5/20/9 U.S./ Obama Calls for Demilitarized Palestinian "state"

LONG LIVE PALESTINE, VICTORY TO PALESTINE!

U.S./OBAMA, WITH ARAB COLLABORATORS, ENGINEERS USRAEL'S INTENDED FINAL SOLUTION TO KILL PALESTINIAN LIBERATION
US president calls for demilitarized PA 'state'
May 20, 2009 " Jerusalem Post" -- Amid much speculation over US President Barack Obama's upcoming address to the Muslim world, reports published on Wednesday outlined the details of his Middle East peace plan, which are said to include a demilitarized Palestinian state.The US president's initiative, which was formulated in consultation with Jordan's King Abdullah II during the two leaders' recent meetings at the White House, reportedly does not significantly stray from the pan-Arab peace initiative proposed in 2002. Rather, it bolsters certain details within the Saudi-proposed plan. The Obama-Abdullah plan was put together in response to concerns from both Israel and the US that the Arab plan was too general and intransigent, and according to a report in Wednesday's Yediot Ahronot, will call on Arab countries to take trust-building measures in order to clear the air with Israel.

Obama is expected to present the initiative in an address to the Arab and Muslim world from Cairo in three weeks, and set out conditions for a demilitarized Palestinian state, with east Jerusalem as its capital, within the next four years. Yediot reported that Obama's vision for an independent, democratic and contiguous Palestinian state would not have its own army and would be forbidden from making military agreements with other states, in order to provide for Israel's security. The matter of borders would be solved with territorial exchanges between Israel and the Palestinians, and the Old City of Jerusalem would be established as an international zone.

The initiative would require the Palestinians to give up their claim of a "right of return," according to Yediot, and Europe and the US would arrange compensation for refugees, including foreign passports for those residing abroad.
Obama's plan would also promote holding simultaneous talks between Israel and the Palestinians, and Syria and Lebanon. Yediot said that when such talks come to an agreement on Palestinian statehood, diplomatic and economic relations would be established between Israel and Arab states.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212419666&pagename=JPost%... http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article22666.htm

Barack Obama: Iran must meet nuclear deadline by end of the year
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5...

EXCLUSIVE: U.S., Israel forming working group on Iran
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/20/us-israel-forming-workin...
U.S., Israel agreed to form a working group on Iran to assess progress of outreach, share intelligence Monday's meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr. Obama... gives the U.S. a clear channel for communicating with the new Israeli government and a vehicle for keeping tabs on any military contingency plans Israel might make if diplomacy fails and Iran develops nuclear weapons capability. ... the American side would be represented either by deputy national security adviser Thomas E. Donilon or by national security adviser James L. Jones. The Israeli side would be represented by Mr. Jones' counterpart, Uzi Arad.
Israel and the U.S. have long consulted closely on strategic issues, but the new working group will focus exclusively on Iran..."There's always been a U.S.-Israel strategic dialogue that spends a lot of time focusing on Iran," said Suzanne Maloney, an Iran specialist at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. "So this may just be institutionalizing a dialogue that already exists. To the extent that it gives the Israelis a greater sense of buy-in to the diplomatic process, it's positive. But it could also exacerbate Iranian paranoia about U.S. intentions and Israel's role in formulating U.S. foreign policy." ...
John Hannah, who served as Vice President Dick Cheney's national security adviser said..."Contingency planning in this context could be anything from developing agreed standards for judging if engagement is working, next steps if engagement fails, under what conditions - if any - military force might be used and coordinating our actions in the event of conflict with Iran. It's been reported that in the last year of the Bush administration, the Israelis made a number of military requests related to a possible Iran contingency, including bunker-buster bombs, refueling capability and overflights of Iraq. The Bush administration left those requests outstanding. Will this group be a place to resurrect them?"

Obama's plan differs little from Bush's
By JPOST.COM STAFF
"The basic interests and objectives of the US in our region do not change with different administrations...Approaches and nuances change but the interests remain the same. Bush made solving the Middle East conflict a priority, no less than Obama. It's not only an American priority but our government's as well" Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, ambassador to the United States during the Bush administration, told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.... "
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212419666&pagename=JPost%...

Lieberman named to U.S.-Israeli gov't post
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/05/10/Lieberman-named-to-US-Israeli-gov...
JERUSALEM, May 10 (UPI) -- Right-wing Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman will be in charge of the country's strategic dialogue with the United States, the Cabinet said Sunday.
The appointment means Lieberman will become Israel's point person on the 10-year-old strategic dialogue effort, which serves as a multi-agency, high-level framework for discussions of U.S.-Israeli strategic concerns, The Jerusalem Post reported....

perspective from a major u.s. imperialist political intelligence think-tank
An Israeli Prime Minister Comes to Washington Again
By George Friedman
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090518_israeli_prime_minister_comes_was...
This is one of an endless series of meetings between U.S. presidents and Israeli prime ministers over the years, many of which concerned these same issues. Yet little has changed.That Israel has a new prime minister and the United States a new president might appear to make this meeting significant. But this is Netanyahu’s second time as prime minister, and his government is as diverse and fractious as most recent Israeli governments. Israeli politics are in gridlock, with deep divisions along multiple fault lines and an electoral system designed to magnify disagreements.
Obama is much stronger politically, but he has consistently acted with caution, particularly in the foreign policy arena. Much of his foreign policy follows from the Bush administration. He has made no major breaks in foreign policy beyond rhetoric; his policies on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and Europe are essentially extensions of pre-existing policy...

The foundation of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process for years has been the assumption that there would be a two-state solution. Such a solution has not materialized for a host of reasons. the entire peace process — including the two-state solution — is a chimera. Neither side can live with what the other can offer. But if it is a fiction, it is a fiction that serves U.S. purposes. The United States has interests that go well beyond Israeli interests and sometimes go in a different direction altogether. Like Israel, the United States understands that one of the major obstacles to any serious evolution toward a two-state solution is Arab hostility to such an outcome.... whatever the basic strategic interests of the Arab regimes, all pay lip service to the principle of Palestinian statehood. This is hardly a unique situation. States frequently claim to favor various things they actually are either indifferent to or have no intention of doing anything about. Complicating matters for the Arab states is the fact that they have substantial populations that do care about the fate of the Palestinians. These states thus are caught between public passion on behalf of Palestinians and the regimes’ interests that are threatened by the Palestinian cause. The states’ challenge, accordingly, is to appear to be doing something on behalf of the Palestinians while in fact doing nothing.

The United States has a vested interest in the preservation of these states. The futures of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are of vital importance to Washington. The United States must therefore simultaneously publicly demonstrate its sensitivity to pressures from these nations over the Palestinian question while being careful to achieve nothing — an easy enough goal to achieve.

....From Israel’s point of view, the problem with Israeli-Palestinian relations is that Israel is under severe constraints from the United States, and the Palestinians know it. This means that the Palestinians can even anticipate the application of force by Israel, meaning they can prepare for it and endure it. From Netanyahu’s point of view, Israel’s primary problem is that the Palestinians are confident they know what the Israelis will do. If Netanyahu can get Obama to introduce a degree of ambiguity into the situation, Israel could regain the advantage of uncertainty.
The problem for Netanyahu is that Washington is not interested in having anything unpredictable happen in Israeli-Palestinian relations. The United States is quite content with the current situation, particularly while Iraq becomes more stable and the Afghan situation remains unstable. Obama does not want a crisis from the Mediterranean to the Hindu Kush. The fact that Netanyahu has a political coalition to satisfy will not interest the United States, and while Washington at some unspecified point might endorse a peace conference, it will not be until Israel and its foreign minister endorse the two-state formula.
Netanyahu will then shift to another area where freedom of action is relevant — namely, Iran. The Israelis have leaked to the Israeli media that the Obama administration has told them that Israel may not attack Iran without U.S. permission, and that Israel agreed to this requirement. (U.S. President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert went through the same routine not too long ago, using a good cop/bad cop act in a bid to kick-start negotiations with Iran.)
In reality, Israel would have a great deal of difficulty attacking Iranian facilities with non-nuclear forces. A multitarget campaign 1,000 miles away against an enemy with some air defenses could be a long and complex operation. Such a raid would require a long trip through U.S.-controlled airspace for the fairly small Israeli air force. Israel could use cruise missiles, but the tonnage of high explosive delivered by a cruise missile cannot penetrate even moderately hardened structures; the same is true for ICBMs carrying conventional warheads. Israel would have to notify the United States of its intentions because it would be passing through Iraqi airspace — and because U.S. technical intelligence would know what it was up to before Israeli aircraft even took off. The idea that Israel might consider attacking Iran without informing Washington is therefore absurd on the surface. Even so, the story has surfaced yet again in an Israeli newspaper in a virtual carbon copy of stories published more than a year ago.
Netanyahu has promised that the endless stalemate with the Palestinians will not be allowed to continue. He also knows that whatever happens, Israel cannot threaten the stability of Arab states that are by and large uninterested in the Palestinians. He also understands that in the long run, Israel’s freedom of action is defined by the United States, not by Israel. His electoral platform and his strategic realities have never aligned. Arguably, it might be in the Israeli interest that the status quo be disrupted, but it is not in the American interest. Netanyahu therefore will get to redefine neither the Palestinian situation nor the Iranian situation. Israel simply lacks the power to impose the reality it wants, the current constellation of Arab regimes it needs, and the strategic relationship with the United States on which Israeli national security rests....