The Sham Palestine Plan Is the Kind of One-Sided Peace the Empire Would Impose on Rebel Donbass…If It Could
The Empire talking to those it would subdue is out of the question
War, said Clausewitz, is an ‘interaction’, ‘not the action of a living force upon a lifeless mass but always the collision of two living forces.’ This is one of the things which makes it so difficult to manage. You can’t just do x, and expect y to happen, even if y happened last time you did x, because there are always others involved, with wills of their own.
If war is an interaction, so too is peace. Short of one party’s total destruction, war ends because both sides choose for it to end, either because they’re both exhausted and choose to negotiate, or because one side realizes that it’s defeated and gives up. In the latter case, it’s not the winner who decides exactly when the war ends, it’s the loser. Or, as Fred Ikle put it in his book ‘Every War Must End’, ‘peace is made by the loser’.
In short, even when you’re on top, you don’t get to unilaterally decide when and how to stop a conflict. The key is getting your opponents to agree to stop. This can be done through a combination of negative and positive inducements, or by negotiation. But at the end of the day, the other side always has to agree (even if reluctantly).
Unilaterally-imposed take it or leave it solutions which involve the humiliation or total submission of one party are a bad way of getting this agreement. Given the loss of honour (at best), or of independence or even life (at worst), which such solutions involve, people won’t agree to them unless the negative inducements are extremely powerful (think Germany in 1945, for instance). Consequently, if you’re not prepared to put such extreme negative inducements into effect, you don’t really have any choice, if you truly want peace, but to talk with the other side. You have to get them to agree.
Somewhere along the line, sadly, we seem to have forgotten this (if we ever actually understood it). There’s this sense that great powers can draw up a peace plan for somebody else’s conflict and then force it down their throats without even bothering to consult them. It’s odd, for the most part decidedly unrealistic, and more than a little arrogant.
And so it is that Donald Trump today rolled out his ‘deal of the century’ to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Notionally, this is an American plan, but it seems clear that the Israelis were consulted about it before it was unveiled, and they obviously don’t have any objections to it. The problem is that neither the Israelis nor the Americans bothered consulting the other party to the conflict – the Palestinians. Unsurprisingly, the latter have wasted no time in rejecting the plan, as well they might given that the map released by the White House shows that the planned Palestinian state would look like this:
The Palestinian response is hardly surprising. Short of extreme negative inducements, it’s hard to see why anybody would accept a state divided up into lots of little pieces which doesn’t even have access to water. The whole thing seems to have been designed entirely to keep one side happy, while not bothering at all about what the other side wants (the hope apparently being that they can be bought off with a lot of money). One shouldn’t be too shocked if it all turns out to be dead at birth.
Sadly, though, this isn’t a unique case. The American approach to the war in Ukraine has been rather similar. The official line has been to put pressure on the Russian Federation so that it will abandon Donbass, which will then be forced to accept whatever terms Ukraine chooses to give it.
More moderate analysts instead propose cutting some sort of deal with Russia (e.g. recognition of the annexation of Crimea in return for the abandonment of Donbass). But either way, talking to the people of Donbass, let alone their notional leaders, is out of the question. However peace comes, it isn’t to be by means of agreement with the people doing the fighting. Peace must be unilateral, or there won’t be peace at all.
Which, of course, is nuts. As I said, it takes two make war. It takes two to make peace as well.
[…] Read further at Anti-Empire […]
It is odd to see parallels between Palestinian straggle and civil war in Ukraine. It is two entirely different conflicts. The similarities only that both Ukraine and Palestine are occupied by foreign forces. Ukraine is occupied by anglosaxon empire and Palestine is occupied by a zionist zombie state. I’m not an expert on zionist occupation of Palestine but I do know a good deal about civil war in Ukraine. Most of my family is from Donbass and I grew up in Crimea. Kiev is occupied by anglosaxon empire since 2014 after a violent coup and reunification of Crimea with Russia. Terminology in this case is very important. There wasn’t any “annexation” as mainstream propaganda say. Crimea was part of Russia before US annexed Texas and California from Mexico. It was Catherine The Great who annexed it from Ottoman Empire. Anyone with basic knowledge of history should know this and shouldn’t repeat ridiculous propaganda slogans. Recognition or no recognition is absolutely meaningless to Russian Federation or folks in Crimea.
It takes two to tango. On this I agree 100% Problem is, anglosaxon empire does not want peace. It doesn’t need peace. Peace is Eurasia and especially geostrategically important regions like Mideast is economically detrimental to anglosaxon empire. You need to forget about conventional warfare as the last conventional war was fought in 1940s. Since then wars were fought between geopolitical rivals using proxy states. Today it is hybrid warfare and anglosaxon empire excels at starting and maintaining conflicts. Importance of war in Eurasia cannot be understated because war maintains economical dominance of anglosaxon empire. This was explicitly stated in Wolfowiz doctrine and not much have changed in 20 years. Before that FDR declared Mideast as vital to national interest and few years later zionist zombie state was established in Palestine. It has nothing to do with the Jews. So-called “Israel” is beachhead or military base intended to start and maintain conflicts in Mideast. Zionist Jews are simply useful idiots for the empire. USSR had a hand in it as well but for different reasons.
Similar pattern can be observed in Ukrainian civil war. Violent coup and starting of that civil war by occupational forces is intended to cause as much devastation as possible. Before M17 was shot down, anglosaxon parasites and their puppets in Kiev used aviation to bomb civilians in Donbass. That civil war drags on because it is beneficial to anglosaxon empire and it is beneficial to Kremlin. But again, for different reasons. Kremlin is scared to start a larger conflict and need to drain Ukraine so people would finally rise up and remove imperial puppet masters. This is dangerous but, apparently, in their opinion, is less dangerous than starting a war with anglosaxon empire.
One thing is universally clear. Not a single spot of land should be given to imperial parasites. If they want war, they should find it in their own homes and pay the price tenfold. Peace with barbarians can only be established with superior power.
The satanic and death glorifying jews are always very active when apokalypse approaches our world,before and after it…Novus Ordo Seclorum with Annuit Coeptis is clearly marked by the zionist mongrels in USA on 2033! The satanic,money- laundering colony of Rat-child shall be then 84 years old colony,known as Is-Ra-hell…It is a NUMBER of DEATH and Talmud means Death and has also this gematria number value! The zionist preachers like John Hagee( goat herder to Hell= Israhell) tells that Is-Ra-hell was created to fulfill ” end time” biblical prophecies! Definitely,this one of 84,these zionist ass kissers never mention for their fear of the jews!!!