By Ted Belman
First of all the Obama principles endorse the Saudi Plan which requires Israel to withdraw from 100% of the land. Thus Obama calls for negotiaions based on the ’67 lines with swaps just as SA did. Israel has already withdrawn from 90% of the land. That’s enough to satisfy Res 242.Secondly There is no mention in the Oslo Accords of a two state solution. That must be negotiated. The Likud rejected the two-state plan all along until Netanyahu gave his Bar Ilan speech. But a careful reading of that speech reveals he was only offering autonomy and certainly not up to the ’67 lines.
Now Cotler makes the point that Obama supports negotiations. He does so only after Netanyahu concedes on two crucial issues, namely two states and 100% withdrawal. In effect he is trying to gut negotiations down to details and not fundamental issues.
For those of us who believe the land belongs to us, Obama offers nothing and Cotler betrays us.
Barry Rubin entered the fray with An Obama peace plan? and makes some telling points but unfortunately doesn’t reject a two state solution based on ’67 lines.
The problem of Israel returning to the 1967 borders has been widely discussed. But, Obama’s defenders say the statement provides for “mutually agreed swaps,” so what’s wrong with that? Other than the problem that the Palestinian Authority would continue to reject any exchanges, as it did in 2000, international and US pressure would be on Israel to accept ever-smaller “swaps” to get an agreement until, “for the sake of achieving peace,” it would disappear altogether.
But that passage is not the big problem. This one is: “The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, nonmilitarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.”
AT least Rubin has no confidence in the peace process.
Obama, Netanyahu and the peace process
By IRWIN COTLER, JPOST
Netanyahu should call for direct negotiations with Abbas based on Obama’s eight principles as endorsed in the G8 communiqué.
The announcement by the Palestinian Authority that it has resolved to seek UN recognition of statehood – the alleged contretemps between US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu – and the reported demand by the UK, France and Germany for Obama to present a peace plan, organized around his principles, to the meeting of the Quartet on July 11 pose a challenge, but more of an opportunity, for Netanyahu.
Simply put, the prime minister should call for direct negotiations with PA President Mahmoud Abbas based on the Obama principles as set forth in his speeches of May 19 and 22 respectively, and as endorsed by the G8 communiqué.
Admittedly it might seem counterintuitive – if not questionable – to recommend that Netanyahu undertake this initiative. A majority of Israelis – and an increasing number of American Jews – regard Obama as naïve, if not insensitive, to the Israeli case and cause. Moreover, Israelis, as the polls demonstrate, largely supported Netanyahu in his public exchanges with Obama, and have become increasingly skeptical, if not distrustful, of Abbas, particularly regarding his reconciliation agreement with Hamas, his UN gambit and his unwillingness to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
But a careful reading of the Obama speeches reveals the following foundational principles, which actually align themselves with Netanyahu’s views and effectively frame the context and content of prospective negotiations.
First, “that the ultimate goal is two states for two peoples,” with Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people. This foundational principle makes express reference to the importance of the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and homeland.
Second, it is clear, as Obama put it, “that the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to destroy it.”
Third, Obama reaffirmed the “unbreakable” bond between the US and Israel, the “ironclad” commitment to Israel’s security. In particular, he recognized that “every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat,” thus requiring that the proposed Palestinian state be demilitarized, and conditioning Israeli withdrawal from any post-1967 territory on the demonstrated effectiveness of security arrangements.
Fourth, the president made it clear that the reference to the 1967 borders – in both his State Department and AIPAC speeches – did not indicate that Israel should return to the 1967 lines. On the contrary, after saying that the “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps should be the basis of negotiation,” he added, “It means that the parties themselves, Israelis and Palestinians, will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.”
This was the reason Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper felt it was important to reject the inclusion in the G8 communiqué of Obama’s alleged reference to the 1967 borders, because in fact, Obama had not made such a requirement; and more importantly, it was only one of a number of important principles and policies shared by the US, Israel, Canada and other members of the international community.
Fifth, Obama reaffirmed that “peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict”; that “no vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state”; and that the US was opposed to the Palestinians bypassing negotiations with Israel and seeking a unilateral declaration of statehood in the pre-1967 lines at the UN. It should be noted that only the UN Security Council can confer such recognition – a General Assembly Resolution is only a recommendation – and the US has undertaken not to support such a resolution at either the General Assembly or the Security Council.
Sixth, Obama reaffirmed his steadfast opposition to any attempt to delegitimize the State of Israel, stating that “Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate” and “efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakable opposition of the United States.”
Seventh, he stressed the dangers posed by a nuclear, genocide-inciting, terrorist-supporting and rights-violating Iran: “When I walked among the Hall of Names at Yad Vashem, I was reminded of the existential fear of Israelis when a modern dictator seeks nuclear weapons and threatens to wipe Israel off the map – the face of the earth,” and the importance of combating the terrorism of its proxies, like Hezbollah, “who exercise political assassination and seek to impose their will through rockets and car bombs.”
Finally, even on matters Obama has been criticized for relegating to the final status talks – Jerusalem and the Palestinian right of return – he did in fact express himself.
While stating that Jerusalem was a matter to be negotiated between the parties and to be left to final-status talks, Obama recognized the historical relationship between the Jewish people and the Old City of Jerusalem, and said, “When I touched my hand against the Western Wall and placed my prayer between its ancient stones, I thought of all the centuries that the children of Israel had longed to return to their ancient homeland.”
In addition, his reference to the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland of the Jewish people effectively precluded any Palestinian return to it.
Although an express reference to that effect would have been desirable, the clear inference is that the Palestinian refugee question must be solved in Palestine, just as the question of the Jewish refugees from Arab countries was resolved in Israel.
IF NETANYAHU calls for direct talks based on Obama’s principles, it will effectively say to Abbas, “We agree and have agreed to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state for the Palestinian people. Are you prepared to recognize a Jewish state for the Jewish people?” As Netanyahu said in his speech to Congress, Abbas should stand before his people and utter the six words that could change history: “I will accept a Jewish state.”
Netanyahu has already affirmed his acceptance of Palestinian statehood before the Israeli people, and that is what Abbas should now do in recognizing a Jewish State before the Palestinian people.
The writer is a Canadian member of Parliament and a former minister of justice and attorney-general.
Where have i attacked you since I first called you …..slime?
Pls. reference so I can respond. I promised I would not use ad hominems towards you and I believe I have kept my word. It is you though who challenge comments here and you use language other than ad hominem to challege others opinions but in fact they are a distinction without a difference and amount to an attack on the commenter in many cases.
F-Y is a petulant child’s slamming the door.
Your opinion not mine.
It may give the child some tension relief but it does nothing to solve the problem raised by the disagreement.
Not all disagreements can be solved by or within polite constrained discussion, in fact few can and they are mostly not complex disagreements. F..Y can end a discussion or can be a catalyst for more intense debate without the constraints of PC niceties. F..Y can bring out the real you, or Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.
Just to make certain no one has forgotten to expand the Kozy Kapo Klub to include Dan Kurtzer.
Chicken?
Sternlight I must warn you that Narvey is a lawyer and as expert as you in sophistic argument and debate as you appear to be. Forewarned! 8)
Add: Iranians,Cubans, Venezuelans,Russians, N. Koreans,: matter of fact the Only country that hasn’t said F,,Y to the Americans is us (Israel). 🙁
Time past due to correct that.
I didn’t bring it up either but I am in agreement with the original contentions re: Ross , Indyk and the rest. You seem to have a very thin skin.
http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2011/05/dennis-ross-bends-all-way-over-for.html
Here is just the latest on your “COURT JEW” I have some on Indyk as well.
Martin Indyk: A Commentary on Post-Modern Education*
Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Dennis Ross Bends All The Way Over For Obama 🙂
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01349/ross_1349713c.jpg
Don’t get me wrong. I understand we all have our bills to pay and that senior White Adviser on the Middle East Dennis Ross keeping his job depends on shilling for President Obama and his execrable policies towards Israel. But how far do you bend over?
Ross’ gig right now involves heavy damage control, and can you believe what his line is to American Jewish leaders and opinion makers? That President Obama’s policies are ‘good for Israel’ because the Europeans love it!
“The character of discussions with the Europeans has clearly improved for the better,” he said of talks held this week. “They have been endorsing what the president had to say.”
Oh, I’ll just bet they did. At long last, an American President with even more of an ‘Israel problem’ than themselves!
“It’s important for us to be able to use with the Europeans in particular the fact that there is a credible alternative, there is an alternative basis on which to pursue the negotiation,” he said. “It gives us an ability with the Europeans to say this is not the right way to go. You should be opposing any effort to go to the UN.”
Can he actually believe that the Brits, who are almost reflexively anti-Israel and the French, with hundreds of thousands of restive Muslims living among them are going to be swayed by that kind of nonsense? That an oil and trade hungry Europe is going to go against the Muslim bloc in the UN when in fact they rarely have in decades?
Ross also reportedly warned that the Europeans don’t always believe Netanyahu is “serious” about making peace and see the United States as the Israeli leader’s enabler.
Netanyahu not serious? The last time I checked, it was Netanyahu who was agreeing to meet without any preconditions and Mahmoud Abbas who was boycotting talks – at least until Abbas decided to ally with the genocidal Hamas.
And for that matter, we’re the EU’s enabler too, allowing them to spend their money on things like welfare for all those Muslim immigrants while the US foots most of the bill for their defense.
Of course,in the end it’s all about elections and campaign donations. President Obama always was on board with the European approach towards Israel, which is most cases is essentially borderline hostility.And it would be even more skewed if it wasn’t for the fact that Congress and the American people overwhelmingly support Israel. Ross is mouthing the most pathetic and transparent lies simply to try and keep as much of President Obama’s Jewish support as possible in line with the agenda.
Anyone even thinking of buying what self loathing and self serving Jews like Dennis Ross have to sell should ask themselves a question: if President Obama is this hostile towards Israel now,can you imagine how hostile he’ll be if he happens to get re-elected?
The image of the Judas Goat comes to mind. It just remains to be seen how many sheep follow people like Ross into the slaughterhouse.
I don’t agree with either the assumptions or conclusions in your latest post, Bill, much less the false dichotomy at the end. Let’s move on.
David, you’re playing lawyer with me? OK, lets play.
Pro and anti-Israel advocacy is something akin to a civil court case. Yes, the general jurisprudential rule is that he who asserts, must prove. In a civil court case however, there are always going to be shifting burdens of proof.
The intial accusation, if one can call it that, by some that you responded to, is that Dennis Ross is no friend of Israel. That negative opinion of Ross, was based on his public stance.
To rebut that negative opinion, you appear to have adopted the opinion of your Chabad Rabbi whose views you cite as: “Ross is a great friend of Israel, but must strike a public posture consistent with having the possibility of achieving the results needed.”
In the context of your brief post, your Chabad Rabbi is tacitly admitting that his view of Ross’s public stance accords with the views of some at Israpundit that Ross is not a friend of Israel.
Having confessed that Ross’s public stance does give rise to the opinion that Ross is no friend of Israel, by adopting your Chabad Rabbi’s views, you are asserting that Ross is as your Rabbi put it, “a great friend of Israel”, notwithstanding impressions created by his public stance.
Having made such assertion, the burden of proof thus shifts to you to explain what the “results needed” are that Ross is pursuing and just how he is “a great friend of Israel”, notwithstanding his necessary public stance to the contrary.
So what is it going to be David?
Are you going to stay in this discussion/debate by accepting that burden and make your case or not?
Excellent idea, David. I doubt if anyone assumes assent as a result of silence in the face of petty criticism. Generally, such criticism blows back on the accuser. Now maybe we can get back to the really important issues such as the permissibility of killing lice on the sabbath.
Narvey:
On the basis of your excellent cross examination, I am recommending you as leading Attorney To the Casey Anthony Defense team (appeal phase).
May I be permitted to offer a very possible theory.
Here is the quoted article , reference Jerusalem post.
http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Judaism/Article.aspx?id=227291
Leaving aside the judgmental assessments and prejudicial phrasing of the above, the principle is correct. Perhaps we should simply remind ourselves that silence in the face of accusations or demands does not constitute assent, and leave it at that.
“But apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?”
We cannot ignore the centrality of our religion to the core essense of Israel’s existence and purpose.
As an example, The J.Post featured this excellent blog by a rabbi (his name escapes me just now) on the subject of, is it permissable to kill lice on the shabbat? Highly recommended. Google it, very well worth reading.
We thought we have problems with the Arabs, Oy veh.
How utterly predictable! A Jewish advocate of social justice struts his liberal credentials by promoting an agenda that plays into the hands of Israel’s enemies, and a productive discussion of his actions is initiated. But within a few hours, that discussion degenerates into an internecine squabble about who insulted whom among the participants. This ad hominem pettiness is not how one wins a war.
With respect to Dennis Ross it was not I who made the initial accusation. It is they who must defend their unsupported assertions, not I who must prove the contrary.
David, your brief post raises questions, but provides no answers. Please explain what you mean when you say:
1. What does your Chabad Rabbi say Hashem gave us Jews that others seek to take away from us?
2. What do you say Dennis Ross’s public stance is as regards Israel?
3. Is Dennis Ross’s public stance at odds with your Chabad Rabbi’s core position and if not how do you reconcile the two?
4. In suggesting Ross’s public stance is intended to in some way achieve the results needed, just what results are those?
5. Are you suggesting Ross’s public stance is part of an often superior strategy to approach a goal obliquely, rather than head on?
6. Is your defence of Dennis Ross based on your faith in your Chabad Rabbi’s opinion of Ross, your own assessment or both?
David, you are astute enough to know that just saying you are a great friend of Israel, does not make it so.
Of those at Israpundit who do not see Dennis Ross as a friend of Israel and who derive that opinion from his public posture re: Israel, you asked for evidence to make that case.
My questions of you are in a similar vein.
I am calling on you to make your case that Dennis Ross is as your Chabad Rabbi said, “a great friend of Israel” and that any public posture Ross takes that appears inconsistent with his being a friend of Israel, is actually part of Ross’s grand strategy to ensure that Israel will achieve all that she wants, needs and is entitled to as most at Israpundit define those goals.
“F*ck you” can be an extremely effective negotiating tactic. Just ask the Palestinians.
Ted, a blustering F.Y. is just bluster, unless you can back it up by cogent word or effective deed as the situation warrants.
To the contrary; “it makes me angry” leaves the possibility open for discourse, understanding, and changing of views. F-Y is a petulant child’s slamming the door. It may give the child some tension relief but it does nothing to solve the problem raised by the disagreement.
I happen to know from my Chabad Rabbi, who is as angry a man as I know when it comes to anyone trying to take away what Hashem gave us, and who knows Dennis Ross and has spoken with him at the White House one on one, that Ross is a great friend of Israel, but must strike a public posture consistent with having the possibility of achieving the results needed. Therefore when I read sliming of Ross, I naturally experience cognitive dissonance and ask for evidence. In a case like that, F-Y does not serve the interests of Israel as either of us see them.
To say “It makes me angry…” is not near as effective as saying, “Fuck you!” Sometimes the latter is warranted.
I noticed one comment by Yamit today in which he attacked you. I deleted it. I didn’t go looking for others.
You appear to be utterly sanguine in your discussion of most topics. You also want other commentators to be likewise sanguine. No thanks. We get upset by Jews who want us to give back all the land. There is no other hand. We don’t accept it whether it comes from Cotler, Dershowitz, Ross, Indyk, or anyone else. They all undermine our rights to the land. They betray us. You want us to accord them legitimacy by having an adult conversation with them. Just as we characterize Islam odius we must also characterize them as, if not odius, as our enemy.
Do I have that right?
I have always defended people who wear their passion on their sleeve. It makes a far more dramatic point then adult conversation.
As you know I draw the line at ad hominem attacks. But even those are permitted whn commentators deserve it in my opinion. I am also against attacking our Christian friends.
Comity doesn’t mean suppressing one’s feelings. It means doing so courteously. “It makes me angry that you….” is perfectly acceptable. “You are a ….” is not. Here’s some typical usage from a web discussion of the term: “There, I saw not only flare-ups of ethnic animosity, but the comity that was also possible among men of different backgrounds”
Thanks for the clarification. I hadn’t noticed. I will deal with it. Yamit refused to apologize in one comment but said he would refrain in the future.
Very well, then, since my polite circumlocution seems to have been too vague, let me be specific. In several recent posts over the past two days, Yamit not only did not apologize, but rationalized his past personal attacks and also continued them. If you think such behavior is acceptable, then this group has become inhospitable to adult discussion.
David. You go beyond me. I asked that we do not attack each other. I said nothing about comity with other people be they Jewish or otherwise. I don’t believe in PC. People are entitled to vent their feelings. I give great latitude but even there I have my limits.
Narvey There are two processes at work here. the public and the back room discussions. You are making your judgements on the basis of what you hear and read. The public posturing says little about what is REALLY GOING ON. I got a snapshot of that at a private briefing given by Michael Oren. And that was just a very small sample.
TO BE PERFECTLY CANDID, NONE OF US REALLY KNOWS WHAT IS GOING ON. Please discount 90 percent of what you read..
Do not go through the self delusionery exercise that is so prevalent in these parts. Israelis are far from united in the belief that the territories ought to be retained in total. There is no real heart for keeping land with large number of very angry Arabs, on an indefinite basis. The world wide pressures applied on Israel is very gradually having an effect.A very real effect.
Assuming Cotler is right about how to take Obama’s statements, I am surprised that the media have not picked up on the fact that Cotler, like Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth and in absolute contradictory fashion.
In classic suck and blow style, Cotler and Obama are saying Israel must take the initiative now to restart peace negotiations in ernest, because the status quo of no peace always has the threat of war looming in the background and yet Obama/Cotler know amongst many irreconcilable issues outstanding that Abbas has inter alia:
1. Formed a unity pact with Hamas which means Abbas is no more interested in pursuing peace discussions with the Israelis than Hamas is;
2. Along with his people have stated that under no circumstances will they recognize Israel as a Jewish state;
3. Stated that Jerusalem must be divided, whereas Netanyahu has said no way;
4. Rejected outright the idea that a new Palestinian state must be demilitarized;
5. Not budged on the issue of the “right of return”;
6. Failed as Arafat did to abide by the pledge to amend the PA/Fatah charter to eliminate any calls for the destruction of Israel, failed to stop the incitement of Jew hatred throughout all levels of Palestinian society and still financially supports Palestinian terrorists in J & S, such as the Al Aqsa martyrs Brigade that is like Hamas a terrorist group bent on inflicting as much harm to Israel as it can;
6. His people have put all their statehood eggs in the in the UNGA Resolution to declare Palestine an independent state that they are pushing for a vote this coming September, which is a crystal clear declaration that Abbas/Fatah have no interest, desire or intention whatsoever to engage in settlement discussions.
Cotler, like Obama are of course right that it only makes sense for both Israelis and Palestinians for serious negotiations get underway immediately. Israel agrees it makes sense. The Palestinians however, have driven themselves senseless, if they ever had any sense when it comes to the idea of peace with Israel.
Obama and Cotler, in calling on Israel to make the first move thereby insist on ignoring that the Palestinians are not interested in peace and only Israel’s destruction in stages of course.
Nothing will induce the Palestinians to the bargaining table at this point as the Palestinians await the outcome of the September UNGA Resolution vote, which if passed they fool themselves into thinking that they will get all they want without having given up anything.
By the way, nothing in the above post should be seen as justifying some Israeli police behavior by some officials which I consider shameful and disgraceful. But let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water.
Naah; it tells those American Jewish friends of Israel not to let their (perhaps justified) anger burn out their “distinction” circuits. “Jewish” Israel has some behaviors that either need to be corrected or, if justified, to be explained better. I, too, had my car stoned on Shabbos in Jerusalem before I became more observant. That did not lead me to a blanket condemnation of all Israeli Jews, or even all Orthodox Israeli Jews.
Ted: Having read the latest traffic here, all I can say is that life keeps handing out the same lesson over and over again until one learns it and can move on. This applies equally to nations and to individuals. Your targeted appeal for comity apparently has fallen on some deaf ears.
Is Netanyahu actually a Jew-hating Jew? It sure looks that way.
For most of Jewish history, there was no need for the phrase “Torah-true Jew”. If someone were Jewish, he was always Torah-true. And if he rejected the Torah, then he also rejected his Jewishness.
In our time, we have the misfortune of so many “Jews” who are not Torah-true that we need to invent the term “Torah-true Jew” to distinguish the true Jews from Conservative and Reform Jews in America (Jews in name only), and secular Jews in Israel (the Hebrew-speaking goyim).
In Israel, the Jew-hating secular Jews come from both the right and the left. They are united in their fear and loathing of Torah, and their determination to keep Torah-true Judaism from asserting itself in the “Jewish” State.
Most recently, we have seen Netanyahu and his government instigate a witch-hunt against holy rabbis for speaking words of Torah. In response to a book on the rules of war according to Jewish law, Netanyahu’s Police Office for Investigating Serious Crimes waited in ambush for two rabbis as they were returning from praying in shul, and forcibly brought them in for questioning. Apparently, they did not handcuff the rabbis, fingerprint them, or take mug shots. It is reported that the police will recommend the rabbis be prosecuted for “incitement to racism”.
Netanyahu and his “right-wing, “Jewish” government went along with this travesty. Then, Netanyahu’s office tried to spin it. He said it shows “no one is above the law”, and that the rabbis were handled with special delicacy.
What a joke. This is the Netanyahu who demands that arabs recognize Israel as a Jewish State, while he himself orders rabbis to be arrested by the “Serious Crimes Unit” for speaking words of Torah. This Netanyahu says “no one is above the law”, when his own Supreme Court makes up Israeli law as it goes along, and in a way that almost always favors Jew-hating arab muslims over Jews, and which selectively ignores heinous crimes committed by arabs against Jews, while having the “Serious Crimes Unit” persecute rabbis for speaking Torah.
What does this tell any American Jew who is thinking about aliya? “Jewish” Israel is a corrupt, self-hating, police state, which will persecute any Jew who it feels is “too Jewish”.
Yamit, of course that’s my point.
Do you really think the Arabs will accept an Israeli surrender? Good luck with that – you’ll be waiting til the arrival of Godot.
Today’s Israeli unilateral concession of transferring of 84 dead terrorists to the terrorist PA only underscores why Jewish niceness towards the Arabs won’t lead to peace.
The aliyah statement is not directed to Yamit.
Yamit, after the speech Bibi gave to the US Congress, his whole credibility would fall flat on it’s face not just with Likud but with the GOP and the evangelical Christians. I cannot see him do such a foolish thing especially since he is aware that the Arabs want to destroy Israel. Now, if it was Ehud Barak or Tzipi Livni or Peace Now and Ha’Aretz (all of these people have a death wishand they are also atheists or, at best, agnostics), I would agree with you.
Frankly, the moment the UN issue comes-up in September, Israel has every right to declare that the Oslo Accords have been violated and then go in and take Judea and Samaria. Obama will look like a greater fool than he already is in front of his own people if he attempts to send the US Army to block Israel. I feel that there are enough top brass in the US military who will disobey his orders. The people of the US will rise in unison and ask for Obama’s impeachment.Increasingly numbers of non-Jewish people commenting in JPost are aghast that Israel is not showing readiness to take action and take over J&S.
BTW, if you have not made aliyah, please do so. It is time to get off the fence
NormanF says:
Published: 06/16/11, 3:15 AM / Last Update: 06/16/11, 3:13 AM
Netanyahu Tries to Lure Kadima: We Don’t Disagree
by Elad Benari
Prime Minister Binyamin Netayahu criticized in his speech before the Knesset plenum on Wednesday the members of the Kadima party, saying that there are no real differences between his principles and theirs.
Netanyahu mentioned the speech he gave before the Knesset prior to his trip the United States. During that speech he laid down five conditions for a peace treaty with the Palestinian Authority Arabs:
1. The Palestinians must recognize Israel as the Jewish nation’s state.
2. The treaty must be an end to the conflict.
3. The Arab refugee problem must be solved outside of Israel’s borders.
4. A Palestinian state will have to be demilitarized and a peace treaty must safeguard Israel’s security.
5. The settlement blocs will remain within the state of Israel and Jerusalem will remain its united capital.
“Do you agree to the demand for recognition by the Palestinians of Israel as a Jewish state?” Netanyahu asked the members of Kadima. “Do you agree with the demand that any agreement must include an end to the conflict? Do you agree to keep the settlement blocs?”
His spokesman, Gidi Schmerling, called on Kadima to join Netanyahu’s coalition after his speech to Congress on May 24.
Schmerling said during a radio interview that he believes the gaps between Kadima and Netanyahu’s Likud party are not so great now and the two would be able to cooperate in a coalition.
Kadima’s members have criticized Netanyahu over his Congress speech, saying it failed to promote the political process and present a real plan for peace.
Meanwhile, MK Aryeh Eldad of the National Union party said on Wednesday in response to Netanyahu’s remarks, “Netanyahu’s speech was trying to embarrass Kadima by showing that there are absolutely no differences between his principles and their principles, but he only managed to embarrass those members of Likud who are faithful to the Land of Israel by demonstrating that there is no difference between his principles and the principles of Peace Now.”
Kadima MK Orit Zuaretz also responded to Netanyahu’s speech, calling it “an empty political statement. Netanyahu is emerging as the Prime Minister of Google, which deals with cyber threats and not with reality. His failures and the failures of his government over the past two years overdid it. Israelis are collapsing under the tax burden.”
Netanyahu’s appeal to Kadima came after earlier on Wednesday coalition and opposition factions in the Knesset sparred over the price of cottage cheese, with Kadima MK Ronit Tirosh placing a small container of cottage cheese in front of Netanyahu.
The special session of the plenum was called to discuss the recent rise in prices, and the opposition focused especially on cottage cheese, largely in part due to the growing Facebook campaign to boycott cottage cheese until its price goes down.
Tirosh blamed Netanyahu’s policies for the rise in prices that has made cottage cheese “a status symbol,” in her words.
Shy Guy, what has stopped Israel from going over the cliffs is not the subservience of Israel’s leaders or world pressure. Like I said, its the Arabs and G-d. Israel has been blessed with the perfect enemy who will never be satisfied. Think about it: why did summits in 2000 and 2008 collapse? Because of Arab intransigence! Israel could offer them everything east of the 67′ borders, Jerusalem included and they will still turn down a peace deal. I don’t see one happening. Even on the Obama Principles!
SF, Israel will survive. Jews have been through worse in their history. As stands right now, Obama will probably not get a second term. I’d rather not find out what he has in store for the Jewish State should he get re-elected. But in a way we should be thankful he is President today since he has clarified why America’s policies in the Middle East are disastrous and why Israel cannot place any probity in his word. As President, he has undermined America’s strategic position. With the US withdrawals from Afghanistan and Iraq, Israel will be left alone to face the coming storm. The era of the American hyperpower is coming to an end. Israel can no longer rely on any one but itself and G-d for its own future security.
Yamit, if you’re right, why is it Netanyahu has not invited in Kadima and Labor? A “national unity” government could certainly be formed on the basis of the Obama principles. BB would have no political problem selling it since Israel’s Left will be more than happy to give him political cover while he dismantles Israel. This leads naturally to the question. Why hasn’t it happened? My answer is the Palestinian Arabs will never accept an Israeli surrender. They don’t want an agreement with even a weakened Israel. They want to destroy Israel. No matter how much Israel gives up, it will never be enough for them and it won’t produce peace. Yamit, we should not kid ourselves. Its not BB that is saving Israel. Its the Arabs and G-d!
Obama, Hillary, Libya, Jewish Israel:
Asia Times has a good piece on the goals of America and NATO in Libya. The ultimate goal is regime change with a new government allied to Europe, and which throws out Gaddafi and China.
What is relevant to Jewish Israel is how America (Obama and Hillary) and Europe spin this goal, in 1984 Newspeak fashion:
1. America is not promoting regime change, are not fighting an offensive war, and are not taking sides in an obvious civil war. They are “protecting civilians by means of defensive military actions.” They invented a new concept, “the right to protect” in order to justify bombing civilians loyal to Gaddafi.
2. America and europe have brought Gaddafi and his sons up on charges in the International Court of Justice for “crimes against humanity”. Meantime (of course) they ignore Syria, Burma, Tibet, etc.
3. America and europe recognize the rebel “government” in Cyrenaica as “legitimate”, as opposed to Gaddafi who was apparently “legitimate” until a few months ago. America has refused a visa to Gaddafi’s newly appointed representative to the United Nations.
What has happended to Gaddafi will happen to Jewish Israel whenever Obama feels strong enough. It will surely happen eventually, whenever the Democrats achieve a permanent majority in both Houses of Congress. (Already the majority of american children under three years of age are non-white.)
At that time, America will recognize a Palestinian State with 1967 borders and East Jerusalem as its capital, declare the settlers to be international war criminals for crimes against humanity, and will revoke the visas of Israeli diplomats.
I hope Jewish Israel is ready. It doesn’t look like Netanyahu will ever be.
Adolf Hitler was far more reasonable in his demands for German rights in Sudetenland, than Obama et al are in their demands for Arab rights in Israel. Sudetenland controlled the high ground that Czechoslovakia needed to defend itself against Germany. The Arab demands in Israel, however, are for not only the high ground, but also Israel’s major aquifer; and the rump state of Jewish Israel that would remain would be only nine miles wide. The fact that Jews are seriously countenancing these demands, is a sure sign of a defect in the Jewish psyche. The Czechs had no such defect, but had to be forced into submission by the UK and France. After the war that was caused by their sellout, the Czechs did the only sensible thing to end the conflict: They expelled the large German minority (comparable to the Arab minority in Israel) from Czech territory.
Of course, Israel must take the same tack that the Czechs did; and it will likely be after a similar war. Rather than discussing the various “pro”s and “con”s of the various neo-Munich peace proposals, Israel should be preparing for war — against the United States, if need be — for it’s national survival. The beauty of the current situation, is that there is no counterpart to Germany: The ones demanding Israel’s surrender are not world powers, but non-governmental organizations such as “Peace Now”. Germany had Panzer divisions; the “Now” people have home-made rockets and a few suicide bombers, on a blockaded piece of land governed by an organization that is broke. The craziness of it all, is that the Jewish Israeli government is so hot to trot, to surrender to such a non-entity.
Even with the prodding of irrelevants like Cotler and Pearlman, Netanyahu has proven himself incapable of extracting Israel from going further down the slippery slope. This began before Wye and Netanyahu has only stepped harder on the accelerator ever since.
Netanyahu is not the solution. He is part and representative of the problem. Let us pray that, in spite of Netanyahu’s never-ending endangerment of the Jewish Nation (for whatever his motivations), G-d will give us the brains and the will to somehow pull ourselves out of this mess.
email rec’d
email rec’d
BB I believe has already agreed to and committed Israel to accepting The Obama principles. His only immediate problem is how to sell it here in Israel without shooting himself in his political foot. If Obama pressures him sufficiently he will cave earlier than he would like and then disolve the Knesset and run on the potential agreement as a national referendum. Kadima and will join him as will labor.
What about Oslo and every other piece of paper that carried Mandates which Israel was
to anti up? Indeed, Israel has often surrendered to a piece of paper otherwise known as WIND.
Irwin Cotler is falling for the charade of negotiations with Fatah. He is false-mirroring in imagining what would seem reasonable and fair to him will be seen the same way by the Palestinians, as a signal for more accommodating behavior. To the Palestinians, “reasonable and fair” is the same as “weak and vulnerable” and is a signal for more demands and more terror when those demands are not met. To the Palestinians, negotiations are merely a tactic to buy time and advantage for the ultimate goal of Israel’s annihilation — the central tenet of the governing charters of both Fatah and Hamas. Cotler’s naivete and Obama’s arrogance will cost innocent Israeli blood.
Israel is not going to do that. What is in it for Israel? Nothing!
No sane country would commit national suicide for a piece of paper. Israelis may want peace but they don’t start out by saying a piece of paper is the only thing that matters.
Israel would be asked to make its strategic situation worse by forfeiting all negotiating leverage in advance. And what would Israel get once it did that – to put not too fine a point on it, the PA and the Obama Administration are not exactly the most reliable of partners.
No country is going to risk its life on the mere word of others.