Palestinian Possibilities

I will address the following topics in today’s blog post:

·       Stopping missile attacks against Israel

·       Who is Been-Jammin’ Knittin’-Yahoo? [Think: Yosemite Sam]

·       Selected comments regarding Obama’s May 22, 2011 speech to AIPAC

·       Selected comments regarding Netanyahu’s May 24, 2011 speech to the US Congress

·       Suggestions and observations concerning Israeli/Palestinian prospects for peace

·       US divestment of investments in Israel, including a ban on the purchase of Israeli War Bonds

·       My campaign commercial featuring an overly-compliant US Congress

Stopping missile attacks against Israel

There is a practical, nuts-and-bolts way to stop missile attacks against Israel – at least the ones coming from the Palestinians. But first, I offer something I tried to post on Yahoo News yesterday, which was censored (oh, well):

QUOTE:

"[Knittin' Yahoo's] rejection of a return to what he called the "indefensible" borders that Israel had before the 1967 Mideast war."

Wait a minute. "Indefensible," you say? Those borders had proved more than defensible during that particular war. What's different now? Israel is only stronger, not to mention having 200 nukes (okay, I'll mention it...I hope the PM isn't going to be a Nuke Denier).

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

"How does our Congress give this walking/talking Fascist Major Obstacle to Peace 12 standing ovations? What a bunch of k*ss a**es!"

:UNQUOTE.

What the Prime Minister is really asking for are impenetrable borders – even though he had used the word defensible. No nation on earth has absolutely inviolable borders, so he might as well stop asking for the impossible.

Even if Netanyahu got his way – his heart’s desire – that is, total annexation of the West Bank and Gaza City with Palestinians somehow magically disappearing…even under those conditions, Israel’s borders would still be “indefensible.” If Israel maintains its current course, fueled by its current attitude, this is what it can look forward to:

·       Some state or non-state actor is going to figure out how to get at Israel – with either missiles, germs, hack attack or something totally unanticipated at this present time. Bottom line? If any person or entity thinks it can treat the whole world as if it’s a mortal enemy over a long enough period of time, that will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

·       Concerning missiles: Technology – especially guidance systems – are only going to get better. So far, Israel’s been lucky that rockets fired by Hamas almost never hit their targets. Because of lack of a guidance mechanism or only having one that’s primitive! But that could change…if Israel decides it wants to be stubborn and try to keep the Palestinian issue in a permanent state of non-resolution.

As promised – here’s how I propose to stop terrorist rocket attacks:

The United States should take the aid money it gives to Israel and Egypt (given since 1976), and instead give it to the Palestinian man & woman on the street – that is, to the ordinary Palestinian citizen. My figures are rough, but you’ll get the general idea: The amount in question is $5 billion which, divided evenly among all Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza (about 4 million people) works out to an annual stipend of $1,250 for each man, woman, and child – annually.

Even better – arrange for a number of contributors in addition to (or even instead of) the United States: Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and even (eventually) Iraq come to mind. The idea of Muslim taking care of Muslim has a nice ring to it, which would (ironically) help Israel finally resolve this long standing dispute.

However, there should be one condition: The bounty stops if the rocket attacks resume. Each Palestinian would stand to lose an awful lot in that event, so they would vigorously self-police.

Selected comments regarding

Obama’s May 22, 2011 speech to AIPAC

In my usual fashion, I will quote from Obama’s speech, and follow with my own comments:

QUOTE: No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state.

COMMENT: Why not? After all, Israel came into existence due to the machinations of the UN. Israel might not always be able to count on the US to use its Security Council veto power to thwart such a UN move. As Israel knows all too well – changes in administration can produce changes in policy. Translation? The US might get so sick of Israeli intransigence that it will throw its support behind any UN move to create a Palestinian state.

QUOTE: Moreover, we know that peace demands a partner –- which is why I said that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist.

COMMENT: There will always be some Palestinians who will never recognize this right, so I hope Obama isn’t hoping for unanimity on this count. Besides, there are Jews who do not recognize Palestine’s right to exist, simply because they think God gave all of that land to the Jewish tribe. Should Palestine shun negotiations with any of them – or just continue plotting and scheming long enough until they hit on a plan or unique combination of circumstances that will deal Israel a mighty blow? As they say, every dog has its day.

QUOTE: I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.  The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps -- (applause) -- so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

COMMENT: Obama got into a bit of trouble with that bit about starting negotiations “based on the 1967 lines.” Some thought he was urging an Israeli withdrawal behind those lines. However, Obama later pointed out that he had added the condition about “mutually agreed land swaps.” I’m confused, though, about how “mutually agreeable” any land swaps can be, since Israel holds all the cards.

But the thorniest issue would involve Palestine as a “contiguous state.” One way that might happen (my suggestion): The Gaza strip should be ceded to Israel, and all Israeli settlements in the West Bank should be ceded to Palestine. Also, Israel should give up any notion of holding onto the West Bank of the Jordan River. An army can’t be maintained there unless access is allowed through Palestine – which would be a violation of its sovereignty.

Also, Jerusalem should become an international city under the jurisdiction of the UN – with its headquarters relocated there.

Perhaps (again my suggestion) that $1,250 stipend could also be offered to Palestinians who are citizens of and living in Israel – if they would leave Israel and relocate to the newly-independent state of Palestine. Of course, this implies that Palestinians would give up the Right of Return (to Israel), but they weren’t about to get that anyway.

QUOTE: As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself –- by itself -– against any threat.

COMMENT: Defend itself “by itself – against any threat?” That’s simply not possible. Oh, nations can try to defend themselves but not even we are always 100% successful – the 9/11 attacks and Pearl Harbor come to mind. If the US couldn’t do it, how could anyone else?

The best way for Israel to guarantee its security is to find a way to make friends, and one way to do that would be if it helped the Palestinians prosper. And, as I mentioned above, the stipend I’m proposing for each Palestinian, courtesy of the US Treasury, would help. But I’m hoping Israel somehow manages to assist in this enterprise, possibly in terms of joint enterprises.

Selected comments regarding

Netanyahu’s May 24, 2011 speech to Congress

In my usual fashion, I will quote from Netanyahu’s speech, and follow with my own comments:

QUOTE: So it’s therefore vital, absolutely vital, that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized.

COMMENT: Frankly, it would be great if Palestine spared itself the expense of maintaining an armed force. And it might well decide to do just that – for now. But what about the future? Will a duly-elected leader decide his country has to join the ranks of the militarized? If so, does that mean Israel starts throwing bombs? Bottom line: There’s no way to guarantee permanent disarmament, even on condition of the US promising to continue stipend payments (described above) in perpetuity. [Maybe Congress might pull the plug on that or Palestine might acquire a real enemy it feels needs discouraging.]


QUOTE: And it’s vital, absolutely vital, that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River.

COMMENT: Why? “Absolutely vital,” you say? Does Netanyahu hope that will be a front line of defense against waves of Jordanian tanks crossing the river on make-shift bridges? If he thinks Israel might be invaded through Palestine, maybe Palestine should be militarized after all. Anyway, maintaining an Israeli army on the west of the Jordan River wouldn’t be necessary in the face of Jordanian hostilities. Aerial surveillance will detect any massing of the king’s forces which can be promptly dealt with by the IDF.

          At this point, I have to say, “If Netanyahu is afraid of the Jordanians, I wonder how many other enemies he thinks he has hiding under his bed?” The Jordanians? No offense but, are you kidding?

          The real reason Netanyahu insists on this “absolutely vital” (though nonsensical) provision is to set up yet another discouraging roadblock for Palestinian negotiators. For the PM doesn’t really care to negotiate at all and will set up any obstacles he can imagine. That is the sad truth of the matter.

Question: Who is Been-Jammin’ Knittin’-Yahoo?

Answer: Benjamin Netanyahu

Before I talk about B-J K-Y, I’ll tell you upfront: I not only dislike the Prime Minister, I detest him since I think he’s a pathologically violent man. Now, you might ask: “If you really feel that way, but end up (somehow) being elected US President, won’t your first face-to-face with him be a bit awkward?”

Answer: He and I will never meet face-to-face. For one thing, I will instruct the State Department to reject any request for the PM to even enter the United States. And I’m certainly not going to Israel any time soon. Since I will have voided our diplomatic recognition of Israel, Knittin’-Yahoo and I won’t have any reason to speak. So we won’t. And that’s that.

As to the meaning of the joke name:

First, I refer you to a YouTube clip of a famous cartoon character known as Yosemite Sam – an angry little man quick to engage in violence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOUhGcsHqDM

That’s how I see the Prime Minister, who is really just an old war dog with no sense of how to create a lasting peace – with justice for all.

To break down my name for him:

Been-Jammin’ – two possible meanings here: (1) As in “been jamming” up the peace process (obfuscating and gumming up the works) every chance he gets; (2) as in “been jamming” in the sense of musicians having a jam session*; (3) as in “been jammin’” this stick up yo butt for so long, you don’t even notice it.

*  More on the “jam session” meaning: A “jam session” is often between musicians who do not usually play together and just play off one another for the fun of it, especially without any preconceived ideas as to outcome [sounds like the peace process]. It might refer to musicians filling the stage (that is, jamming to capacity) - as often an open jam session would result in a lot of participants – for better or worse [again, sounds like the peace process].

Knittin’ – I have this vision of a mercurial, excitable Yosemite Sam-type PM animatedly “knitting” his eyebrows as he angrily denounces enemies and allies alike.

Yahoo – A Yahoo is either a member of a race of brutes in Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, who have all the vices of and the form of (but aren’t necessarily) humans, or a yahoo is a boorish, crass, or stupid person. [No, I won’t call the PM “stupid” – except in the ways of peace – for all and not just members of his tribe.]

US divestment of investments in Israel,

including a ban on the purchase of Israeli War Bonds

I call them “Israeli War Bonds” even though the purpose of their sale is to raise cash for peaceful development. However, any money Israel raises for peace serves to free up money which can be spent to maintain its status as a permanently armed camp. I am tired of our politicians bleating about how much we support Israel and will do so forever under all circumstances. Our leaders proudly say, “Nobody tells Israel what to do.”

          Fine…I will be the last person to try to boss Israel around. But I think we can exert influence on their thinking. They certainly believe they can influence ours! And it’s looking more and more like we’ll have to use that influence in the name of tough love. In this post, I’m only offering a range of options, not all of which we have to engage at once. But I don’t much like the status quo. I don’t approve of sharing our highest level military technology, our annual multi-billion dollar cash giveaway, or swearing our eternal allegiance to Israel’s security.

          As far as I’m concerned, all nations are equally deserving of our respect and treatment, until they give us reason to think otherwise. And we don’t serve ourselves or anyone else well by singling out “special” relationships. Israel will rise and fall on its merits (as will we all, countries and individuals alike) due to the nature of its karma. And no one should expect any more or less than what their karma dictates. If they don’t like where they think that might lead them, then it’s time to make the amends necessary to change that karma.

My campaign commercials

I’ve posted scripted scenarios on this blog regarding commercials, in support of my presidential campaign, I hope might end up on YouTube. Add this concept to that pile:

I would love to see a spot showing a live clip of our fawning Congressmen giving Netanyahu twelve standing ovations. But the speaker would be the Yosemite Sam cartoon character mentioned above, spouting the PM’s rhetoric in Sam’s voice. Sam could even draw his 6-shooter and fire some emphasizing shots into the ceiling as he harangues our leaders.

I’m hard-put to figure out why the PM was invited to address our Congress in the first place. I read the text of his speech and saw nothing there requiring the physical presence of our representatives. Don’t they have more pressing business than to gather to hear a prepared text? Or maybe they had to be there or AIPAC would “note” their absence and start working against their reelection.

My campaign slogan would work well in such a commercial:

“Join the New American Revolution: Declare your independence by voting for independents.”

As the camera pans the faces of our fawning Congressmen (12 standing ovations, indeed!), a voiceover could point out: “Been-Jammin’ Knittin’-Yahoo obviously has the undivided attention of our elected leadership. Question: When will We-the-People get that kind of attention? Answer: We won’t – unless we get rid of the Dem/Pubs who insist on business as usual – like giving Israel everything it wants. We need independents who will give us everything we want.”

This might be a little over the top but here goes: As those Congressmen are applauding the PM, computer-generated images of trolls in yarmulkes could be seen circulating among that audience, stuffing dollar bills into their pockets. That’s not much of exaggeration of our current political reality.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Peace is possible, but not at the hands of the usual suspects – and not without independent Congressmen watching out for our interests.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com