Palestine, Israel - Defuse The Middle East Powder Keg!

Categories

Society

War Crimes

The crisis in the Middle East and its current escalation over the taking of Israeli military prisoners and the resultant bombing of targets in Gaza and Lebanon almost has a mathematical certainty to lead to a wider conflict. Perhaps that is intended - to provide an excuse for a great massacre that involves not only Israel and Palestine but ultimately Syria, Iran and much of the Arab world as well.

Both sides of the fight know they are right, and both are backed in their conviction by international players who do not have a direct stake in the land that is being contested, but see the conflict as an opportunity to gain a foothold in that cradle of civilization - the Middle East.

The US is backing Israel, and no matter how many Palestinians - and now Lebanese - are killed, the response is that Israel has "every right to defend itself". The Palestinians have the sympathies of the Arab world, which sees the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine and the consequent hardship on the people who have lived there since ancient times as an affront on all decency and an unjustified aggression.

Image credit: Baha Boukhari

It is of little use to point to the UN resolutions sponsored by the English that led to the establishment of a Jewish state after the Second World War. Those resolutions are part of the problem. They cannot show us a way to a solution. But can there be change at all? Is there a way of solving the dilemma of two peoples' claim to the same piece of land without leaving one or both unsatisfied? Can the powder-keg be defused, in other words.

Perhaps, perhaps ... but such a solution would require a radical change in thinking. The input of the international community to pressure both sides to accept would be indispensable, which means that the hidden designs on controlling the area would have to be abandoned.

The proposal does not come from a high-powered think tank, it comes from a friend in South Africa, someone who does not have a mental block that would prevent change. But let me put this on the table anyway, for all it might be worth. Comments are of course welcome. Here is the idea, sent in by Sebastian.

- - -

The following is an interesting and possibly productive perspective, however far fetched it may seem, keeping in mind how desparate the situation is, with no other workable solutions on the table.

In principle it immediately removes cause for contention by fulfilling the needs of both by equal compromise. -- will appreciate your comment.

THE LOGIC OF THE MIDDLE EAST

An impossible situation has to be resolved:

1. Two nations claim the same piece of land to be theirs to rule supreme.

2. Both have historic claims that make perfect sense to each unto themselves.

3. No argument can change the minds of either.

4. No division of the land will ever satisfy either party.

5. At borders between them they will forever be at loggerheads.

Only an extremely radical solution can work.

Therefore

1. Let there be no borders between them.

2. Let there be no division of the land, to be divided over.

3. Let no argument be moved to change the minds of either.

4. Let what makes historical and religious sense to both be fulfilled for both.

5. Let both nations have the land.

To achieve this, both nations must have national status at once within the same inclusive borderline.

To make that work:

Each nation can have its own exclusive city-state capital.

Israel can, for example, have Tel Aviv as city state and as seat for its own parliament and national administration.

Likewise, Palestine can, for example, have Bethlehem as city state and as seat for its own parliament and national administration.

These two states can then form a confederation to govern their joint assets, consisting of the remainder of the land, their shared capital, and citizens of both, residing in the shared land.

The confederal government of the shared land can be presided over by a senate with equal representation from both nations.

In this way, both otherwise stateless nations can have access to what they need to have for the sake of national identity, for the sake of national destiny, for the sake of national security and for national pride.

In this way prophesy can be fulfilled whereby all the sons of Abram / Abraham will feast around the same tables. (Will be sensible thing to do, prophesy or not)

In this way an example can be set and tested for other areas of the world where plural nations have to find a way of coexisting in peace, especially where minorities have to be accommodated, for example the nations of the Congo.

Equal representation at the highest end, of groups unequal in any way, bring about fair administration of equal rights at the lowest end.

- - - End of message from Sebastian - - -

Will this proposal go anywhere?

Only time can tell.

Certainly it would seem worthwhile to explore creative solutions, in the face of the rather imminent danger of a war that could potentially wipe out much of humanity and leave the rest of us in a stone-age setting, scrambling to find our bearings once again.

About those hidden designs to control the area - Greg Palast has an interesting view on that. Here is how he sees things:

BLOOD IN BEIRUT: $75.05 A BARREL

The failure to stop the bloodletting in the Middle East, Exxon's record second-quarter profits and Iran's nuclear cat-and-mouse game have something in common -- it's the oil.

By Greg Palast
July 26, 2006

I can't tell you how it started -- this is a war that's been fought since the Levites clashed with the Philistines -- but I can tell you why the current mayhem has not been stopped. It's the oil.

I'm not an expert on Palestine nor Lebanon and I'd rather not pretend to be one. If you want to know what's going on, read Robert Fisk. He lives there. He speaks Arabic. Stay away from pundits whose only connection to the Middle East is the local falafel stand.

So why am I writing now? The answer is that, while I don't speak Arabic or Hebrew, I am completely fluent in the language of petroleum.

What? You don't need a degree in geology to know there's no oil in Israel, Palestine or Lebanon. (A few weeks ago, I was joking around with Afif Safieh, the Palestinian Authority's Ambassador to the US, asking him why he was fighting to have a piece of the only place in the Middle East without oil. Well, there's no joking now.)

Let's begin with the facts we can agree on: the berserkers are winning. Crazies discredited only a month ago are now in charge, guys with guns bigger than brains and souls smaller still. Here's a list:

-- Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's approval rating in June was down to a Bush-level of 35%. But today, Olmert's poll numbers among Israeli voters have more than doubled to 78% as he does his bloody John Wayne "cleanin' out the varmints" routine. But let's not forget: Olmert can't pee-pee without George Bush's approval. Bush can stop Olmert tomorrow. He hasn't.

-- Hezbollah, a political party rejected overwhelmingly by Lebanese voters sickened by their support of Syrian occupation, holds a mere 14 seats out of 128 in the nation's parliament. Hezbollah was facing demands by both Lebanon's non-Shia majority and the United Nations to lay down arms. Now, few Lebanese would suggest taking away their rockets. But let's not forget: Without Iran, Hezbollah is just a fundamentalist street gang. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can stop Hezbollah's rockets tomorrow. He hasn't.

-- Hamas, just days before it kidnapped and killed Israeli soldiers, was facing certain political defeat at the hands of the Palestinian majority ready to accept the existence of Israel as proposed in a manifesto for peace talks penned by influential Palestinian prisoners. Now the Hamas rocket brigade is back in charge. But let's not forget: Hamas is broke and a joke without the loot and authority of Saudi Arabia. King Abdullah can stop these guys tomorrow. He hasn't.

Why not? Why haven't what we laughably call "leaders" of the USA, Iran and Saudi Arabia called back their delinquent spawn, cut off their allowances and grounded them for six months?

Maybe because mayhem and murder in the Middle East are very, very profitable to the sponsors of these characters with bombs and rockets. America, Iran and Saudi Arabia share one thing in common: they are run by oil regimes. The higher the price of crude, the higher the profits and the happier the presidents and princelings of these petroleum republics.

This Thursday, Exxon is expected to report the highest second-quarter earnings of any corporation since the days of the Pharaoh, $9.9 billion in pure profit collected in just three months -- courtesy of an oil shortage caused by pipelines on fire in Iraq, warlord attacks in Nigeria, the lingering effects of the sabotage of Venezuela's oil system by a 2002 strike... the list could go on.

Exxon's brobdingnagian profits simply reflect the cold axiom that oil companies and oil states don't make their loot by finding oil but by finding trouble. Finding oil increases supply. Increased supply means decreased price. Whereas finding trouble -- wars, coup d'etats, hurricanes, whatever can disrupt supply -- raises the price of oil.

A couple of examples from today's Bloomberg newswire are:

"Crude oil traded above $75 a barrel in New York as fighting between Israeli and Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces in Lebanon entered its 14th day... Oil prices rose last month on concern for supplies from Iran, the world's fourth largest producer, may be disrupted in its dispute with the United Nations over its uranium enrichment ... [And, said a trader,] 'I still think $85 is likely this summer. I'm really surprised we haven't seen any hurricanes.'''

In Tehran, President Ahmadinejad may or may not have a plan to make a nuclear bomb, but he sure as heck knows that hinting at it raises the price of the one thing he certainly does have -- oil. Every time he barks, 'Mad Mahmoud' knows that he's pumping up the price of crude. Just a $10 a barrel "blow-up-in-the-Mideast" premium brings his regime nearly a quarter of a billion dollars each week (including the little kick to the value of Iran's natural gas). Not a bad pay-off for making a bit of trouble.

Saudi Arabia's rake-in from The Troubles? Assuming just a $10 a barrel boost for Middle Eastern mayhem and you can calculate that the blood in the sand puts an extra $658 million a week in Abdullah's hand.

And in Houston, you can hear the cash registers jing-a-ling as explosions in Kirkuk, Beirut and the Niger River Delta sound like the sleigh-bells on Santa's sled. At $75.05 a barrel, they don't call it "sweet" crude for nothing. That's up 27% from a year ago. The big difference between then and now: the rockets' red glare.

Exxon's second-quarter profits may bust records, but next quarter's should put it to shame, as the "Lebanon premium" and Iraq's insurgency have puffed up prices, up by an average of 11% in the last three months.

So there's not much incentive for the guys who supply the weaponry to tell their wards to put away their murderous toys. This war's just too darn profitable.

We are trained to think of Middle Eastern conflicts as just modern flare-ups of ancient tribal animosities. But to uncover why the flames won't die, the usual rule applies: follow the money.

Am I saying that Tehran, Riyadh and Houston oil chieftains conspired to ignite a war to boost their petroleum profits? I can't imagine it. But I do wonder if Bush would let Olmert have an extra week of bombings, or if the potentates of the Persian Gulf would allow Hamas and Hezbollah to continue their deadly fireworks if it caused the price of crude to crash. You know and I know that if this war t