Forget the 1967 borders and return to pre-1948 borders, and the sooner the better, writes Jeff Gates* "The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party, and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism." -- Albert Einstein, The New York Times, 4 December 1948 Online reports of a study by the US Central Intelligence Agency cast doubt over the survival of Israel beyond the next two decades. Regardless of the validity of the report, with what is now known about the costs in blood and treasure that the US-Israeli relationship has imposed on the US, its key ally, Israel could fall within five years. For more than six decades, American support for Israel has relied on the ability of pro-Israelis to dominate US media, enabling Tel Aviv to put a positive spin on even its most extreme behaviour, including its recent massacre in Gaza. With access to online news coverage, that Zionist bias is becoming apparent and the real facts exposed. Though Americans seldom show a strong interest in foreign affairs that, too, is changing. While few of them grasp the subtleties of one state versus two state proposals, many have seen online the impact of a murderous Israeli assault on Palestinian civilians that was timed between Christmas and the inauguration of Barack Obama. The leaders of the 9/11 Commission acknowledged that its members would not allow testimony on the impetus for that attack. Yet the report confirmed that the key motivation was the US-Israeli relationship. With access to online news, more Americans are asking why they are forced to support a colonial apartheid government. With the election of yet another extremist Israeli government led by yet another rightwing Likud Party stalwart, it is clear that Tel Aviv intends to preclude peace by continuing to build more settlements. With that stance, Israel not only pushed Barack Obama into a corner, it also forced US national security to make a key strategic decision: Is Israel a credible partner for peace? By any criteria, the answer must be a resounding "No". That inescapable conclusion leaves Americans with few options. After all, the US is largely responsible for the legitimacy granted this extremist enclave in May 1948 when Harry Truman, a Christian-Zionist president, extended nation-state recognition. He did so over the strenuous objections of Secretary of State George Marshall, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the fledgling CIA and the bulk of the US diplomatic corps. By December 1948, a distinguished contingent of Jewish scientists and intellectuals warned in The New York Times that those leading the effort to establish a Jewish state bear "the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party". Albert Einstein joined concerned Jews who cautioned Americans "not to support this latest manifestation of fascism". Only in the past few weeks has the momentum emerged to subject Israel to the same external pressures that were brought to bear against apartheid South Africa. After more than six decades of consistent behaviour -- and clear evidence of no intent to change -- activists coalesced around the need to boycott Israeli exports, divest from Israeli firms and impose sanctions against Israel akin to those it seeks against others. The focal point for peace in the Middle East should not be those nations that do not have nuclear weapons but the one nation that does. Absent external pressure, Israeli behaviour will not change. Absent pressure -- and likely force -- applied by the US as the nation that has long enabled this behaviour, colonial Zionism will continue to pose a threat to peace. Occupying powers are not known to voluntarily relinquish lands they occupy. Likewise readiness to surrender nuclear arms. The key issue need no longer be a subject of endless debate. There must be a one state solution consistent with democratic principles of full equality. Informed Americans are no longer willing to support a theocratic state in which full citizenship is limited to those deemed "Jewish" (whatever that means). If local birth rates suggest an eventual end to the "Jewish state" then so be it. Why wait two decades when this nightmare can be drawn to a close in less than five years? Forget about a return to pre-1967 borders; instead return to pre-1948 borders. Designate Jerusalem an international city under UN protection and dispatch multinational forces to maintain peace. Palestinians should have a right of return, including the ability to recover properties from which they fled under an assault by Jewish terrorists. If colonial Zionists (aka settlers) want compensation for "their" property, let them seek restitution from the Diaspora that encouraged their unlawful occupation. Those who consider themselves "Jewish" can remain as part of an inclusive democracy. Or they can depart. Americans must consider how many of these extremists it wants to welcome to a nation already straining under an immigration burden. A reported 500,000 Israelis hold US passports. With more than 300,000 dual-citizens residing in California alone, that state may require a referendum on just how many Zionists it wishes to receive. Likewise for Russia, from which many Jews fled, including some 300,000 Russian émigrés who support the Likud Party but have yet to be certified as Jewish. Zionists originally saw Argentina and Uganda as desirable venues to establish their enterprise. They may wish to apply there for resettlement. The question of why Palestinians (or Californians) should bear the cost of a problem created by Europeans six decades ago is one that Tel Aviv has yet to answer except by citing ancient claims that it insists should take precedence over two millennia of Palestinian residence. By withdrawing Israel's status as a legitimate "state", those Jews long appalled by the behaviour of this extremist enclave can no longer be portrayed as guilty by association. That long overdue shift in status is certain to benefit the broader Jewish community. By shutting down Israel's nuclear arms programme and destroying its nuclear arsenal, the world can be spared the key impetus now driving a nuclear arms race in the region. Unless pro-Israelis can create another crisis by inducing an invasion of Iran (or a race war), Americans will soon realise that only one "state" had the means, motivation, opportunity and stable nation-state intelligence required to fix the intelligence that led the US to invade Iraq consistent with the expansionist goals of colonial Zionism. Intelligence now working its way to transparency will soon confirm that, but for Zionists within the US government, 9/11 could have been prevented and war in Iraq avoided. To date, Zionist extremism has been enabled by a series of weak US presidents. For the US to restore its credibility requires that it not only lead the effort to shut down the Zionist enterprise, but that it also share responsibility for its behaviour to date. * The writer is author of Guilt by Association, Democracy at Risk, and The Ownership Solution.
