Over the last several days, Western governments and societies are being lined up behind the defense of Israel in a way that would make even a drill sergeant blush. As U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said when he arrived in Israel today: “We have the back of the Israeli people. We have their back today. We’ll have it tomorrow. We will have it every day.” Even Blinken was outdone by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, however, who laid on the guilt Oct. 12, when he said: “Our own history, our responsibility arising from the Holocaust, makes it a perpetual task for us to stand up for the security of the State of Israel.”
Within at least Germany, France, Canada and the United Kingdom, any shows of pro-Palestinian sentiment have been declared illegal and violators are subject to arrest. In the U.S., while not as extreme yet, even the most modest pleas for a ceasefire and questioning of Israel’s infallibility are being condemned. And this while Israel conducts a full siege on Gaza, having cut off of all water, fuel, and electricity to the area—in addition to a relentless bombing campaign.
Assuredly, the attacks by Hamas against Israel since last weekend have been ugly, and tensions are understandably sky-high. But there is one problem with this lock-step narrative: Which Israel are we being told to support? Which domestic faction, each of which has drastically different views on resolving the crisis, is the correct Israel? As has been noted by this publication and others, there is an internal battle within Israel, and a tremendous rage against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom many blame for the deadly escalations. There are many within Israel, who do not believe it is in Israel’s best interests to launch a full-blown attack on Hamas and forever destroy their Arab neighbors. Why is that not being spoken to by Western diplomats?
Therefore, the actual question is: Who wants to corral you into an all-out war in Southwest Asia, and whose interest will that be in?
As with the crisis in Ukraine, this has veered into the domain of geopolitics. The current crisis and ensuing responses have less and less to do with the interests and actors of those nominally on the stage in front of us, and more and more other interests altogether. An unprecedented propaganda campaign is on throughout the world, pulling at people’s heart-strings in order to stampede them into support for more war. This is replete with horrific videos and footage of atrocities that accomplishes nothing other than calling forth the most knee-jerk emotions.
Remember Bucha, Izyum, and Ukrainian orphans? In the same way as is now being deployed with Israel, the headlong dash into a fratricidal war in Ukraine has left that nation decimated, with hundreds of thousands of its citizens dead. Ukraine’s future is bleak, if it and the world even survive the escalating proxy war NATO is waging against Russia. Only a fool would imagine that this is in Ukraine’s actual interests.
A true statesman or stateswoman is not bowled over when emotions get heated. Take the comments by French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna, who said on Oct. 11 that an independent Palestinian state is “the only solution, in our view, that will ensure that both peoples [Israelis and Palestinians] live in peace and security for the long term…. When the time comes, we’ll have to get back to work to recreate solutions that will enable political dialogue to restore a political horizon and, if possible, bring about peace.”
Colonna was echoed by former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, who on Oct. 12 said the two-state solution is “more than ever, today, the only one,” and which is, “in terms of security, the best guarantee Israel could have.” Villepin also emphasized that, in this, “Israel has a responsibility, because it has done everything to divide.”
Stop and consider: How are other governments in the region responding, at whose doorstep the consequences of this war will be left? Are they going flight-forward, and trying to “take sides”? The Arab League convened an emergency meeting on Oct. 11, where their foreign ministers called for an immediate ceasefire, urgent humanitarian aid, and a two-state solution. In addition, a flurry of discussions between the heads of state of Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Iran, and Jordan, and likely many others have ensued, all calling for a de-escalation of the conflict and urgent moves for negotiations for the interests of both sides. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, speaking after a meeting of the Commonwealth of Independent States in Kyrgyzstan, said it is also necessary to focus on the “substance of the problem.”
In contrast to this, and to reason, the U.S. has deployed an aircraft carrier group to the region and appears to have sent another Marine unit as well.
Even more humble were the comments of Russian President Putin, who identified the need to have compassion for both sides and recognize that the endless cycle of injustices will never solve the problem. Speaking yesterday at the Russian Energy Week plenary, Putin said: “We understand that the bitterness is immense on both sides, but regardless of its levels, every effort should be made to minimize or reduce to zero the losses among civilians…. You cannot solve the problem in its entirety without addressing fundamental political issues, the main one being the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem,” he said.
However, the solution lies on a still higher plain. As Helga Zepp-LaRouche has insisted, only a new security and development architecture on a worldwide scale, which takes the interests of every nation into consideration, will work to solve these kinds of multi-generational conflicts. It will never be solved within a given region, or the currently failed framework, but only by changing the actual context within which the problem exists—in this case a dying oligarchical system, of which geopolitical conflicts in the so-called Middle East are merely an effect.
In a speech at Central Connecticut State University in 2009, Lyndon LaRouche addressed the problem of Southwest Asia:
“See the Middle East, not as having its own history, but the Middle East as something within the process of history.
“And … don’t look at the Israeli-Arab conflict. Don’t ignore it, but don’t look at it. Because the conflict is not determined by the Israelis or Arabs. It’s determined by international forces which look at this region. How? As a crossover point between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, the relationship of Europe to Asia, the relationship of Europe to East Africa, and so forth.
“Therefore, what you’re seeing is that.
“Now, go back and say, where did the British get this idea—as they did with Sykes-Picot—where did they get the bright idea of keeping the Arab population, and what became the Israeli population, at odds with each other permanently? Killing each other over land that wasn’t worth fighting over, in terms of its quality.
“…And you sit there with despair, and you say, are these people just going to kill themselves into extinction? Kill each other into extinction? What’s wrong here?
“Well, somebody’s playing them. Somebody’s playing and orchestrating the situation.…
“We have to move, therefore, from thinking about conflict among nations and regions, to the alternative to conflict, by finding that which unites us through our common purpose, as independent sovereign nations, rather than seeking resolution of a conflict we are now enjoying among ourselves. That’s the only chance we have. And when you look at the possibilities for this region, like Southwest Asia, the only chance will come, not from inside Southwest Asia. We will do, and must do, what we can, for that area, to try to stop the bloodshed, the agony, to prevent the war. But we will not succeed, until we change the history, change the world in which this region is contained.”
Next week begins China’s Third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation, where 130 countries will be represented to discuss economic development spanning continents and civilizations. It will be a good place to start to get the world moving to that different plain.
