Hunting for evidence that the Israel-Palestine issue has been deployed strategically in the last several months, I  came across this analysis. It supports a reading that much of the debate on Israel-Palestine is misleading in its focus.

Thomas Barnett, an idealogue of empire whom I’ve critiqued at length in 2007,  has written an interesting analysis of Obama’s Middle East speech of May 19.  He applauds Obama for emphasizing what really undergirds the globalists’ war on Islam, in which, as he correctly points out,  Israel-Palestine is a side-show.

This is why I blogged before that you can be anti-Zionist (anti-empire) and still take Israel’s side on certain things.  It is neither here nor there. Israel is not going away, and probably has as much right to exist, at this point, as many other states.  What is being disputed then is simply Israel’s right to exist as a supremacist state and that turns out to be no bar to  the “international community” either, if the underlying demands of the globalists are met.

What are those demands?

That women be allowed to enter the workforce en masse and that international capital and business be allowed to operate with no restriction of race and creed.

From this we can conclude the so-called “universalism” of the globalists’ human rights agenda (women’s rights, anti-racism, religious tolerance), all worthy goals in themselves, is in context nothing more than a prescription for universal domination, the opening up of national doors to state-subsidized transnational business interests.

Those interests, of course, are led by Western multinationals, almost all of them beholden to, or compliant with, Zionist ideology, which is the ideology of the Anglo-Israeli empire, as the tenor of this whole piece demonstrates.

“Not only did Obama eschew any direct promises of toppling leaders, he coupled a passive-tense treatment of American leadership with a clear repudiation of the notion that elections alone can bring “real reform.” Thus he spent the bulk of his speech listing all the vast social reforms — freedom of religion, women’s rights — that must undergird political change, while stating unequivocally that all such transformations are unsustainable absent broadband economic development.

In short, Obama’s speech made clear just how much the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a complete sideshow to the civilizational rebirth triggered by the Arab Spring, which is about the Arab world finally adapting itself realistically to the demands imposed by globalization’s creeping embrace: If you want to do real business in this world, achieving the sort of investment and production-chain integration that generates serious job creation, you must engage with all comers regardless of race or creed. Regarding women, the reality of every economic “miracle” of the last several decades is that they all began when societies allowed women to join the workforce en masse. There’s your “inscrutable” secret of Asia’s rise.

Obama stated as much on both of these highly contentious issues, signaling his understanding that for the Arab Spring to be successful, it must be a process that extends many years beyond his presidency. But make no mistake: The Arab Spring arrives on the basis of demographics — the youth bulge — and globalization’s connectivity. The Israeli-Palestine issue neither held up its arrival nor obstructs its progress. At best, it remains a potential red herring for future Islamist governments in places like Egypt that need to cover up their domestic policy failures.”