Foreign Policy Initiative, which has just sent a letter to President Obama calling for a bigger military footprint in Afghanistan. It was signed by many of the same people who signed the 1998 PNAC letter. (See The Wall Street Journal 9/16/09).

The Israel Lobby neocons want an indefinite US military presence in Afghanistan to serve as a base from which to attack Iran, Pakistan, and all of Israel's many enemies who object to Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine. And thus the Jewish settlements increase along with al Qaeda recruitment.

Sanctions on Israel, not Iran

A strong case can be made for imposing sanctions on Israel rather than Iran. Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, and its clandestine program has never been under UN oversight. Israel even jailed in solitary confinement Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu who blew the whistle on the covert nuclear weapons program.

It is Israel which threatens Iran, not vice versa. The Wall Street Journal (7/8/09) reported that "an Israeli submarine believed to be carrying nuclear-tipped missiles" had moved towards Iran. Whereas Iran has not invaded another country since the late 18th century and occupies no one, Israel invades and attacks at will and illegally occupies Palestine and parts of Syria and Lebanon. Iranian President Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University 9/24/07 and elsewhere on American TV stated that he did not seek the destruction of the Israeli people but only wished for a change in their leadership so as to end their illegal occupations. Ahmadinejad said he would agree to any peace with Israel endorsed by the Palestinian people. He also explained that he did not deny that the Nazi Holocaust happened, he only wanted more research into the details and stressed that the German atrocities against the Jews should not be used to try to excuse Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians.

Many groups including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and even Israeli veterans have reported that Israel committed war crimes during its Gaza massacre in January. More than 1400 Palestinians were killed including at least 900 civilians according to human rights groups. Three Israeli civilians were killed. (The Boston Globe 7/16/09)

A 9/15/09 report by the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict found Israel guilty of numerous war crimes against innocent civilians. Israelis used disproportionate force and deliberately attacked civilian targets, such as schools and hospitals, with heavy artillery and precision missiles from drones. They shot in cold blood civilians who were waving white flags and following Israeli instructions. They wantonly destroyed food, water, and sewerage facilities and rained down incendiary deadly white phosphorus on civilians. They shelled mosques during evening prayers and a UN relief compound which they knew was sheltering 700 civilians and which contained stored fuel.

Meanwhile, despite US objections, illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank keep expanding. The New York Times 9/14/09 reports that the Jewish settlers plunk down their settlements between Palestinian villagers and their farmlands. The Israelis then block their way so that the Palestinians can not get to their land at which time the settlers seize the Palestinian farmland claiming that it was "abandoned." Another favorite settler trick is setting fire to the Palestinian farms and orchards. It is not surprising that Israel's brutal occupations breeds the expected response from resistance groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Israel's crimes must end. It is time for sanctions.

Out of Afghanistan

Our occupation of Afghanistan is doing more harm than good and in fact inspires anti-American terrorism. For instance, recently convicted terrorist Abdulla Ahmed Ali explained in his martyrdom video that he aimed to blow up US-bound passenger jets in revenge for our troops in Muslim lands. He said, "Enough is enough." "We have warned you so many times to get out of our land and leave us alone. You have persisted in trying to humiliate, kill, and destroy us." "Yes, taste that which you have made us taste for a long time."

Afghan President Karzai has stated that he wants us to stop the air attacks which kill civilians, and he wants to make peace with the Taliban. In a March 2009 PBS interview, Karzai said that "the Taliban are not enemies of Afghanistan or of the Afghan people. They are just countryside folks...Afghans." One must remember that it was not the Taliban who hit us on 9/11. In fact the Taliban condemned the 9/11 attacks and, as reported on BBC and others (9/13/01), the Taliban offered to hand over Osama bin Laden if the US provided clear and substantial evidence of his involvement. It is noteworthy that the Taliban had been working successfully with the UN to ban opium poppy cultivation. In 1999, Afghanistan produced 4,000 tons of opium, 75% of the world's supply. Then Mulla Mohammed Omar, the Taliban supreme leader banned opium poppies, calling it un-Islamic, and jailing farmers until they agreed to destroy their crops. Farmers switched to other crops like wheat and onions, and in 2001 Afghanistan's opium crop was down to 185 tons.

Unfortunately, we ignored the Taliban offer to help us capture bin Laden, and we invaded instead. Now Afghanistan produces 90% of the world's opium, and bin Laden is still free. President Obama says our mission in Afghanistan is to go after Al Qaeda, but Al Qaeda is now in Pakistan where our troops are not allowed. Furthermore, Al Qaeda has spread around the globe to places like Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Mali, Mauritania, etc. We can't occupy the whole world. Addressing legitimate grievances of the Muslim world by ending our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and ending Israel's occupations is a far better way to combat terrorism.

Democracy vs. Destabilization

The Israel Lobby neocons pretend to be about spreading democracy whereas they actually are about destabilization. In his book Where the Right Went Wrong, Patrick J. Buchanan answers the question: "Who are they, the neoconservatives?" He quotes a Wall Street Journal article by Max Boot in which Boot states that support for Israel is a "key tenet of neoconservatism" and that Commentary, the American Jewish Congress magazine, is the "neocon bible." Buchanan points out that Israel Lobby neocon Michael Ledeen wrote in his book The War Against the Terror Masters: "First and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning with the big three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria." "Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize." Of course, destabilizing the enemies of Israeli expansionism has been a longtime Israeli strategy. Thus, led by the neocon warmongers, we destabilized Iraq and Afghanistan. Currently, Obama is particularly hated by these neocons as he has taken a strong stand against the expanding Israeli settlements and in favor of diplomacy rather than war with Iran.

It has been noted that democracy can only succeed when the losing party recognizes the legitimacy of the winning side. The neocons refuse to accept Obama's 2008 victory and in typical neocon fashion are now trying to destabilize our country. These far-righters refuse to work with the president to solve our nation's problems but instead practice disruption and destruction. Their rabid media leaders, who so successfully lied us into war, now mobilize shriekers to sabotage town hall meetings designed to debate national problems such as health care. They even deny the legitimacy of our election by refusing to allow school children to hear a motivational speech by President Obama. They urge parents to keep children home from school so that they will not be exposed to a speech whose main theme is the importance of staying in school. Thus they strive to guarantee that their children are as ignorant, uneducated, and narrow-minded as they are. However, their underlying goal is destabilization, a defeat of democracy.