Why Is America Imploring Israel to Capitulate?

Last week, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stepped up the pressure on Israel when she stated, “The occupation of the West Bank will have to end,” attributing the demand to a recent speech by President George W. Bush. Rice was speaking with the U.S.-sponsored Arabic radio station Radio Sawa prior to her current Middle East tour.

Arutz Sheva reported July 26, “By stating so clearly that ‘the occupation of the West Bank will have to end,’ Rice has set a new standard for United States officials of her stature in opposition to Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria.”

While President Bush himself did not actually go as far as demanding Israel retreat from all the West Bank, he did say that future Israel-Palestinian negotiations must “lead to a territorial settlement, with mutually agreed borders reflecting previous lines and current realities, and mutually agreed adjustments.”

In reality, however, those borders and adjustments can only be “mutually agreed” if Israel capitulates. The Palestinians, with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas certainly being no exception, have continually proven they will not compromise on their position. That position includes the demand by Abbas that millions of Arab refugees be given the right to live in Israel and that almost half a million Jews be removed from their homes in the West Bank. Not only does Abbas have everything to take in terms of territory; he also demands the release of terrorists and that Israel curb its terror-prevention initiatives.

Israel, on the other hand, has a proven track record of capitulation and appeasement—prisoner releases, territorial concessions, and so on.

So it should come as no surprise that the United States—in the face of a hopeless situation and desperate for a peace deal—is putting the pressure on Israel rather than the Palestinians.

In its desperation, the U.S. is employing tactics that have consistently failed in the past: an international meeting and negotiations, and the provision of money and weapons to the “moderate” Palestinians, led by Abbas.

So, as Israel is asked to concede the West Bank, the Palestinians are asked to concede nothing, in effect—not even to repeal the provision in the plo covenant, for example, that calls on the State of Israel to be eliminated by armed military struggle.

The fact is, it is abundantly clear that the goals of the Palestinians are irreconcilable with the continued existence of Israel.

The most a weak U.S. can hope for is a pretense of progress in the Middle East conflict, and the only way it can get this is to have Israel compromise.

As America’s influence in the Middle East wanes, and its ability to put pressure on Arab states declines, we can expect the U.S. to instead lean more on its ally Israel to appease and concede—all for, at best, a temporary illusion of moving toward a resolution in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Of course, such a course of action will do nothing but continue to embolden Israel’s enemies.

The demand Secretary of State Rice is making of Israel, therefore, is a reflection of American weakness.

Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry wrote about this trend back in August 1995: “Colossal power shifts are occurring among nations …. As America grows weaker, she is pushing Israel more and more into a state of retreat. The Jews have won five wars with the Arabs. America has pressured Israel to give up the fruits of all those victories. America continues to pressure Israel to make dangerous concessions.”

Twelve years later, the U.S. is even weaker, and the pressure on the Jews to concede increases. At some point soon, Israel will start looking more to other “allies.” Watch for a European power to fill the gap left by an unreliable American ally.