Reality with Crooke; Delusion in West

The title for Crooke’s SCF essay today is “Israel and the Misjudgment of Reality” while the subtitle reads “The hard truth is that the Resistance has understood the reality of the situation better than their western counterparts.” Readers will recall that last week Crooke published a short analysis of Biden’s “peace play” in his Al-Mayadeen column that was reported here and detailed the huge clusterfuck Team Biden created. Crooke has harped on the misreading the Zionists by the West which is just as bad as the misreading of Russia and can be blamed on the faith placed in unrealistic narratives. It appears that the worse the situation gets the crazier the response. Let’s see how bad the situation is now:

On all fronts, the Israeli internal paradigm is fracturing; and externally, the West is itself fissuring, and becoming a pariah on the global stage. The western leaderships’ explicit facilitation of a bloody cleansing of Palestinians has incised the old spectre of ‘Orientalism’ and colonialism onto the skyline. And is gyring the West towards being ‘the world’s untouchable’ (along with Israel).

Overall, Israel’s government objective looks to be to converge and then channel – multiple tensions into a wide military escalation disgorgement (a big war) – that somehow would bring a restoration of deterrence. Such a course concomitantly implies that Israel would thus turn its back to western pleas that it somehow act ‘reasonably’. The West mostly defines this ‘reasonableness’ as Israel accepting the chimaera of a passage to ‘normality’ arriving through the Saudi Crown Prince bestowing it, in return for a contrite Israel undoing seven decades of Jewish supremacism (i.e. accepting a Palestinian State).

The core tension within the Western-Israeli calculus is that the U.S. and the EU are moving in one direction – back to the failed Oslo approach – whilst polling underscores Jewish electors firmly marching in the other direction.

A recent survey conducted by the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs shows that since 7 October, 79% of all Jewish respondents oppose the establishment of a Palestinian State on 1967 lines (68% were opposed prior to 7 Oct); 74% are opposed even in exchange for normalisation with Saudi Arabia. And reflective of the internal Israeli divide, “only 24% of left-wing voters support a [Palestinian] State without conditions”.

In short, as the western institutional leadership clings to the shrinking Israeli secular liberal Left, Israelis as whole (including the young) are moving hard Right. A recent Pew poll shows that 73% of the Israeli public support the military response in Gaza – albeit a third of Israelis complained it had not gone far enough. A plurality of Israelis think Israel should govern the Gaza Strip. And Netanyahu, in the aftermath of the ICC arrest threat, is overtaking Gantz (leader of the National Union) in approval ratings. [Gantz just resigned from the War Cabinet.]

It seems that the ‘western consensus’ prefers not to notice these uncomfortable dynamics.

Additionally, a separate Israeli divide concerns the purpose of the war: Is it about restoring to Jewish citizens the sense of personal, physical security, which was lost in the wake of 7 Oct?

That is to say: Is it the sense of Israel as a redoubt, safe space in a hostile world that is being restored? Or alternatively, is the present struggle one of establishing a fully Judaicised Israel on the ‘Land of Israel’ (i.e. all the land between the river and the sea) the prime objective?

This constitutes a key divide. Those who see Israel primarily as the safe redoubt to which Jews could flee in the wake of European holocaust, naturally are more circumspect at the risking of a wider war (i.e. with Hizbullah) – a war that could see the civilian ‘rear’ directly attacked by Hizbullah’s vast missile arsenal. For this constituency, safety is a premium.

On the other hand, a majority of Israelis sees the risk of wider war as inevitable – indeed to be welcomed by many, if the Zionist project is to be fully established on the Land of Israel.

This reality may be difficult for secular westerners to grasp, but the 7 October has re-energised the Biblical vision in Israel, rather than excite a surfeit of caution about war, or a desire for rapprochement with Arab States.

The point here is that a ‘New War of Independence’ can be held aloft before the Israeli public as the metaphysical ‘vision’ of the way ahead, whilst the Israeli government attempts to pursue the more mundane path of playing the long game, leading to the full military matrix control over the land between the river and the sea, and the removal of populations that will not submit to the Smotrich dispensation of ‘acquiesce or leave’.

The schism between Israel as a secular, post-holocaust ‘safe-space’ and the contrasting Biblical, Zionist vision sets a border between the two zeitgeists that is both porous, and at times overlaps. Nonetheless, this Israeli divide has bled across into U.S. politics and, in a more scattered way, has entered into European polity.

For the Jewish diaspora living in the West, keeping Israel as a safe-space is vitally important as, insofar as Israel becomes insecure, Jews feel their own personal insecurity worsens, pari passu. In one sense, the Israeli projection of strong deterrence in the Middle East is an ‘umbrella’ that extends to cover the diaspora, as well. They want quiet in the region. The Biblical ‘vision’ has an edge to it which is frankly too polarising.

Yet, those very power structures straining to sustain the Israeli strongman paradigm in the western consciousness now find their efforts are tending to shred those western political structures, on which they depend, thus alienating key constituencies, particularly the young. A recent poll amongst 18-24 year-olds in Britain found that a majority (54%) agreed that “that the State of Israel should not exist”. Just 21% disagreed with this statement.

The wielding of Lobby power to compel Western united support for Israel and its deterrent objectives – coupled with a lack of human empathy for Palestinians – is inflicting heavy losses on institutional leadership structures as underlying mainstream parties fracture in different directions.

The damage is exacerbated by the western peace camp’s ‘reality blindspot’. We hear it all the time: the only solution is that of two-states living peacefully side by side on the lines of 1967 (as enshrined in UNSC resolutions 242 and 338). Apart from in the West, the same mantra is also rehearsed (as the peace camp reminds us) by the Arab League.

It seems so simple.

It is indeed ‘simple’ – but only through ignoring the reality that such a Palestinian state can only come into sovereign ‘being’ through force – through military force.

The reality is that there are 750,000 settlers occupying the West Bank and East Jerusalem (and a further 25,000 settlers living in Syria’s Golan Heights). Who will remove them? Israel won’t. They will fight to the last settler; many of whom are zealots. They were invited and placed there in the years since the 1973 war (largely by successive Labour governments), precisely to obstruct any possible Palestinian state coming into existence.

The question that those who say ‘the solution is simple’ – two states living side by side in peace – do not answer: Has the West the will or the political resolve to instantiate a Palestinian State by force of arms, against the current will of a plurality of Israelis?

The answer, inevitably, is ‘no’. The West does not have the ‘will’ – and the suspicion then arises that in their hearts they know this. (There is perhaps a yearning for a solution, and disquiet that absent ‘calm in Gaza’, tensions will spike in the diaspora, too).

The hard truth is that the Resistance has understood the reality of the situation better than their western counterparts: A putative Palestinian State has only receded in prospect since the 1993 Oslo process, rather than having advanced a jot. Why did the West not take corrective action over three decades, and only then recall the dilemma when it became a crisis?

The Resistance has better appreciated the inherent untenable contradiction of one people appropriating to themselves special rights and privileges over another, sharing the same land, and that such a scenario could not long persist, without breaking the region apart (witness the wars and devastation to which maintaining the existing paradigm already has led).

The region stands at the edge; and ‘Events’ at any moment can push it over that edge, despite the efforts of regional actors to control incremental movement up the escalatory ladder. This is likely to be a long war. And a solution likely will only emerge through Israel, by one means or another, facing up to the inner paradigm contradiction within Zionism – and to begin seeing the future differently.

And of that, there is, as yet, no sign. [My Emphasis]

Will we see Crooke try to press home that vital point—For a Two-State Solution force will be required to enforce that UNSC decision—during his chat with Judge Napolitano? After some chat over the EU situation, at the 24-minute mark Crooke does his best without pounding the table with his fists to drive home the above reality. I know I’d be more forceful in my delivery of that reality because I have a strong deep voice that is capable of doing just that emphatically. And to see Crooke properly, it must be admitted that he’s had this position for a long time since the reality has existed for that long.

Breaking news from the UNSC tells of the passing of the May 31 ceasefire proposal made by the Outlaw US Empire that Hamas agreed with. Here’s how Al-Mayadeen reported it:

Phase one

The initial phase calls for an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire, the release of captives including women, the elderly, and the wounded, the return of the remains of some deceased hostages, the exchange of Palestinian prisoners, and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from populated areas in Gaza.

This phase also includes the safe and efficient distribution of humanitarian aid across Gaza, ensuring that all Palestinian civilians in need receive assistance, including housing units provided by the international community.

Phase two

The second phase stipulates a permanent cessation of hostilities, conditional upon the mutual agreement of the Israeli occupation and the Palestinian Resistance. It includes the release of all remaining captives in Gaza and the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the blockaded strip.

Phase three

The final phase focuses on initiating a major multi-year reconstruction plan for Gaza and returning the remains of any deceased captives still in Gaza to their families.

Continued negotiations

The UNSC resolution emphasizes that if negotiations for the first phase exceed six weeks, the ceasefire will remain in effect as long as talks continue. The United States, Egypt, and Qatar have expressed their readiness to ensure that negotiations persist until all agreements are reached and the second phase commences.

The resolution called on all UN member states to support the implementation of the ceasefire proposal once agreed upon. It underscores the importance of adhering to the proposal's conditions and rejects any attempts to alter Gaza's demographic or geographic status, including actions that might reduce its territory.

The US-drafted resolution stressed the need for peaceful coexistence between the Israeli occupation and occupied Palestine within secure and recognized borders.

This vision aligns with international law and relevant UN resolutions. The proposal also stresses the importance of unifying Gaza and the West Bank under Palestinian Authority governance. [My Emphasis]

Again, the key missing point: Who/what will enforce the ceasefire as I don’t see any of the purported guarantors as having the power and political will—particularly the Outlaw US Empire. And of course, Netanyahu announced yet again that the Zionist Project will continue with the goal of the complete eradication of Hamas. IMO, no ceasefire will be implemented and negotiations won’t go anywhere. This news appeared well after Crooke’s chat ended. Again, the key fact is the Zionists won’t accept anything less than Genocide. That’s the utterly disgusting reality Humanity must come to realize and act to prevent. Russia abstained on the vote and here’s Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia’s explanation:

Russia abstained at the vote on a US-proposed draft Security Council resolution endorsing the mediators’ proposal on a ceasefire in Gaza.

From the very beginning of the escalation in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict zone, we have consistently and unwaveringly advocated the imperative of establishing a permanent ceasefire, including for the release of hostages and the normalization of the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We have always viewed positively any diplomatic efforts on the ground aimed at a ceasefire with parameters to be acceptable to both sides.

At the same time, we have a number of questions about the American draft resolution, in which the Council welcomes a certain “deal” whose final contours are still unknown to anyone save the mediators themselves. The information circulating in open sources is quite contradictory. The sponsors have not informed the Security Council of the details of the agreements. We are essentially being offered to buy “a pig in a poke”.

There was no negotiations process as such on the draft resolution. The sponsors offered variations of the final text, in effect demanding that Security Council members sign up to them under time pressure.

Hamas has been called to accept the so-called “deal”. But there is still no clarity as to whether Israel has formally agreed, as stipulated in the resolution, to the “deal” proposed by President Biden, given numerous statements by Israel on continuing the war until Hamas is completely defeated. What exactly did Israel agree to? Perhaps we are going to hear the answer to that question today from the Israeli representative?

We are convinced that the Security Council should not subscribe to agreements with vague parameters, without guarantees of their implementation on the ground, and also without any clear understanding of how the parties feel about them. In essence, the Council is giving carte blanche and endorsing a plan whose details it does not know. The parameters listed in the three paragraphs are not the details. Since the escalation in Gaza began, the Council has already adopted three resolutions whose implementation remains only on paper. This one may become the fourth.

That cannot be called a positive trend. The fact that UNSC adopted a document with a rather questionable content and without a clear demand for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, undermines its authority as the main body for the maintenance of international peace and security.

We did not veto the resolution simply because, as we see, it is supported by the Arab world. That said, all the questions we have identified remain and need to be answered. [My Emphasis]

I agree 100% with this statement. IMO, Hamas agreed only because it knows the Zionists will never agree. IMO, the shock of the massacre that allowed the freeing of 4 hostages also played a role in the vote. I again repeat what I wrote above: Again, the key fact is the Zionists won’t accept anything less than Genocide. And they’ll be afforded political protection by the Outlaw US Empire at the UNSC to stop any attempt to keep the Zionists from their goal. Thus, the need for the Global Majority to act outside of the UNSC to force the Zionists to halt is the only realistic solution to this immoral issue. Yes, I wish there was another way, but history says there isn’t.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!