The Palestinian War on the Trump Peace Plan

by Khaled Abu Toameh • May 29, 2019 at 5:00 am

In the past few days, the Gaza-based groups have issued several statements hinting that they would use all means, including terrorism, to foil the US peace plan.
What is perhaps most worrying for the Arab leaders are the threats coming from Iran's puppets -- Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. It now remains to be seen whether the Arab heads of state will be deterred by these threats or ignore them at the risk of becoming the Palestinians' terror targets.
Clearly, the very Palestinians who are boycotting a conference -- whose aim is to help them move beyond their leadership-imposed economic devastation -- will wind up the big losers in this spiteful scenario of hate. This time, however, it also seems that the Palestinians will not only deprive themselves of billions of dollars, but will also damage -- perhaps irrevocably -- their relations with influential Arab countries. By all accounts, the Palestinians appear to be heading toward another "nakba" (catastrophe).

The Palestinian Authority and its political allies in the West Bank have launched a diplomatic and media campaign to rally worldwide support for their rejection of US President Donald Trump's upcoming plan for peace in the Middle East, also known as the "Deal of the Century." Pictured: US President Donald Trump and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on May 3, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Image source: Olivier Douliery-Pool/Getty Images)

The Palestinians seem to be moving on two fronts to thwart US President Donald Trump's plan for peace in the Middle East, also known as the "Deal of the Century."

The Palestinian Authority and its political allies in the West Bank have launched a diplomatic and media campaign to rally worldwide support for their rejection of Trump's upcoming plan. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian extremist groups, for their part, are already hinting that they will resort to violence in an effort to thwart the "Deal of the Century."

Last week, Hamas called on Bahrain not to allow the "Zionist enemy to defile its lands" by attending the economic conference.

Continue Reading Article

Turning the Tables on "Global Zero"

by Peter Huessy and David A. Deptula • May 29, 2019 at 4:00 am

As it turns out, the modernization of America's nuclear deterrent would require, at most, only around 3% of the annual defense budget.
"International arms control relies on adherence to reciprocal obligations and nations should not be required to subject themselves to unilateral observance of them. Arms control more generally is undermined by violations going unchallenged." — Forces Network, UK, April 4, 2019.
"Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping continue to expand and modernize their nuclear arsenals. Future arms-control agreements must take into account both the Russian and Chinese threats, while ensuring we don't place one-sided nuclear restrictions on ourselves." — Senator Tom Cotton; May 13, 2019.
"We must... realize that America will not be able to achieve the necessary changes to New START unless it is negotiating from a position of strength. That means Congress must invest in the modernization of our nuclear triad and the additional low-yield capabilities called for in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. These investments are critical to America's ability to rein in China and Russia." — Representative Liz Cheney; May 13, 2019.

The modernization, build-up and deployment of American nuclear weapons during the Reagan administration was what gave the U.S. leverage over the Soviet Union, which led to the U.S.S.R. giving up its multiple thousands of SS-20 missiles in Europe and Asia -- in the 1987 INF Treaty -- and subsequently cutting half of Russia's strategic long-range missile warheads. Pictured: A decommissioned SS-20 missile launcher on display at the Ukrainian Air Force Museum in Vinnitsa. (Image source: George Chernilevsky/Wikimedia Commons)

Two narratives that provided justification for cutting America's defense budget in the 1970s and 1990s -- détente and the "end of history" -- had a key component in common: Both were based on the assumption that existential national-security threats to the United States were either exaggerated or a thing of the past.

In each narrative, this assumption proved to be false.

Détente favored the Soviet Union so markedly in terms of its "correlation of forces" -- the balance of conventional and nuclear power -- that victory over the U.S. was in sight. Détente also fueled U.S.S.R. expansionism. More than 20 countries were subjected to Soviet aggression, coups, revolutions or wars of national liberation.

Continue Reading Article