Liberal Zionist hero Barak brags that Israeli left ‘liberated’ the occupied territories for Jews

Israel/Palestine
on 18 Comments

This week, Israel’s ‘leftist’ former Prime Minister Ehud Barak seriously spilled the beans concerning Israel’s 1967 occupation, expressing in no uncertain terms that it is not a partisan right-wing matter, as its critics often like to say. Barak proved that it is something that the ‘left’ is an integral part of. And we heard it from the horse’s mouth – the horse named ‘lightning’ (‘Barak’ means lightning in Hebrew).

In his Haaretz article, Barak was bemoaning the fact that in a recent event celebrating 50 Years to the occupation (marketed with the slogan “We have returned home”), there was not enough ‘leftist’ representation. Barak says that this was not sufficiently nationally representative: “A national ceremony would have emphasized what we agree on and what unites us rather than what divides and separates us”, he writes.

Aye, Barak feels the ‘left’ is left out, and not credited enough for its part in the occupation and settlement project!

“A national ceremony would have noted that the people who built the Israel Defense Forces and led the war to liberate these parts of the land were Yitzhak Rabin, Haim Bar-Lev, Motta Gur and others (who later turned out to be “leftists,” heaven forbid), and that the party that consolidated and led the settlement enterprise for a decade, mainly on the basis of security considerations, was the hated Alignment, the forerunner of the Labor Party”, he writes.

Ha! The irony could not be greater. Barak, in his pathetic attempt to play a central part in everything “national”, actually ends up feeling excluded, as a “leftist”, from the celebrations. In his rant, he ends up confirming that there is no real difference between right and left Zionism – not historically, and not currently.

This is what Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy has been stressing for some time now, and his response came a day later in his piece titled “What Opposition? Ehud Barak Toes the Same Line as Netanyahu and the Settlers”, subtitled ”The stalwart of Israel’s ‘peace camp’ is proud of the number of settlements he built, an annual construction rate that Netanyahu could only dream about”.

Levy notes how Barak is applying the same language as the extreme rightists in government, with phrases such as “We’re proud of our role in returning to every part of the land and in the settlement enterprise that is essential to our security”, and Levy concludes that “This is the left-wing marker of the Labor Party, practically the only opposition Netanyahu has. Yet it’s doubtful Netanyahu would have expressed himself differently.”

Indeed, Barak’s article, as Levy concluded, is “amazing”, and it is one that is to be remembered and noted in the future, as the true face of the Israeli left, with masks off.

Barak goes into detail in his article, to make suggestions concerning which speakers could have been selected, to represent the ‘left’:

“A national ceremony would have included Maj. Gen. (res.) Elad Peled on the dais, a man who liberated Safed at the age of 21, as head of a Palmach unit, and then liberated all of Samaria at age 40, as head of the 36th Division”, he writes.

Liberated all of Samaria” – got that?

Barak continues on to suggest people such as Dalia Rabin, the daughter of “the IDF chief of staff who presided over the victory”, Isaac Herzog, “leader of the opposition and son of former Military Intelligence chief and President Chaim Herzog, who dispelled the public’s fears before and during the war in special appearances on television – a brand-new medium at the time – and served as the first governor of united Jerusalem”, as well as Hila Elazar-Cohen, “the eldest daughter of Maj. Gen. David Elazar, who demanded the assault on and conquest of the Golan Heights from the very first day of the war, and led it from the fourth.”

Barak then hails the “Allon plan” which came from leftist leader Yigal Allon in the wake of the 1967 war, to retain major swaths of the West Bank and settle them:

“A state ceremony would have lavished praised on the clear-sightedness of the Allon Plan and the internal logic of establishing settlement blocs, building Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and establishing settlements along the length of the Jordan River – the dimensions dictated by a sober security perspective and agreed on by all segments of society”, he writes.

Barak is completely right – the occupation and the settlement project are not things that just happened due to some messianic rightist settlers – it was a premeditated project that both the right and the left have been involved in all along.

Barak’s difference with the rightist settlers is rather pedantic in this respect – it’s about the isolated settlements that are not in the ‘settlement blocs’, which Barak sees as not contributing to security, but rather existing only to observe the religious commandment “to settle the land”. Barak thinks that what would really unite all Israelis, rather than separate them, is “security first, the belief that the unity of the people takes precedence over the unity of the land, and the values of the Declaration of Independence” – as opposed to “a benighted, nationalist agenda tainted with messianism that threatens all of our futures.”

****

Barak is a man of many myths, and he has been a central part in creating several of them. He has a mythological status as Israel’s most decorated soldier, known as ‘Mr. Security’, a man who reveres ‘security’ as if it was a God. He also created the myth of the “generous offer” he supposedly gave in 2000 to Yasser Arafat – an offer which was essentially tantamount to Bantustans. He simultaneously created the related myth that since Arafat refused this ‘generous offer’, that was proof that “there was no one to talk to”.

Barak’s ‘security’ notion is the classical Zionist notion when it comes to Palestinians – control, ‘autonomy’, encirclement, and most importantly – separation. Separation is the buzz-word for the Israeli left today, and it is lost on many, that Apartheid means ‘separateness’. The effective result of Bantustans and ‘separation’ as Israel applies it is Apartheid, and we’ve been seeing it for so many decades. All that Barak wants, is to maintain the ability to hide it better, and those ‘messianic’ rightist settlers are confusing the ‘security’ claim.

But Barak’s ‘security’ claim is also confused by his own people. His own Foreign Minister in 1999-2001 Shlomo Ben-Ami calls the security claim on the Jordan valley ‘mythical’. Yet the leftist leaders confirm Barak’s wish to ‘legitimize’ the ‘settlement blocs’ which is why left leader Isaac Herzog lamented last year’s UN Security Council resolution 2334 which condemned all settlements (including East Jerusalem) as “flagrant violations” of international law. Herzog was angered by the damage this did to the “settlement blocs” – the damage it did to their legitimacy.

*****

After all is said and done, the only difference between the ‘leftist’ Barak and the ‘messianic’ settlers, is that he seeks to serve Israel’s actual state religion – Zionism – under the more secular notion of ‘security’, whereas the more rightist settlers are more into divine promise issues.

In the end, Barak’s “returning to every part of the land” is not really that different from the “we have returned home” official slogan of the event. His “liberated all of Samaria” is not really that different to Israel’s top diplomat Tzipi Hotoveli’s “This land is ours, all of it is ours”.

Sometimes it does happen: that Israel’s top security people spill the beans like this. One of Israel’s most iconic ‘security’ leaders, Moshe Dayan, did this several times. One of his most serious admissions has been about the 1967 war and the lead-up to it, which was much to do with skirmishes with Syria along the Golan border and demilitarized zones. In 1976 he told General Israel Tal that Syrians on the fourth day were “not a threat to us”, and explained how most of the skirmishes occured:

”I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let’s talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn’t possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that’s how it was”, Dayan said (as documented by Serge Schmemann in NYT, 1997).

Dayan also explained to Tal, that the real motive behind the provocations and the subsequent conquest was actually just greed – greed for the land:

”The kibbutzim there saw land that was good for agriculture,” he said. ”And you must remember, this was a time in which agricultural land was considered the most important and valuable thing.”

Tal was wondering whether there really was no ‘security’ issue here. ”So all the kibbutzim wanted was land?” he asked.

Dayan, while confirming that they of course “wanted the Syrians to get out of their face”, nevertheless said:

“I can tell you with absolute confidence, the delegation that came to persuade Eshkol to take the heights was not thinking of these things. They were thinking about the heights’ land. Listen, I’m a farmer, too. After all, I’m from Nahalal, not from Tel Aviv, and I know about it. I saw them, and I spoke to them. They didn’t even try to hide their greed for that land.”

The delegation that Dayan describes was sent at the behest of Maj. General David Elazar, Chief of Northern Command at the time of the conquest, as documented in Tom Segev’s 1967, see p. 388. This is the same general that Barak is suggesting would be represented by his eldest daughter.

Barak may be chiding the rightists for being too zealous about “the land”, but he is really just as greedy for it. He’s just hiding that greed as ‘security’, and that’s what Zionists have been doing all along.

About Jonathan Ofir

Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

18 Responses

  1. yonah fredman
    September 30, 2017, 12:42 pm

    Rabin was not flawless in his politics and his history. If his constituents had been more similar to Hanan Porat, he would have acted like a right wing politician rather than endorse Peres’s Oslo initiative. But through his martyrdom he has gained hero status. Not so for Ehud Barak. He is not a hero to the leftist zionist. He was the hope of the leftist Zionists at one time (1999 to 2000) but in the 17 years since then, he has not been the hero of leftist Zionists.

    • Mooser
      September 30, 2017, 12:56 pm

      “Rabin was not flawless in his politics and his history.”

      And in Israel, that’s a capital crime. They have high standards in Israel.

    • RoHa
      September 30, 2017, 11:43 pm

      What difference does it make whether a Zionist is “leftist” or “rightist”?

      • eljay
        October 1, 2017, 9:07 am

        || RoHa: What difference does it make whether a Zionist is “leftist” or “rightist”? ||

        I suppose it helps know which Zionists will do the dirty work and which ones will “hold their noses” and cheer.

    • johneill
      October 1, 2017, 10:37 pm

      there’s no mention of rabin in the article, the main point of which is that: left or right, zionism is a colonial system.

  2. JosephA
    September 30, 2017, 6:38 pm

    Peace is not profitable. The military-industrial-complex does not want or like peace, neither do the ultra religious fanatics.

  3. pabelmont
    October 1, 2017, 10:03 am

    Can someone who knows Hebrew explain: why does “barak” mean lightning ? It sounds like “baroukh” or whatever that means blessing.

    (My NYC friends laughed at me for not knowing what various Hebrew and Yiddish words meant. Not culturally Jewish, ehh?)

    • yonah fredman
      October 1, 2017, 12:50 pm

      Both words: barak and barouch begin with the same two letters, beit and resh, the final letter in both is different, the 11th letter of the alphabet: khaf helps to form barouch or blessed (root word seems to be related to berech which means knee, seeming to imply the bending of knee is involved in benediction.) Barak’s last letter is the kuf, root letter for roman letter q, 19th letter of the 22 letter hebrew alphabet. The kuf is always like a k, whide the khaf is sometimes guttural as in barouch, sometimes hard as k, as in the word khaf itself, which means palm of the hand or a spoon, the shape of the letter is receptive. The word kuf itself means monkey, which explains the shape of the q which has a tail , like the kuf, it’s antecedent.

      • Nathan
        October 1, 2017, 8:54 pm

        Yonah – The letter “qof” was named after the “eye of a needle”. Later, when monkeys were brought from Africa, they were named in Hebrew “qofim”, because they seemed to resemble the eye of the needle. In the letter “Q” in the Latin script (borrowed from the Hebrew “ק”), what seems to be a tail is actually the needle, and the circle is the “eye”.

      • echinococcus
        October 1, 2017, 11:18 pm

        Fredman and “Nathan” showing off and racing to who is the emptiest ignoramus of the two.

        The alphabet is Phoenician (in fact Proto-Canaanic), Kaf means and represents a hand (an empty hand, or paw, or shovel.) It’s not Hebraic, even if there is some language family connection, so no monkey and no needle. In fact, it is one of the twelve Phoenician letters whose meaning is totally uncontested –no snake oil can be sold for kaf (kappu.) Do your own research. And nobody borrowed any writing system from Hebrew –it’s Phoenician.

        As for the letter shapes they insist in using for “Modern Hebrew”, instead of a Latin -based easy alphabet just to ensure their xenophobic isolation, these aren’t even Hebraic, they are Aramaic, as everybody knows.

      • Mooser
        October 2, 2017, 12:10 pm

        “Both words: lorem and Ipsum begin with the same two letters…”

        Jeez, I feel bad for “yonah” and “Nathan”. Bullshitting the Gentiles isn’t as easy as it used to be.

      • Nathan
        October 2, 2017, 7:09 pm

        echinococcus – I would suggest that you actually learn the Hebrew alphabet before commenting on it. Anyway, here’s a little lesson. There are two letters in the alphabet that have similar names and sound. One is the letter “kaf” which became in Greek “kappa” (and in Latin “K”). “Kaf” in Hebrew (or Canaanite / Phoenician) indeed means “palm of the hand” (and if you have a little imagination, you can see the fingers of the hand). There’s another letter that Yonah spelled as “kuf”. It’s better to spell it as “qof” – and this became the “Q” in Latin. The meaning of “qof” is the “eye of the needle”. You might want to apologize to Yonah for calling him an “ignoramous”. He gave a rather good answer to pabelmont, and he really does know the Hebrew alphabet.

        The Hebrew language is one of the dialects of ancient Canaan. There is hardly any difference between the various dialects (if you are interested I could give you some examples). All these dialects were written in the very same alphabet (the ancient Hebrew alphabet or the Canaanite alphabet or the Phoenician alphabet). The word “Canaan” means “purple”, and therefore the Greeks called the Canaanites “Phoenicians” (from the ancient Greek word for “purple”). Since this might be complicated for you, I’ll add that the “Canaanites” and the “Phoenicians” are actually the same term.

        The Jews write in the square letters for more than 22 centuries. You call it “xenophobic”, because you are hostile by nature (besides being rude and uninformed), not because you have had an interesting insight. I know that you can’t understand such things (you don’t even know the alphabet), but you can note that the alphabet actually fits the language just right (whereas the Latin alphabet doesn’t).

      • Mooser
        October 3, 2017, 11:48 am

        “One is the letter “kaf” which became in Greek “kappa” (and in Latin “K”). “Kaf” in Hebrew (or Canaanite / Phoenician) indeed means “palm of the hand” (and if you have a little imagination, you can see the fingers of the hand)”

        And with just a little meditation, you can clearly hear the sound of one hand thwapping!

        “The Jews write in the square letters for more than 22 centuries.”

        While the whole world sang: “Let’s not be L-seven! Come and learn to dance. Wooly-bully, wooly-bully!”

  4. lonely rico
    October 1, 2017, 6:07 pm

    Barak is a man of many myths, and he has been a central part in creating several of them. He has a mythological status as Israel’s most decorated soldier, known as ‘Mr. Security’, a man who reveres ‘security’ as if it was a God.

    The Report (“Goldstone”) of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza massacre (Dec. 2008 – Jan. 2009) , includes a harrowing list of crimes committed by the Israeli military, including, but not limited to – violations of conventional international law in seeking to “punish, humiliate and terrorize” the civilian population of Gaza; numerous war crimes such as “wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment”, “wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health”, “extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity”, and “using human shields”.

    The UN report pinned primary responsibility for these crimes on Israel’s political and military leaders – “The mission (is) in no doubt that responsibility lies in the first place with those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw the operations”.

    At the time of the rape of Gaza in 2008 – 2009, Barak was the minister of defence of Israel.

    The “Liberal Zionist hero Barak” is a war criminal.

  5. Misterioso
    October 2, 2017, 10:38 am

    http://www.dci.plo.ps/en/article/6703/Incitement-Report-for-September-2017-Examples-of-recent-inflammatory-comments-and-incitement-by-Israeli-officials-and-leaders

    A shocking, but edifying read:

    Palestine Liberation Organization.
    Department of Culture & Information

    “Incitement Report for September 2017: Examples of recent inflammatory comments and incitement by Israeli officials and leaders”

    PLO Executive Committee Member, Dr. Hanan Ashrawi:
    “The real incitement stems from Israel’s military occupation of Palestine and its enslavement of an entire nation.  The Israeli hardline extremist government led by Benjamin Netanyahu is responsible for generating a culture of hate and racism in Israel, inciting violence and feeding extremism.  Updated monthly, this report includes samples of recent derogatory and inflammatory comments and incitement by Israeli government officials and leaders specifically meant to distort reality and mislead public opinion.”

  6. James Canning
    October 2, 2017, 1:10 pm

    Does Ehud Barak wish for a permanent Israeli occupation of the West Bank?

  7. JLewisDickerson
    October 4, 2017, 5:18 am

    RE: Barak’s difference with the rightist settlers is rather pedantic in this respect – it’s about the isolated settlements that are not in the ‘settlement blocs’, which Barak sees as not contributing to security, but rather existing only to observe the religious commandment “to settle the land”. ~ Ofir

    MY COMMENT (A BIT IN THE STYLE OF A DOCCUDRAMATICAL TEXT): Netanyahu recently boasted to the settlers of a great victory in that he had convinced “the Americans” that it was no longer useful to distinguish between “settlement blocs” and “remote settlements”. I suspect they will soon both be referred to as “deeply rooted, bucolic suburban neighborhoods nestled in the Judean/Samarian hills”. (I can almost hear the sounds of bird’s chirping, children playing and babies so hungrily/agressively sucking formula from their ‘baby bottles’ one can’t help but be reminded of the ‘power boost’ button on a vacuum cleaner touted as helping to reach the dirt/debris that has been ground deep down into the carpet in those high traffic areas (but is probably more of a placebo).

    I assume that Netanyahu’s rationale is that Israel and the U.S. no longer need to defend new construction in the settlements with the customary recitation: “Everyone knows that any peace agreement will confirm that the settlement blocs are to become part of Israel . . .” Of course, the reason yet one more regurgitation of this irksome mantra (professing to be a recitation of what ‘everyone’ already supposedly knew in such an imperious manner as to be reminiscent of the exaggerated importance with which official proclamations were made in Munchkinland) seemingly placated/mollified anyone is that it was the equivalent of a re-acknowledgement/reiteration of an unstated but implicit quid quo pro: namely, that the “isolated settlements” would not be allowed to grow because “everyone knew” they would never be made a part of Israel (i.e., never be incorporated into Israel).

    For much of the EU, the existence of this unspoken/unacknowledged understanding was so obvious, natural, logical, etc. that only a vigorous, official denial of its existence by the U.S. would have convinced them otherwise. It appeared to them that the U.S. was careful to stay a safe distance (adding a considerable extra distance to be on the safe side) away from the subject, and they saw this as a virtual confirmation of the existence of such an understanding between Israel and the U.S. that was somewhat akin to “the love that dare not speak its name”, and to “the nuclear weapons possessed by a certain country in the Middle East” that constantly keeps issuing a canned disclaimer to the effect that it “will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East.” According to an article accompanied by stealthily taken photos that was published by the pre-Murdoch London Times several decades ago, the nuclear arms were designed and then manufactured on a couple of sub-basement levels beneath the lowest known basement level of a building complex adjacent to the nuclear reactor operated by a certain country in the Middle East. The sub-basement level where the nuclear weapons were manufactured and designed could only be reached using a special elevator that could be entered from the basement of the building complex and could be quickly hidden by putting some specially built modular wall sections in front of the recess containing the elevator.

    Most of the European countries were cognizant of the complete lack of any attempt by one or another of them at coyly “insinuating” to the U.S. or Israel that it or some other European country might know a thing or two about an understanding between the U.S. and Israel that had not been made public. The total absence of any attempt at all to precipitate some kind of a little slip up or admission by Israel or the U.S. that might confirm to a degree the existence of the U.S. – Israel understanding about the remote settlements was seen as confirming its existence to the extent the European countries were confident enough of the existence of the U.S. – Israel understanding about the remote settlements that they were not willing to take on even a very modest risk in an effort at obtaining more direct, concrete, detailed confirmation. The Europeans assumed that any outing of a sub rosa “understanding” between the U.S. and Israel could inure considerably to Israel’s benefit by giving Israel an excuse to renege on any commitment it made to the U.S. as part of the understanding. [TO BE CONTINUED]

    • JLewisDickerson
      October 7, 2017, 7:46 pm

      DUE TO MY KNACK FOR MAKING TYPOS THAT HAPPEN TO CONSTITUTE KEYBOARD SHORTCUTS, I lost the continuation in its finished form and what follows is my effort at reconstructing it from various snippets I found of preliminary drafts. Despite my feeling that it is very inferior to the final form that was lost, it does contain many of the same elements and I am submitting it so that I can try to forget about this whole sorry episode of spending way too much time on a(except for trying to figure out whether there is way to prevent future occurrences of this type).

      THE CONTINUATION (as unsatisfactorily reconstructed):

      THE FOUNDING FRAUDSTERS DECREE SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS
      I readily confess to being in awe of a spokesperson for the U.S. who is audacious enough to decree that “only the parties themselves can settle the I-P dispute by engaging in face-to-face negotiations” with such piety that one would be easily justified in assuming it had been certified as a “self-evident truth” by the land speculators most commonly known known as the “Founding Fathers”, but more accurately known as the “Founding Fraudsters”. The spokesperson apparently does not see any need to explain why that is the only way the I-P dispute can be settled, rather it is as though “everyone knows” that this decree is apparently being made by the U.S. pursuant to powers divinely vested in it (since the U.S. can’t admit that, as “everyone knows”, it is what Israel insisted upon because it benefits them and further disadvantages the Palestinians).

      A LOVE OF BANTUSTANS ~ IN PRAISE OF HOLDIN’ PENS
      Then, when a pesky reporter dares to ask how the U.S. can defend Israel’s ongoing colonization and settlement expansion that “everyone knows” as a practical matter amounts to the U.S. defending Israel’s unilateral actions that in not too many years will have established so many Israeli facts on the ground that only a few disconnected bantustans will be left that Israel has not colonized. These areas were not not colonized only because they had historically been Palestinian population centers that were made more densely populated in 1948 as refugee camps were established for the Palestinians coming from Israel, and consequently there were far to many Palestinians (and too few natural resources) in those areas for Israel to have any better use for them than as holding pens for the Palestinians. These population centers are also places to which Palestinians could move if they were “squeezed out “of the areas Israel was colonizing through the building and growing of settlements, thus making the population centers quite helpful in thinning out the Palestinian population in areas as Israel colonized them. Palestinians who were being surrounded by Israeli settlements often experienced unpleasant consequences like the settlements directing their sewage towards the Palestinians’ lands rather than treating it, having their trees frequently uprooted or burned by mysterious outbreaks of grass fires, and otherwise harassed in a multitude of ways. Consequently, they sometimes decided to give up and move to the population centers (i.e., holding pens). The U.S. knows full well that Israel is determined to take most of the land and resources of the West Bank, without having any responsibility for the majority of the Palestinians who have been concentrated into the holding pens and “depend on the kindness of strangers” (the EU, the UN, etc.).

      EVERYONE KNOWS ~ THE “NEW REALITIES”
      For the U.S. to decree “only the parties themselves can settle their dispute by engaging in face-to-face negotiations” followed by the the farcical “everybody knows” any peace agreement will make the settlement blocs part of Israel [“in recognition/acknowledgement of new realities on the ground” (i.e., submit to the superior power Israel has mostly as a consequence of the US’s seemingly unlimited support).] The only way this possibly made sense was if the U.S. was going along with it because Israel had either privately agreed with the U.S. that the settlement blocs were the most it could hope for, or that Israel at least understood/acknowledged that the U.S. would not support their keeping any more than that. Otherwise the U.S. is assuming this will be the inevitable outcome due to “new realities on the ground” despite the “new realities” having been purposefully built by Israel in violation of international law, ostensibly over U.S. objections and often to reduce the possibility of a peace agreement being agreed to by the parties (moral hazard?).

      “NEW REALITIES” OR THE SAME OLD, SAME OLD?
      Even if “everyone knows” Israel will keep the settlement blocs in any peace agreement, does “everyone know” that a peace treaty will for certain come to fruition? After all, Abbas is 80. What if he is replaced with a firebrand? Or, is that already taken care of? What if, through growth and other, Israel has so many new realities on the ground in the West Bank, that the GOI no longer has (if it ever did) any interest in a peace treaty? Then the U.S. will be seen as having allowed growth predicated on the eventuality of a treaty, but the growth that was allowed by the U.S. was sufficient for the Israelis to be satisfied with the “new realities” they had created on the ground and saw no reason to pursue a peace agreement. So, by allowing Israel to have growth predicated on expectations for the peace agreement, Israel was able to create enough “new realities” so that they see no benefit to a treaty (meaning that by allowing Israel’s settlements to grow, the U.S. destroyed any chance for a peace agreement). That’s the U.S. leaves itself open to when, in order to satisfy Likudnik Israel (she’s been the ruin of many a poor boy) the U.S. has to assume there will be a peace agreement, and Israel will be allowed to keep the settlement blocks in the peace agreement in order to justify their permitting Israel to continually promote/approve new growth [in other words, what “everyone (really) knows” is that Israel will be able to keep the settlement blocs because the the U.S. has enabled their growth using the excuse of inevitability that is only inevitable due to the actions of the U.S. So what “everyone (actually) knows” is that the settlement blocs will become part of Israel not because “everyone knows” they will, but because, as “everyone knows” but dare not say, it is the inevitable outcome of the US’s actions/policies (i.e. acting as Israel’s enabler). Put even more simply, “everyone knows” that Israel will keep the “settlement blocks”, because “everyone knows” that “the fix is in”.

      EVERYONE KNOWS! ~ A GENTLEMAN’S AGREEMENT
      So, how does the U.S. spokesperson defend U.S. support for this ongoing colonization? He merely says with a tone of dismissal that “everybody knows that Israel will keep the settlement blocs according to any peace agreement.” The only way the farcical “everybody knows” predetermination by the U.S. might have possibly made any sense was if the U.S. was going along with it because Israel had either privately agreed (let’s call it a Gentlemen’s Agreement) with the U.S. that the settlement blocs were the most it could hope for, or that Israel at least understood/acknowledged that the U.S. would not support their keeping any more than that (including the remote settlements).

Leave a Reply