Under the title "Change They Can Believe In", Walter Russel Mead, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, demands that Palestinians are given their due to make Israel safe.[1] At first sight, this sounds like a wonderful development, given the role the CFR plays in U.S. politics. The CFR is the most influential of a number of tax-exempt foundations that dictate U.S. politicians what policies to put in place.[2]

I will get into what Mead understands by giving Palestinians their due in a moment, but first of all I would like to have a bit of fun with the reason provided in his subtitle for giving Palestinians their due. Not because it is their due, their entitlement, their legal right, or whatever you want to call it. No, because it makes Israel safe. That's how America's political establishment thinks. It doesn't have the slightest concerns about the rights of a few million pesky Arabs who insist having first rights to the Holy Land. Or is it just politically incorrect in America to show concerns for the rights of anyone whom the Jews don't like?

Let's also have a look at the main title: "Change they can believe in". Mead is playing here on the main theme of Barrack Obama's successful presidential campaign. "Change" is the elite's code word for the illusion Western style democracies is based on. If we don't like the government, all we have to do is change it. Vote for the other party. Yeah right. It's only a matter of time until a large enough number of Americans has figured out that U.S. elections are about as genuine competitions as World Wrestling Federation.

And don't overlook the "they can believe in". Change, or more precisely, promises of change, they, the Palestinians can believe in. He's not talking about real change. Just belief, hopes, illusions.... It's all about perception management, not genuine correction of an unjust situation.

Anyhow, if it wasn't for the tell-tale title and subtitle of Mead's article, the first couple of paragraphs could have raised false hopes. He writes about how the stability of the Middle-East regions was vital for strategic U.S. interests, in other words, Big Oil interests. U.S. interests, not Israel's interests. What a nice change, after all the Israel first assurances we were given by various presidential candidates during this year's election. Mead even talks about how the past 8 years were a period of lost opportunities, bad decisions and loss of U.S. credibility as honest broker. He's got that right!

But then he goes on and on about how all the previous attempts of resolving the Middle East conflict weren't successful either. What he's not telling us is why they have failed. Because neither the Brits nor the American's had any wish to be in the way of a Jews-only state in Palestine. They have been acting like a policeman who keeps telling a house owner to try harder to get along with a gang of bandits who have invaded his house and keep terrorising his family.

Ah well, we shouldn't be too harsh on the British and American government. After all, they are just puppets who are taking orders from their bosses in New York and London, our ruling crime families. Israel has never been about a homeland for the Jews. That's just how they sold us the colonialisation of Palestine. The Jewish State is nothing but a bridge head to the oil fields of the Middle East. Now that the Americans have conquered Iraq, with no intentions of ever leaving, Israel is no longer needed, at least not for the purpose of securing the flow of oil.

The only reason why the ruling crime families are still concerned about the security of the state of Israel, is because of the vital role Jews are playing in the way we are ruled. Forget about the nonsense we are taught in Sunday school about the world we are in. It's just an illusion. For the past two hundreds years, mankind has been living in a three tier feudal system, with a few hundred aristocratic dynasties like the British and Dutch royal families, intermarried with old money like the Rothschilds at the top, and a second layer of well paid Jewish and Masonic executives running media, politics, universities, economy etc. on their behalf. The reason why the ruling elite is still showing concern for the security of the Jewish hobby farm Israel, although it is no longer required for the control of Middle Eastern oil, is to keep her loyal Jewish servants happy.

Mead tells us about all the previous failed attempts to solve the Zionist-Palestinian conflict. He then lectures us about the complexity and diversity of Israeli and Palestinian society and pays duefull respect to the Judeo-Bolshevik narrative of the so-called Holocaust. He does so to maintain the illusion that the reason for not solving the conflict till now is that it's such a tricky problem to solve. Nonsense! What's so hard about solving a home invasion? You give the invader three choices: go back to where you came from, prison, or death. If our self-chosen rulers had wanted to solve the conflict resulting form the Zionist invasion of Palestine, they could have done so a long time ago. They just didn't want to for the reasons mentioned above.

My favourite passage in Mead's article is this:

"Only clear support for a peace treaty by a solid majority of Palestinians -- in Gaza, the West Bank, and the diaspora -- will bring Israel the security it craves and deserves."

Hilarious! Mead knows of course that the last thing Orthodox Jews want - that is, almost half of Israel's Jewish population - is a peace treaty with the Palestinians. What they want is a 'Greater Israel' - from the Euphrates to the Nile - without Arabs. And even those Jews that are willing to make peace are only willing to an agreement that perpetuates the injustices of the past.

Mead's biggest concern is that the time for a two-state-solutions is running out.

"U.S. diplomacy has for too long overestimated the appeal of a two-state solution among Palestinians and in the broader Arab world. Some polls suggest that a majority of Palestinians in the occupied territories would accept such an outcome -- or, rather, would have accepted it some years ago -- but there has never been much enthusiasm for the proposal. A two-state solution has been even less popular with the diaspora, and today, even some of the proposal's most vocal Palestinian backers, such as the well-respected author and scholar Sari Nusseibeh, are moving away from it."

In order to save the two-state-solution, Mead explains,

"Obama must go further than just reiterating the United States' support for an independent, viable Palestinian state with borders based on the Green Line, that is, the pre-1967 borders (with minor and mutually-agreed-on modifications). He must overcome the skepticism created by the Bush administration's empty rhetorical support for a Palestinian state. He must declare that the United States is committed not only to an independent Palestine but also to acknowledging the wrongs the Palestinians have suffered, compensating them for those, and otherwise ensuring a dignified future for every Palestinian family. reiterates the United States' support for an independent, viable Palestinian state with borders based on the Green Line, that is, the pre-1967 borders (with minor and mutually-agreed-on modifications)"

Mead continues:

"To give substance to this pledge, the Obama administration should consult with a wide range of Palestinian groups and other interested parties in order to develop recommendations for concrete U.S. proposals that address key Palestinian issues. In consultation with U.S. allies in Europe (especially Germany and the United Kingdom, which have special historical interests and ties in the region) and elsewhere, the Obama administration should present an agenda that substantially enhances the value of a two-state solution to both the Israelis and the Palestinians and mount a determined diplomatic effort to reinvigorate direct negotiations between the parties."

Mead even addresses the tricky 'right of return' issue of the Palestinian refugees:

"What the Palestinians want from peace is, first of all, an acknowledgment of the injustices they have suffered. Israeli and Palestinian scholars have documented many incidents during Israel's War of Independence in which massacres or threats of violence caused Palestinians to flee. Most Palestinians who left their homes and villages to protect themselves and their families were never allowed to return, and much of their property was confiscated by the new Israeli government. It is not a crime for civilians to flee combat, and international law recognizes the right of such people to return to their homes. Enforcing that right has been a centerpiece of U.S. policy in Bosnia, so why, the Palestinians ask, should they be treated any differently? This is a legitimate grievance, and the United States must lead the international community in reckoning with it fully and frankly. Any diplomatic effort hoping to build a secure peace with the Palestinians' support must address this issue."

But then he disappoints by excusing the Zionist crimes and expulsions of the Palestinians with the Holocaust saga and concludes that,

"The responsibility for the nakba cannot simply be laid at Israel's door. "

Mead's solution:

"The U.S. government should build on this historical reality to craft an international body that can assume all claims arising from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, adjudicate them in accordance with existing international precedents and law, and pay appropriate compensation to the claimants. Claims would include the losses suffered by Palestinians as well as those sustained by Jews forced to flee their homes in the region, but the system should be set up so that Jewish and Palestinian claimants do not compete for limited funds. This entity should be funded by the international community, with Israel making a substantial payment as part of whatever negotiated legal agreement creates the new body."

Here we go, the "international community", in other words Germany and England, who both - as Meads mentions earlier in the article - have strong historic ties to the region. My gut feeling is that - if the CFR proposal goes ahead as planned - Germany will have to foot most of the bill. After all, the Zionist-Palestinian problem would have never arisen if it wasn't for whatever the Germans did to the European Jews during Word War II. What a useful story this Holocaust is.

Footnotes:
[1] Foreign Affairs, January/Febuary 2009

[2] The Secret Shadow Government , also Eustace Mullins, The World Order, Chapter 7 - The Foundations

Related Articles:
Israel's right to exist
Which German debt?

Source: ZioPedia.org