Peace Process stuck in 1949

Israpundit ^ | Dec 19/10 | Ted Belman

[tedbel]

American policy regarding the Arab/Israel conflict has not changed since the Armistice Agreement in 1949.

American policy sought to to achieve a holy balance in the Israeli-Arab conflict. ”This policy had its origins in the tripartite U.S.-British-French declaration in 1950, against arms sales to either side. The Soviets exploited this policy to sell arms to the Arabs, and the French looked after their own interests when they supplied weapons to Israel, but the Americans preserved an outward appearance of egalitarianism.” So reported Haaretz in 2007 based on then recently released documents.

“Washington's support for the existence, independence and territorial integrity of all the states of the region was translated into adherence to the armistice lines of 1949: not to allow Egypt, or any combination of Arab states, to destroy Israel, but also not to allow Israel to expand westward, into Sinai, or eastward, into the West Bank. The American pressure in this regard brought the IDF back from El Arish in Operation Horev in 1949 and from Sinai in 1956. A version of it would appear in Henry Kissinger's directives after the IDF encircled Egypt's Third Army at the end of the Yom Kippur War of 1973. “

America even had plans for intervention should intervention be needed to maintain their policy. In late May, 1967, these plans were dusted off with the intention of updating them. But events unfolding so quickly that they had to be scrapped in favour of working as quickly as possible through the UN and Russia, to establish a ceasefire.

It was recommended at the time that “Following the cease-fire, U.S. ground forces would be moved in for peacekeeping missions. The return of territories would be achieved primarily by diplomatic means, with military force to be used only if "absolutely necessary."

[Pollster1]

American policy sought to to achieve a holy balance in the Israeli-Arab conflict.

There is nothing "holy" about a balance between good and evil. We need to choose one side (hopefully after we get rid of the anti-American, anti-Jewish socialist in our White House).

[pnh102]

This is silly. All that has to happen for there to be peace in the middle east is for the Palestinians to completely and unconditionally lay down all their weapons. You’ll have peace within 2 minutes.

[Conservative Vermont Vet]

This is silly. All that has to happen for there to be peace in the middle east is for the Palestinians to completely and unconditionally lay down all their weapons. You’ll have peace within 2 minutes

Golda Meir said it best: "We will have peace when they (the Moozies) love their children more than they hate us!"

Which is to say, NEVER!!!

[plenipotentiary]

The US State Dept only sees “interests”. US interest since WW” was to replace UK as dominant power in Middle East so as to control and exploit oil production and marketing. Sadly the result has been OPEC, which is an extortion racket, designed to impoverish the Western Democracies.

US and other politicians have been bought with Saudi oil money, and so do nothing about it.

The West are such fools to allow their mortal enemies, Islam, and Russian Communist/Socialist/Chekists to use the Wests own money to arm themselves and subvert the West.