Israeli Settlements: Trifkovic Interview
RT: We are joined now live by Srdja Trifkovic, foreign-affairs editor for Chronicles magazine. A Washington spokesman has called the latest Israeli action "contrary to U.S. policy." What about the state of relations between the two countries?
ST: This Administration is widely perceived as the least pro-Israeli administration in history. The problem is that Netanyahu is scoring domestic points: he is definitely positioning this move as a bid for victory in January, while risking the loss of some friends of Israel on Capitol Hill who have been very staunch and reliable so far. If he is serious about the project, it would effectively cut Judea from Samaria, as the Israelis call them. It would cut the West Bank into two halves. Such a strategic geopolitical move would have long-term consequences in the sense that there would be no two-state solution. If Netanyahu means it, if he builds, it will no longer be possible to travel from Ramallah to Hebron, it will no longer be possible for the Palestinian authority—even in its West Bank pocked—to be a coherent entity. My sense is that Netanyahu is on a slippery slope. If and when this project goes ahead, that means he'll try to impose on the United States a fait accompli, but with this Administration it may prove to be very tricky.
RT: During the U.S. election Netanyahu was strongly backing the Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Now with Obama back in office, what in your opinion are Netanyahu's thoughts?
ST: He is trying to mobilize the pro-Israeli opinion in the United States, knowing full well that this latest move is risky and that even within the Democratic Party it may backfire. But he doesn't care for as long as he wins in January. If he is successful, if he is victorious, he will present the U.S. with a new fait accompli and he will hope that whatever happens, the U.S. friends of Israel would respond and say, "Look, this is a done deal!" He is very upset about the UN vote and he needs to show to his domestic audience that he is on top of the game. This project is his ace in the sleeve. In the long run it means that the dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis is not going to happen. It hasn't happened for four years. If this construction goes ahead, the "peace process," alas, is dead.
RT: I'd like to shift gears to Iran. Israel has drawn a red line on that country's nuclear program. Netanyahu famously did so with a cartoon at his UN address. What kind of backing from Washington do you think he can get on that at the moment?
ST: Not much, because Obama is focused on the domestic change in the U.S.—on the amnesty, which is coming, on the health system, and generally on the redistributionist agenda of turning the U.S. into a socialist republic. So any foreign entanglement, the neocon agenda of conflict with Russia, resetting the "reset," bombing Iran... is a distraction from what Obama sees as his primary mandate in the second term, which is to turn the United States into a country that is defined by his propositional values, antidiscriminationsm, "tolerance"...To that end he is prepared to draw back from active global interventionism. The neocons accuse him of softness, but that is his key agenda.
Entries(RSS)
Obama is focused on the domestic change in the U.S.—on the amnesty, which is coming, on the health system, and generally on the redistributionist agenda of turning the U.S. into a socialist republic. So any foreign entanglement, the neocon agenda of conflict with Russia, resetting the "reset," bombing Iran... is a distraction from what Obama sees as his primary mandate in the second term, which is to turn the United States into a country that is defined by his propositional values, antidiscriminationsm, "tolerance"...To that end he is prepared to draw back from active global interventionism.
Obama's mandate isn't quite as solid, however, as he and others would like to think: they've still got to deal with a hung legislature (which admittedly may prove weak-willed) and more importantly the looming financial crisis (which goes far beyond a "Fiscal Cliff"). At this point nothing can stop either a series of successive re-enactments of August 2008 (the Fiscal Cliff may well provide the impetus for the wiping out of further wealth) or a sudden chain of spiraling inflation. It is not hard to fathom the Democratic Party gurus pressuring the Obama administration to pull a stunt reminiscent of Leopoldo Galtieri's ballad in the Falklands in a last-ditch effort to rally support in mid-2014 or early 2016.
What foreign stunt he may pull two or three years hence is impossible to predict, but I nevertheless believe that he will resist attacking Iran in 2013 while pursuing his domestic revolutionary agenda with breathtaking speed.
"he will resist attacking Iran in 2013 while pursuing his domestic revolutionary agenda with breathtaking speed."
Yes, I suspect this is true for the short term. Usually American presidents in a second term are slowed if too ambitious with some type of alleged, trumped up or hyped scandal --usually to do with sex, secrecy or money. There was some movement towards this with the Bengahazi lies but it never did damage except for the poor fool called a "film maker" who went to jail for saying about Mohammed what Hollywood has been saying about Christ for decades. I do think the socialist scare is over done but it could come to pass as predicted by Srdja, although I doubt it. What is always missing is the duplicity dump -- A lot of big businesses like Wal- Mart want Obama Care for their employees,( afterall, why would they want to take care of their own wage slaves when the govt. will do it for them?) the insurance behemoths are satisfied for now with the mandate, and the big pharmacy crowd can't wait to have the deep pockets of the Feds( tax payers) in their corner. One thing is for certain,things will go as planned for the duopoly or they will not go at all.
Dr. Trifkovic, the following extract is from an opinion piece appearing in a Sydney newspaper today. I would be interested in your thoughts, as the sentiments expressed by the writer are in line with our government's view, and opinions expressed by other leading commentators here in Australia.
"Claims that Israel's announcement of a planning process to build in E1 would render a ''viable contiguous [Palestinian] state … dead'' are absurd. If built - and no actual construction is likely any time soon - E1 would simply connect Jerusalem to a large town that Israel would retain in exchange for land swaps in all serious peace plans proposed".
Absurd? E1 would permanently cut Route 60, the main north-south highway that runs along the hilly spine of the West Bank -- check out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/18/world/middleeast/18westbank.html
Yes, Ma'ale Adumim to the east would be connected to Jerusalem, but no Palestinian leader would ever accept this arrangement. From Ramallah to Bethlehem one would have to drive via Jericho, or a new road would have to be built skirting the eastern edge of Adumim -- and still more than doubling the journey. Once again, if this construction goes ahead, the "peace process" is dead. It is moribund as it is,of course, but this would make it permanently so.