By Gordon Duff and Press TV
“The worst nightmare for Netanyahu’s autocratic rule of Israel has come, a forced visit by an American president with an agenda, an end to occupation of the West Bank, a fully operating independent Palestinian state by 2014 and more.”
The president’s decision, after consultation with Democratic leaders in congress, including the Jewish caucus and Secretaries Kerry and Hagel, representing Departments of State and Defense, is primary driven by economic issues.
Continuing a foreign policy predicated on unquestioning support for Israeli expansionism at the cost of American security and economic viability is no longer something Israel’s AIPAC lobby is capable of bullying and blackmailing American politicians into.
Netanyahu’s attempts to crush Obama have failed miserably while it is Netanyahu who is unable to put together a ruling coalition government after recent electoral reversals.
The projected dual focus of American foreign policy, toward both the Far East and Africa, has been deemed impossible until a Palestinian settlement is in place and relations with Iran have been stabilized and Iran is released from crippling sanctions.
The 176 to 6 vote in the UN General Assembly on December 4, 2012, passing a resolution demanding inspection of Israeli nuclear facilities had left the United States in an untenable situation.
Citing Iran for “possible violations” while recent intelligence has now undeniably confirmed, not just Israel’s illegal nuclear arsenal but has tied Netanyahu personally to an espionage ring inside the US responsible for the theft of nuclear triggers and their illegal transfer to Israel.
Israeli sources, quoted in the World Tribune stated today:
“Obama has made it clear to Netanyahu that his visit is not about photo-ops, but the business of Iran and a Palestinian state. The implication is that if Israel won’t give him something he can work with, then he’ll act on his own.
The Obama people are making this a litmus test of Netanyahu’s leadership and credibility. Obama supporters in Congress have sent Netanyahu a similar message.”
Netanyahu faces the toughest political battle of his career. Despite the two-week extension from President Simon Perez, Netanyahu has been unable to assemble a working coalition government.
The primary stumbling block for Netanyahu is finding political parties willing to begin dismantling settlements in the West Bank, over a half million Israeli Jews living illegally on land under military occupation.
It is Netanyahu’s job to convince Israelis that he can deceive the United States by dismantling settlements in peripheral areas that are difficult to supply and defend while hoping for “lightning” to strike.
The events on 9/11, 2001 were a form of “lightning,” a serendipitous “terror attack” that began a worldwide war on Islam, a war that left many regional leaders either clinging to Israel’s “skirts” like frightened children or subject to the wrath of America’s “shock and awe.”
No one has ever officially noted the curious fact that only Israel benefitted from 9/11. Canada only this week affirmed that asking such a question was, in itself, considered an “act of terrorism.”
Unreported around the world
The story of the Obama mission was first reported by the World Tribune. However, there was not sufficient credible basis for moving forward with the story until Israel’s own Ynet News Service carried the story itself. (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4351970,00.html)
In fact, there is no reporting of this story whatsoever in the Washington Post and reporting in the New York Times characterizes the president’s upcoming visit to Israel as one of “giving assurances and issuing threats to Iran.”
There are no reports whatsoever in British papers, none of the upcoming Obama visit to Israel nor of defense cutbacks or moves to redress illegal settlements in the West Bank.
American television news has not noticed the story whatsoever.
Cutback of US aid
With $46 billion in Pentagon cuts being implemented this week due to “sequestration,” military aid to nations in the Middle East, Israel, Jordan and Egypt, will be reduced. In response, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak arrived in Washington today for talks with Defense Secretary Hagel, whose confirmation he attempted to block only days before.
Israeli Ambassador and “former” Mossad spymaster, Michael Oren is quoted:
“The Israeli embassy still doesn’t know what will be the extent of the sequester, the aid to Israel is included in the federal budget. Just as this budget is cut, so can the aid to Israel.”
Naval forces in gulf “halved”
Defense Secretary Hagel has announced that the nuclear supercarrier, USS Harry Truman will not be deploying to the Persian Gulf as previously scheduled.
That will leave only one carrier available, a 50% reduction in naval forces in the region. GOP lawmakers cite the threat to Israel Iran poses if America is to reduce its carrier presence.
The lawmakers, part of the Pro-Israeli Republican Party, cite President Obama’s purposeful focus on endangering Israel as a way of punishing political enemies who forced the US into the unwieldy austerity plan known as “sequestration.”
Further military cuts will include an end to all Army training except for troops already stationed in Afghanistan.
The “invisible policy change”
A philosopher once asked the question: “If a tree fell in the forest, and no one was around, would it make a sound?”
Thus, we may now ask, if a change in American policy moves forward and no one is told and nothing is reported, can the policy have a real impact?
In this case, our question is one of substance: “Can a sovereign Palestinian state be established with respected and defensible frontiers, a state like all others if a massive program of planet wide censorship and factual distortion suppresses all reporting?
To Americans, there is no election struggle in Israel, as the totally unreported crisis doesn’t exist where it cannot be written nor spoken of.
Similarly, the change in recent days regarding Iran’s nuclear program, systems only a week ago designated as “military” are now “medical.”
One might also ask; “If some sanctions can be lifted as ‘unsupportable’ for reason of fact, why do others remain?”