Nation State or International Integration

 

The election this fall is not about Islamic State, al-Qaeda, Taliban, or other security. It will not be about most of the items the media is talking about. What it is about is the economy, jobs, employment, wages, and everything about the economy but not in the obvious ways being discussed. Where will this next Presidency balance? The main item is which way does it benefit the United States most, continuing internationalism or returning to nationalism.

 

The media and most politicians are pushing this global economy, global integration, global cooperation, global solutions while hiding a dirty little secret, they are selling global as the solution while having the United States and the advanced nations pay for everything while equalizing the global playing field, whatever that means. We had a debate last night and we heard more of the same. Clinton claimed more globalism and taxes on the rich and Trump tried and may have meant to sound like Reagan. What they were not telling the people is that Clinton was using the same internationalism where the world matters more than the United States so in order to equalize the world the United States and the advanced world has to bleed to allow the rest of the world to catch up and then all will be well and how wonderful the world can be. Trump is actually claiming that every nation take their own and put them first and attempt to allow the nations who are leading the world to continue to be the leaders and then assist other nations in making gains and follow and give them access to advances as they are able to implement these advances. So, which way will work best. That depends on which nations one decides should be permitted to advance their own interests than to share with the world.

 

Internationalism is wonderful if your country is on the receiving end and not so wonderful if you are being bled to bring the other nations up to their level. The problem with that are many of these nations that are presumably being given advances in order to raise them to the same level are led by dictators who are enriching themselves and not making their nations any closer to the advanced world as that does not directly benefit them. What these dictators are not being intelligent about is that had they advanced their nation they would have enriched themselves in the process. They are not even thinking nationally rather than internationally. Internationally is a recipe for disaster as it inhibits the leaders from leading and demands that the least efficient be granted the largess while the leaders are placed in financial straight-jackets. Internationalists place a stop sign where all nations must park their own business and park their nation by the side of the highway and wait for the rest of the world to reach an equal position. The problem is that many of these nations, which they are waiting for to reach the same point, are themselves broken and not gaining and will never catch up as they are not even making any effort to reach the next level. Internationalism believes that making all nations equal will solve the world’s problems and inequalities, despite it not ever bringing the rest of the nations to first world status.

 

 

World Map with Borders Deemphasized

 

Nationalism is the opposite view which allows each nation to advance at their own rate and still demands that the first world assist the developing nation but does not demand they try to make equal those nations so dysfunctional that they are the closest thing to an economic black hole as can be found. Nationalism rewards each nation for their efforts and allows each nation to gain at their own speed. Allowing the leaders to lead gives other nations a target and proven path they can emulate but without national gain by the wealthiest nations to blaze the trail for the others to follow. The basis for nationalism is it allows each nation to set their own monetary policies and is against unifying monetary policies as such a system is flawed and destroys the lesser productive nations which has been proven by the European Union Euro which has benefited Germany while leaving Greece behind. Nationalism allows each country to do the best for their own people and society. That does not mean that nations which are developing should not be aided and it is in the interest of the most advanced nations to assist those nations who are developing and making the right choices and allowing them to benefit from the experiences of those nations who have traveled those roads before them. But those nations which are completely dysfunctional cannot be assisted as long as their governance is broken and until the nation decides to change their dysfunctions there is no reason to throw good money after bad.

 

Internationalism is a wonderful, feel-good policy filled of kind words and low on actual results. Internationalism demands that all nations be made to give according to their ability and the funds are granted to countries according to their needs. Internationalism demands open borders allowing free immigration with no limits or criminal and other background checks or other limits or restrictions. The policies sound as if they will allow all nations equal opportunities in word while defining this policy as bringing all nations up to the same level and making things fair for all nations. The truth is that this is accomplished by tearing down the greater nations while benefitting some of the least deserving nations who are corrupt criminal enterprises more than they are actual functional nations. Rewarding the worst while impeding the best prevents progress and will constantly restrict progress and the discoveries of new technologies and new systems which would result in assisting those nations seeking a better future to implement the proven methods. To get an idea on the difficulties caused by internationalism there is a perfect example which we can observe, the European Union. How has that equal currency been working for over half of Europe who are not Germany or Britain but are Greece, Spain, Italy and even France and many of the former Warsaw Nations. The common currency has taken the small differences of economic production where the agrarian economies which work on a different production level having to survive with the same policies of the industrial and other highly developed nations.

 

World Map and Relative Wealth of Nations

 

Permitting each nation to perform at their highest level and to their full potential will set target paths for other nation to follow along the proven road set by the highest performing nations. Progress is the fuel that raises all nations in turn. Progress provides the test paths and allows developing nations to benefit from their more advanced nations but only when they decide to advance. No nation could be forced to grow their economy and advance their national infrastructure and when a nation refuses to advance itself then forcing the rest of the world to wait for such a nation to reach an equative level is ridiculous and counterproductive. Internationalism is wonderful idea if it could function as promised. Nationalism is the dirty sounding word which is accused of being selfish because it benefits the wealthy nations and prevents developing nations from ever reaching the top level. The obvious fault is that accusation is completely false. If nationalism prevented up and coming nations from ever becoming the top nations were true then China would have ruled the world, Spain would be a leading nation, Greece would be the top nation in Europe, Egypt would be the most advanced nation in construction and engineering, Persia would still control East-West trade routes, Portugal would be a great power with colonies throughout the world, and the Hittites would be the great power in the norther worlds of Europe through to Turkey. Top nations change and have changed throughout the history of the world while nationalism was the rule of the world. Internationalism has caused massive stagnation as the world as a whole is not permitted to advance because the leading nations are held back presumably for the benefit of the lesser nations. This will always be a supported philosophy as there will always be more developing and undeveloped nations than leading nations as only a few nations will be in the top ten percent, which is why it is referred to as the top ten percent. Internationalism has been working so well over the past twenty to thirty years since 1979 while the rest of history was pathetic and without economic advancement advances by all nations and we are still using salt as a currency, aren’t we? The progress from salt as money to salt as something on almost every dinner table was a result from nationalism, not internationalism.

 

Compare the two with eyes open and the preferable form, open competition or controlled advancement, the choice could provide opportunity or a slow decadence and eventual decimation. Internationalism is welfare on an international scale much in the form of the Soviet Union and the initial Plymouth Rock Colony which would have starved if not for the Native Americans who grew and hunted for surplus for the winter and had sufficient to teach and feed the Pilgrims. After that experience of all get all they need, while most gave nothing in effort, they introduced a new program where each family kept a percentage of what they grew and the remainder was shared, the amounts of food skyrocketed. That is the balance which nationalism can produce, the most advanced achieve at their highest level and those developing nations learn from those leaders and in time some will replace them as they eventually falter. That is the secret of effort based economies, the people or nations at the top changes with time when another makes decisions which make them even more profitable as the other sinks under likely bureaucratic waste. You decide.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

May These be the Last Victims of this and All Intifada

 

Eleven year-old Ayala Shapira and her father, Avner Shapira, were the latest in a long line of victims who have suffered from the rock and firebomb attacks along Israeli roads in the Israeli ruled Area C of Judea and Samaria when the vehicle they were traveling home in was struck by one of those firebombs. Ayala currently lies next to death in the burn center at Sheba (Tel Hashomer) Hospital where she is on life support and the physicians are doing all they are able to save her young life. While her father’s injuries were less severe and he has received treatment, Ayala suffered much more severe burns, as well as other injuries, and is under intensive care and as reported by Professor Ze’ev Rothstein, Director of Sheba Hospital, “It is not clear at this point if her life is in danger. We will do everything possible to save her.” Our prayers and support go out to Ayala, her father and to their family, friends and all who share the effects of this tragedy. May Ayala soon be out of danger and make a speedy recovery followed by a successful long term therapy as may be necessitated to restore to her the level of life and comfort she knew before this assault. May her mental scars fade as well and as quickly as any physical scars fade.

 

She and her father were driving on a side road between Ma’ale Shomron and the new community of El-Matan when their vehicle was struck by a firebomb thrown from another vehicle with a number of young adults inside. The attack is being treated as a terrorist attack and the authorities say all efforts possible are being taken to find and arrest the culprits. Both Ayala and her father were able to free themselves from the burning vehicle but not before suffering severe, life-threatening injuries including burns. Below is a video courtesy of Arutz Sheva News which can also be viewed here. This attack was special only in its results as rock assaults on the roads in and around Jerusalem, as well as throughout much of Israeli countryside, have become daily occurrences with such terrorizing acts being committed numerous times per day. They have become so common as they have received little coverage unless a child is severely injured or even worse, murdered, that the media barely give them any note.

 

The same can be said for the assaults and rioting being carried out on the Temple Mount with the expressed purpose of denying Jews the right to visit, let alone pray which is forbidden Jews and what is meant by maintaining the status quo, by PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas as well as leaders of Hamas out of Turkey who claim to be the ones financing and carrying out such violence. The Temple Mount riots consist of more than simply assaulting the police and security personnel with rocks but also include the use of pyrotechnics which have resulted in numerous instances where security and police personnel have caught fire and suffered burns though fortunately most have only required first aid and only minimal numbers have required sustained hospitalizations. Hamas leadership as well as other Arab leaders, who represent some of the numerous Arab groups under the network of the PLO and Abbas, have openly described the elevated levels of violence as being an actual Intifada though Abbas attempts to deny such terminology as he fears it may have an effect on the levels of funding his many groups receive from Western nations and NGOs. The continued levels of violence, which are most likely activities being established by Hamas, are likely part of two separate but mutually reliant on the sustained violence directions, the denial of Jewish rights wherever and whenever possible and stirring the cauldron to keep it boiling and near to explosive levels as part of the Hamas efforts to appear stronger and more active in fighting and terrorizing Israelis so that they will win any elections should they ever be permitted by Abbas.

 

This brings us back to two items, the current Arab petition before the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and the threats made by Abbas should it fail to be approved and the unity government and the likelihood of elections being scheduled before the unity government collapses due to Hamas dissatisfaction with the lack of elections as agreed and their executing other plans they have for garnering complete control over both Gaza and the West Bank. First off, according to the unity governing agreement there were to be elections held within the first six months, a severe failure which was supposed to negate the agreement and return the Arabs to having two governing bodies, one over Gaza controlled by Hamas and one over the West Bank controlled by Abbas as president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), chairman of the PLO and the leader of the Fatah Party. The Hamas-Israel war over the summer was the initial play by Hamas almost immediately after the agreement for a unity government was formed. The reason behind the Hamas war was to force Mahmoud Abbas into a position where he appeared to be taking all the moves aimed at ending the war on Israel while Hamas continued to resist reaching any agreement, and thus far only a ceasefire exists as no peace or even permanent armistice has been reached and signed, thus molding an image of Western tool carrying out the demands which favored Israel around Abbas through his work to attempt to reach an actual peace or at the least an armistice while the leadership of Hamas was seen as taking the fight to Israel and surviving even to the point of having claimed victory. Just the image of a strong Hamas fighting the good fight against Abbas appearing weak and passive has made Haniyeh, the former leader of Hamas in Gaza, well ahead of Abbas in polls taken including both Gaza and the West Bank and his sole competition to be Mashaal who is the Hamas leader in Qatar. Abbas would lose to either of the Hamas main leaders.

 

This brings us to the same point of the Arabs opposing Israel and demanding their own state, with Abbas claiming to represent their desires, claims to have been facing off phantom menaces, using that to assure elections do not appear for numerous years and again do not appear to be in the cards for any time in the near future. Abbas refuses to hold elections as he realizes that should he lose the election he would likely lose a whole lot more. Abbas, and probably his sons, would be arrested and tried for stealing funds, refusing the will of the people, corruption and whatever other charges the newly elected and most likely Hamas controlled Arab leadership could find to charge them over. The result of such a trial would be Abbas spending the rest of his life in prison, but on the bright side that prison sentence might only last a few very short weeks ending with the execution of Abbas if for no other reason than you do not allow your competition to remain alive and capable of potentially taking back their position and holding you for trial and then executing you. I am pretty sure this is covered in the “President for Life Handbook” (no such book exists to the best of our knowledge) on page three. There is further evidence for this hypothesis as Abbas would likely already have been murdered as part of a Hamas coup attempt which was thwarted by the Israeli Shin Bet (Intelligence Agency) with an assist by the IDF as they arrested a number of the senior members and planners from Hamas who were readying to launch their violent takeover of the West Bank from Abbas which was funded and they armed by Hamas with all control, arms and finance originating with the Hamas leadership in Turkey under Saleh Al-Arouri. Most every act of willful violence over the last approximately nine months since the agreement for the Hamas leadership to stand aside and allow Abbas to continue as leader of numerous groups under separate titles and areas of assigned expertise has been instigated by Hamas, financed by Hamas, planned out by Hamas, lead in the field by Hamas activists and aimed at both Israel and Mahmoud Abbas. The actual acts of violence were aimed at the Israelis in general and the Israeli Jews more specifically while also meant to erode any popularity or visages of coordinating any effective resistance, terror activities, by Mahmoud Abbas and in his stead making Hamas look like the real and true opposition working actively to force the Israelis out of Muslim lands. Abbas is also aware of this offensive smearing his character and supplanting his leadership with the more popular and seemingly competent Hamas leaders.

 

That leaves the demands Abbas appears to be forcing within the United Nations Security Council which states that negotiations will begin on the inception date when the authorized resolution has been enacted and last no longer than one year (twelve months is one unofficial wording we have found which would be interesting as there are three separate and quite different calendars in use between all the parties) followed by Israel being forced from Arab lands and to return to the pre 1967 Six Day War boundaries which were originally set by the armistice signed ending the conflict in 1949 by no later than the end of 2017. One might inquire why the one year of negotiations are necessary if the end results of such negotiations are already spelled out in the next parts of the resolution. The only item not completely resolved would be the Arab claim of right of return within Israel proper meaning the Green Line as apparently it has been established that none of the refugees originated from the lands the Arabs are claiming for their state but all originated within the armistice lines from 1949. This might explain why there are refugee camps in Gaza and within Area A which is under complete Arab control and currently ruled by Mahmoud Abbas who has not seen fit, as Hamas have also ignored, to free the refugees within the refugee camps on lands ruled by their fellow Arabs and instead demand to place them within Israel. Further proof that Abbas is playing a game and not serious about the demands before the United Nations Security Council for their adjudication came when immediately after meeting with United States Secretary of State John Kerry and hearing from the United States officially that they would be using their veto to prevent any possibility for their resolution to be passed, Mahmoud Abbas took to the press and restated his ultimatum to pursue other legal manners to gain statehood for the Arabs living within his autonomous areas plus Gaza making the point that he now represents the entirety of the Arabs and that Hamas is no longer controlling Gaza, well, not officially at least. Mahmoud does not expect nor desire for his resolution to be recognized as should Israeli security apparatus not remain functioning at its current high level of efficiency then Hamas may just execute their next planned coup and that would be the end of Mahmoud Abbas. Very simply, Abbas remains alive for as long as Israel remains in control of the security through most of the lands Abbas is demanding they surrender in his resolution in the UNSC.

 

Even the amended demand added for the year of negotiations is a fantasy which is why it was not in the initial draft and was added pushing the date for the forced Israeli withdrawal from Arab lands back from end of 2016 to the end of 2017. The proof for this is the simple fact that nothing else in the resolution was altered when the negotiations were added as Abbas has no intention of negotiating thus the desired results must be determined independently from this added Band-Aid only added to placate the desire of a number of European Union and the United States desired said negotiations. Another reason that Mahmoud Abbas has little if any desire for Arab statehood is that once that accommodation has been achieved then he and the rest of the Arab terrorist infrastructure will have to actually rule the people and will not have the occupation to blame for any problems, especially about faulty water and electrical service and the foreign funding will begin to decline and eventually, much sooner than Abbas would like, end altogether and the Arab governance will have to make everything run on funds raised from within their soon to be failed state. Sometimes receiving what you demand results in exactly those things you have resisted for the past fifty years which will be beyond one’s ability to perform. Abbas has been continuing the same game that Yasser Arafat played before him which requires burning the candle at both ends and finally Mahmoud Abbas may be running really short on candle and the flames just might be meeting in the middle real soon and guess who will receive the judgment from their own people, a people who will not be in the mood for more excuses. Abbas has problems rushing towards him from every direction and much of that has been of his own doing. Perhaps his chickens are coming home to roost.

 

Beyond the Cusp

Did Obama and Abbas Share a Speech Scripter?

Where it would be near impossible that both men had their United Nations speech written by the same person; though, it did appear that somebody inspired the crafting such that they each played their part in a well scripted production. What has to be incorporated into these considerations is the ugly little surprise Abbas plans on hatching with an important assist he choreographed with French President Hollande during his quick stopover in Paris. The plan is with the full backing from France, Abbas will petition the United Nations Security Council for a Chapter Seven Resolution fully enforceable demand for a solution of the Palestinian conflict with Israel within three years otherwise a preset settlement will be enforced by any means necessary. The borders for the enforced settlement will, of course, be drawn around the pre Six Day War 1949 Armistice Lines, also called the Green Line, which returns Israel to her once undefendable borders with Jerusalem divided granting the entire Old City with the Temple Mount and the Western Wall to the Palestinians. This is the plan that France’s François Hollande gave Mahmoud Abbas his full support and backing for introducing to the United Nations Security Council during the intense and heightened levels of activity which seem to occupy Turtle Bay towards the end of September every year with the opening of the United Nations General Circus Assembly and the parade of tin pot dictators and oligarchic monarchs to the podium to vilify and impugn the leaders of the democratic free world. This year appears to be shaping up as a banner year tipping the scales well into the territory of the absurd.

Mahmoud Abbas led off speaking before President Obama and set the stage with his usual bombastic rhetoric castigating Israel as the greatest of evil of nations unsurpassed through the annals of history; beyond the Mongol Hordes, beyond the excesses of the Roman Emperor Caligula and unequaled even by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. This coming from the man who arranged the financing, arranged the training and the overall coordination for the terrorist assault on the Munich Olympics where his trained and financed murderers enacted a grand spectacle before the cameras the world over which culminated in the slaughter of the Israeli Olympic team. During his speech, Mahmoud Abbas statements included accusing Israel of in this, “the International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People,” of having, “chosen to make it a year of a new war of genocide perpetrated against the Palestinian people.” He further accused Israel of “launching its war on Gaza, by which its jets and tanks brutally assassinated lives and devastated the homes, schools and dreams of thousands of Palestinian children, women and men and in reality destroying the remaining hopes for peace.” Further, Abbas reiterated his string of lies against Israel including mention of “the third war waged by the racist occupying State in five years against Gaza, this small, densely-populated and precious part of our country.” Never mind that this was the third war initiated by Hamas by raining rockets onto Israeli towns, cities and Kibbutzim after, this time around, having abducted three Israeli teens and having murdered them disposing of their bodies in a shallow grave, but why ruin such a perfect rendition of fictions regaling the majority of the assembled representatives from the least reputable nations in our world. Abbas further into his speech laid out the reasoning which was supposed to mitigate the violence and rioting perpetrated by the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria or the rock ambushing of Israeli drivers by Palestinians and other assaults on Jews within Jerusalem by excusing their actions claiming, “We must also assume that no one will wonder anymore why extremism is rising and why the culture of peace is losing ground and why the efforts to achieve it are collapsing.” His resolution is that Israelis are destroying any possibility for a peaceful resolution to the situation despite his having to refused numerous offers for a Palestinians state, one such refusal even managed to infuriate President Clinton who laid the blame for his not managing to resolve the Palestinian Israeli conflict at the feet of the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat, the man whose shoes it can honestly be said Abbas has filled with the sane tenacity demanding that the sole resolution he will ever accept must include the complete destruction and elimination of Israel. Abbas insisted that the Palestinian will “not for a moment … abandon our humanity, our values and our ethics … and we will maintain the traditions of our national struggle established by the Palestinian Fedayeen and to which we committed ourselves since the onset of the Palestinian revolution in early 1965.” This may have been his sole slip as his giving the year of the initiation of the Palestinian struggle to destroy Israel as 1965 reveals a simple fact, their struggle began at least two years before there was any occupied or contested territories as the Six Day War did not occur until 1967; so who and what exactly were his Palestinian Fedayeen fighting against and for what offense or reason in 1965? That leaves only one answer should one honestly evaluate this slip, they were fighting then for exactly the same ideal and result. They now continue their fight, the eradication of Israel. Abbas even sets the date where Israel presumably established their colonizing ways after responding to an attack by Syria and Egypt and pleaded with Jordan not to join the conflict which they ignored by attacking across central Jerusalem in the second day of the Six Day War just as Abbas stated, “Israel refuses to end its occupation of the State of Palestine since 1967.”

In his lengthy and slanderous conclusions did manage to hold some jewels of truth, except that they twisted the reality to fit his dreamscape of reality. He pontificated, “It is impossible, and I repeat – it is impossible – to return to the cycle of negotiations that failed to deal with the substance of the matter and the fundamental question.” I agree with this thus far as negotiating with Abbas can only result in one of two eventualities, the end of Israel or the end of any possibility for peace as Abbas will reject anything less than Israel’s demise and thus will once again miss every opportunity. Then he finally introduced the initial introduction of his demand which will be the main theme of his entire visit at the United Nations when he said, “there is no value in negotiations which are not linked to a firm timetable for the implementation of this goal. The time has come to end this settlement occupation” Then he laid out his claim that is coming for there to be international forces sent to impose his nightmarish solutions when he pleaded, “The people of Palestine are actually the ones who need immediate international protection.”

Skip forward and we arrive with President Obama at the podium. Perhaps there is nothing to the seeming continuity where President Obama appeared to be answering Abbas and his apparent wish for a solution to be imposed so that the final solution between the Palestinians and Israelis would not be dependent on negotiations and a mutually reached agreement. While there can be serious doubt as whether President Obama favors Islamic nations over non-Islamic nations, there is little debate discounting his apparent animosity for Israel and particularly its Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu. President Obama’s initial introductory lines as he approached direct commentary on the future he suspects concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were uncritical and neutral as he stated, “We recognize as well that leadership will be necessary to address the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. As bleak as the landscape appears, America will not give up on the pursuit of peace. Understand, the situation in Iraq and Syria and Libya should cure anybody of the illusion that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the main source of problems in the region. For far too long, that’s been used as an excuse to distract people from problems at home.” The rest of that section began to give a small hint that things were likely to get more critical as he added, “The violence engulfing the region today has made too many Israelis ready to abandon the hard work of peace. And that’s something worthy of reflection within Israel.”

The next sentence was when President Obama may have dropped the initial bombshell when he turned serious in his tone stating, “Because let’s be clear: The status quo in the West Bank and Gaza is not sustainable.” Then came the driving impetus which makes the situation untenable and in desperate need of a resolution as he stated the obvious, “We cannot afford to turn away from this effort – not when rockets are fired at innocent Israelis, or the lives of so many Palestinian children are taken from us in Gaza.” Then he left things hanging by stating a bromide which would leave most critics scratching their heads trying to figure out where he had intended to go as he concluded this section of his speech stating, “So long as I am President, we will stand up for the principle that Israelis, Palestinians, the region and the world will be more just and more safe with two states living side by side, in peace and security.” So, where was the rest of the bombshell, or did we simply miss something somewhere in the middle which held more meaning and gave a clearer picture and he simply disguised his intentions by suspending it in the middle of a lot of diplospeak?

Where this may be hyperbole and exaggeration or simply misreading President Obama or it might be the real meaning and definition of his intentions couched in an oblique set of references which might mean what I think it does. The two lines came separated as he paused seemingly as if passing from one paragraph to the next and waiting for the teleprompter to pass beyond a blank space in the text. Before the pause he critiqued Israelis claiming, “The violence engulfing the region today has made too many Israelis ready to abandon the hard work of peace.” Was this simply a reference to polling results he may have read where it stated that many Israelis were less than pleased that the recent conflict with Hamas ended before Hamas had been removed from Gaza and he interpreted the reaction of Israelis to this third conflict initiated by Hamas in the last five years and a feeling that to end these rocket attacks that Hamas would need be removed permanently to mean that Israelis desired a military resolution to the entire conflict or was it an accusation fired across the bow at Prime Minister Netanyahu and many of the leaders in the parties of the ruling coalition that they be more accommodating in order to allow negotiations to lead to a final solution and blaming Israel for the lack of peace, agreeing with the accusations made by Abbas? The next line was the pause before the storm, a throwaway line meant to place doubt if the previous line and the one following were part of the same thought and should be read together without this spacer where he added almost as a disarming giveaway, “And that’s something worthy of reflection within Israel.” Then followed the strong positing of what President Obama sees as necessary to end the seemingly never ending lack of progress stating plainly, “Because let’s be clear: The status quo in the West Bank and Gaza is not sustainable.” This echoes the statements made by Abbas in his speech where he exclaimed, “It is impossible, and I repeat – it is impossible – to return to the cycle of negotiations that failed to deal with the substance of the matter and the fundamental question. The people of Palestine are actually the ones who need immediate international protection.” Add this to the likely advice which President Obama is likely to get from the United States Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power who stated clearly in an interview just over a decade ago that she would not be adverse to providing troops to enforce a peace and protect the Palestinians from any aggressions by the Israelis. This all might be the initial indications that even should the United States not support Mahmoud Abbas when he requests action by the Security Council in placing a deadline for an agreed peace otherwise a solution be imposed forcing Israel to surrender all claims beyond the Green Line and surrender much of Jerusalem to the Palestinians facing an international military force that the United States will also not use its veto to prevent such a vote from passing. With the French already supporting this proposal and neither Russia or China likely to veto any such motion, though Russia could surprise the world, that would leave the only chance to defeat such a proposal to the British as most of the rest of the nations currently serving on the Security Council would definitely see such a motion favorably. Perhaps the best hope is for Abbas to be spooked enough by his own doubts to decide not to take the risk and instead do as he has done in the past and simply settle for a General Assembly vote which carries no real weight but makes him appear to have made strides and might serve to aid him in any upcoming elections. The one truth known about Abbas is he fears falling from power almost as much as he fears having to preside over a real nation where instead of blaming Israel he actually has to deliver on providing water, electricity, trash removal and all the other banalities expected of governments.

One item always comes into focus and refuses to wane or fade into the background and instead claims to be important and necessary to point out once again. I try to minimize it by sweeping it aside with the thought that anyone who visits here has already heard of this fact and it simply demands attention for those first time or new readers; so I fear I must give in. This has to do with President Obama on his first inauguration day in January of 2009. After being sworn in (twice if you believe the going rumors), eventually the newly instated President Obama made it to the solitude and quiet of the Oval Office and sat down to make the customary calls to world leaders. The item of note is which world leader President Obama made his first official phone conversation with, and that turned out to be Mahmoud Abbas, President of a fan club more than of an actual State. Fortunately Mahmoud Abbas is no longer number one on President Obama’s speed dial; that honor now is bestowed on Turkey’s first elected President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Still, the prominence given Abbas initially has always weighed heavy and helped explain the disdain for Israel and Netanyahu shown by President Obama in his first term and with the two speeches this fear of their teaming up still is haunting from deep in the dark recesses of my thoughts.

Beyond the Cusp