Israel from Rise to Fall: West’s Difficult Task to Consolidate Illegitimate Entity

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Mehdi Shakibaei 

On the threshold of the 60th anniversary of occupation of Palestine or as the West claims the 60th independence anniversary of Israel (as though Israel was under custodianship of Britain) and under conditions that regional and global equations have a long distance from power equations in the 1940s, the West is now doing everything to consolidate its illegitimate child.

There are three stages in the entity of a phenomenon: rise, consolidation and recognition. What are the causes of the minor and major developments in the occupied lands in the recent years, including the question of the Israeli government’s Jewish nature, formation of the Palestinian state, the wars of Israel over the recent decades and its defeats? It seems that after 60 years since its inception, Israel is still in the stage of rise and despite all the efforts of its supporters has not been able to get established.

Establishment of Israel in the circle of Arab and Muslim states seems to be a difficult task particularly because the conditions today have no similarity with the conditions of the 1960s where heads of state were the decision makers about the future of relations with the regime in Israel. Today the main variable in the question of Palestine are the people. For the same reason and in the wake of the nations’ awareness, the West has resorted to colorful schemes in the recent years – schemes translated into war, peace and negotiations.

What the West, led by the US and UK, is looking for is consolidation of a government called Israel with specific borders and identity. An undeniable portion of whatever that occurs in the Middle East today goes back to the efforts of the West to establish Israel. In the meantime, when the Western media cover the so-called peace talks they speak of recognition of Israel by the Arab countries as though Israel has left behind the stage of consolidation and reached the stage of recognition.

The wars of 1948, 1967, 1973, 1982 and 2006 coupled with suppression of the Palestinian nation all indicate efforts by Israel to establish itself as an entity. Otherwise, the Tel Aviv regime would not spend huge money and would not take military action. Particularly, the outcome of the last war against Lebanon (July 2006) foiled all its efforts on the threshold of its 60th anniversary. For the same reason, in the opinion of observers, the 33-day war in summer 2006 shook the foundation of the Israeli regime and returned it to the zero point. Now, after 60 years since its inception, Israel has pinned hope more than ever before on the West’s political-military support on the one hand and its own blind adventures to consolidate itself on the other.

This is the same feeling overcoming the then leaders of the newly-
established Israeli regime on the morning of May 14, 1948. But are the conditions of the world and the region today the same as those of the 1940s? The answer is definitely no. Today, neither Israel faces the ideal conditions of the 1940s and 1960s nor the US and Britain have emerged victorious from the World War II. Neither Israel has succeeded in its campaign to establish itself nor the US and Britain have succeeded in their military expedition to Muslim countries in the region. Moreover, a new phenomenon has emerged in the region which has successfully left behind the stages of rise and stability from the 1980s till the 8th year of the third Christian millennium and is now at the stage of recognition and is likely to leave behind this stage too in a near future.

The West has employed all its power in its battle to thwart recognition of this new current. This effort is not aimed at consolidating Israel but to prevent this new current which is called Resistance from becoming a model. What is the West’s plan at this stage (establishing Israel and preventing recognition of the Resistance)? It is a three-pronged and concurrent political-military war in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq.

According to a political-military scheme drawn up by the US, Israel and their Arab allies for the summer in the Middle East, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon are the simultaneous targets of plans which must eventually serve the colonialist goals of Washington (preventing recognition of the resistance and consolidation of Israel).

In the opinion of the Neocons ruling over the White House, in the time left till the end of Bush’s presidential term, the outcome of the ruined triangle of Iraq-Lebanon-Palestine should result in a development which would prolong the US military presence in Iraq. Because according to a decision by the United Nations Security Council, the US occupation army must leave Iraq by the end of 2008.

The withdrawal of a large number of troops after five years of occupation which has brought Washington no achievement would undoubtedly be an irreparable catastrophe for the Americans. For the same reason, the White House had to devise a new scheme which includes an announcement on formation of the Palestinian state, signing of a security pact with the Iraqi government and outbreak of an internal -– and probably an external -– war against Lebanon to engage the country domestically and deplete its strength.

The White House rulers with the aid of Israel and some of their Arab allies have made huge investment on this three-dimensional project which would eventually lead to consolidation of Israel. According to the timetable, Iraq came first, then Palestine and now Lebanon. In Palestine, they have received the agreement of Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), head of the Palestinian Authority to overlook Beit-ul Moqaddas and the refugees. Arab states too have said they would accept whatever Abu Mazen decides.

With regard to the influence the White House over Abu Mazen, the signing of the document for creation of a Palestinian state seems certain unless the Palestinian public opinion decide otherwise. It is to be recalled that Yasser Arafat, the late president of the Palestinian authority when faced with a similar situation (second Camp David) delegated a decision on Beit ul-Moqaddas to the Arab and Islamic world and for the same reason he was bypassed by the US. But since Abu Mazen has been brought to power by the Americans themselves not for his struggle records, he has easily given in to the demands of Washington. His resignation threats too originate from his new position. In the meantime, the Arabs due to their very weak position in international equations are not able to resist the US demands and on the same basis regard the question of Palestine as merely a Palestinian issue and have delegated a decision in this respect to Abu Mazen. The celebrations to mark Israel’s 60th anniversary which will be attended by Bush will prepare the ground for signing this significant deal.

The success of George Bush in this battle would create a new atmosphere for Washington which would require the Americans to stay in Iraq a bit longer. As a result they have presented a security agreement plan (political and economic security) to the Iraqi government in return for releasing Iraq from Chapter 7 of the UN Charter which would restore its independence from the United Nations. In return for this promise, the US has said Iraq should work for creation of a region which would be in harmony with Israel.

To achieve the favorable results in the two rings of Palestine and Iraq (in view of the fact that Bush vitally needs those results) would require paralyzing Lebanon which has left the greatest impact on the Middle east developments over the last couple of years and has prevented Washington from fulfilling its colonialist goals.

Therefore, the opposition current or the Resistance in Lebanon must first be neutralized and then eliminated. The elimination of the opposition in the opinion of Washington would be possible only through an internal war and spread of the crisis and tension (because the test of military action in the summer 2006 war proved a failure).  From the point of view of the White House, the weakening of the opposition in Lebanon would undoubtedly weaken the position of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine and the strengthening of March 14 current in Lebanon. On the other hand, a weaker Hamas and Islamic Jihad would mean a stronger Abu Mazen so that he would have an easy task deciding on the deal imposed by Washington and Israel.

All these efforts by the West prove the claim that on the 60th anniversary of occupation of Palestine and creation of Israel, its supporters seek the consolidation of the illegitimate regime. But is it possible to fulfill this important job? The trend of the events over the past seven years provides a negative answer to this question.


طراحی و توسعه آگاه‌سیستم