Two different analyses of Palestine’s situation

I don’t want to deny that there are many various positive diplomatic signs in the air and it’s hard to say how they will all work together. In the end, as I have stressed, it’s going to be up to the national bourgeoisie, not me the communist representing the as-yet too-weak international proletariat nor the imperialists who are in too much trouble to make it without the national bourgeoisie.

We are seeing two different roads. Obama says there will be confidence building measures and we hope to see a pragmatic side to Netanyahu. Maybe that’s true.

I would ask: 1) Why did the I$raelis turn down the Arab peace plan before? They had their chances to settle things themselves in the first six years of Bush’s term. 2) Given that Netanyahu and Lieberman are smart, but what can they do about I$raeli voters?

I would say it’s a waste to go into confidence building measures in the I$rael/Palestine case only out of foreign policy situations the United $tates confronts. Cuba is the right one for confidence measures. You have Netanyahu and Lieberman sacrificing anti-war and anti-racist Jewish opinion in the United $tates. Obama should make use of that, let it continue, not paper over things for them unless they really do make concessions in reality.

I would say the right way to go is to let I$rael continue under public opinion pressure and allow no rhetorical measures to relieve the pressure. Use the situation to impose sanctions, because I just don’t see what Obama has that previous actors did not have. Sure Obama has put up signs better than other U.$. presidents, but I$rael has put up signs worse. It’s always two steps forward, four steps back.

Then I’m sure that once sanctions are imposed we will see confidence-building measures arise and we can go down the road that Obama thinks is there. It is there, but we have to take a detour to get to it.

I could be wrong. I think it will be up to the national bourgeoisie these next few months.


%d bloggers like this: