Last week Netanyahu held his ground

ISRAEL HAYOM

Meanwhile, Netanyahu, in his Rome meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry last week, refused an American proposal to station American forces in the Jordan Valley or to allow other international troops to maintain the security along the eastern border.

During the seven-hour meeting, Kerry attempted to finish outlining the borders for the future Palestinian state.

The prime minister drew the outline first. In Netanyahu’s map, the Palestinian state is farther away from the Jordan Valley, is surrounded on all sides by areas under Israeli sovereignty, is demilitarized, and preserves for Israel the greater Jerusalem area and the Jewish settlement blocs. The Palestinians, for their part, are thought to be unwilling to give up a state that does not stretch to the Jordan River, nor will they agree to not control the northern Dead Sea area.

November 4, 2013 | 30 Comments »

Leave a Reply

30 Comments / 30 Comments

  2. No I smell of Chanel #5!!!!!!

    You represent precisely nothing, have made no political contribution to the debate, you are no asset to the Jewish people nor is Yamit, while Leon Trotsky and the whole thought process of Trotsky over his lifetime is the saviour of the Jewish people.

    Yes I am far from stupid…you are the lowest form of political life…I remember your references to Trotsky

  3. Felix Quigley Said:

    Honeybee smell totally of clique

    No I smell of Chanel #5!!!!!!

    Felix Quigley Said:

    never making one indepemdent contribution

    Trotsky: Political Philosophy!!!! Stalin: Guns

    Felix Quigley Said:

    You are part of the clique which continually called CA Antisemitic

    Did I,? I don’t believe I did! Can;t remember!

  4. Honeybee

    You object to Yamit82, Bernard, Phoenix, et. al., because the challenge you.

    Not at all. They do not offer any real challenge to Trotskyism. That is what I stand for here. I have no allies on that score on this site. I have my own site and organisation. But others do read this site.

    What I have in agreement with Ted going back many years is an interest in open discussion.

    But you opérate as a clique. Not even Ted the editor could bust your clique. You personally Honeybee smell totally of clique, never making one indepemdent contribution, but you are one of many.

    You are part of the clique which continually called CA Antisemitic. Argument ends at that precise point.

  6. Ted

    If I were in your shoes, and remember I was commenting on Israpundit as it was being launched, long long before any of these present people, then I would hand the site over to them, led by Yamit82.

    Things have changed blog wise since those days. You have now a thousand avenues to place your analyses, especially your legal analyses, into.

    And time as we know is very short.

    Please consider this as from a genuine friend.

  11. bernard ross Said:

    Do you continue to support the argument that the British White Paper of 39 was LEGAL now that you are aware of the Mandate Commissions conclusions, the legal obligations of Trustees and the track record of the British towards the Jews?

    Putting the White Paper Nov 1939 in Historical factual context we get this: The Evian Conference of 1938 predated the White Paper and it’s consequences for the Jewish People of Europe: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.culture.jewish/vKFUM2mMhBQ

    “Britain was agreeable to co-operate with the conference but was concerned that Palestine, which it ruled under a League of Nations
    Mandate, might be suggested as a recipient country for refugees. This would cause problems with the Arabs, whom they wished to appease in
    order to prevent another Arab uprising that took place in 1936 against Jewish immigration to Palestine, and a revolt against a three-way
    partition of the country in 1937. Britain therefore insisted that Palestine be left off the list of receiving countries for refugees.
    Palestine unlike other countries before the war did not have unemployment but had a labour shortage. The country was prosperous due to the Zionists who were chiefly responsible for the boom”

    The Christian churches in Palestine also had an influence on British policy towards Jewish emigration. They too wanted to appease the Arabs
    who made up a large proportion of their congregation. They also wanted to preserve their own position and influence in the Holy Land. The
    idea of partitioning Palestine, they also felt, would reduce opportunities for Christian missionary work and other activities.7 In a letter to The Times signed by the Bishop of Jerusalem and other church leaders on behalf of the Anglican Church it was denied that Palestine was capable of solving the European Jewish problem. Theletter also stated that since huge numbers of Jewish immigrants had arrived there in 1935 “Palestine had known no peace.”

    The Roman Catholic Church did not support the immigration of Jews to Palestine or the Balfour Declaration that declared it a Homeland for
    the Jews. In a letter dated 22nd June 1943 to Myron Taylor, President Roosevelt’s special emissary to the pope, A.G. Cicognani, special representative of pope Pius XII said:

    “It is true that at one time Palestine was inhabited by the Hebrew Race, but there is no axiom in history to substantiate the necessity
    of a people returning to a country they left nineteen centuries before If a ‘Hebrew Home’ is desired, it would not be too difficult to find a more fitting territory than Palestine. With an increase in the Jewish population there, grave, new international problems wouldarise.”


    Chaim Weizmann says of Palestine, “In those days before the war, our protests, when voiced, were regarded as provocations; our very refusal
    to subscribe to our own death sentence became a public nuisance, and was taken in bad part. Alternating threats and appeals were addressed
    to us to acquiesce in the surrender of Palestine.”
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    I never bought the British excuse that they needed to appease the Arabs. We are talking about The great British Empire in 1920’s and 30’s-40’s and they were afraid of a bunch of desert Bedouin? Rings hollow compared to how the Brits treated all other colonial indigenous populations who posed a more substantial and formidable threat and challenge to British interests and authority than the stupid Arabs. Almost from the beginning of the Mandate Britain began to treat Palestine as a colony and not as their mandate required a Trustee with an obligation to help nurture and bring to fruition an independent Jewish State.

  12. @ the phoenix:

    Ted Belman says:

    November 2, 2013 at 8:19 am

    @ bernard ross:
    You are too hard on CA. I have no problem with him making arguments on behalf of the Arabs. Israel advocates must be able to deal with his arguments because we are confronted with them all the time. So as I see it he is doing us a service

    It’s on the Political Rights in Palestine post.

    How do you make that sad face?

  16. @ the phoenix:
    Perhaps you missed the post where Ted told Bernard ross he thought he was being too hard on CA…..thus causing us on this site to have to start ALL over again!!!

  17. @ bernard ross:
    Dear mr Ross
    I am absolutely amazed at how long a rope you give this american bastard to hang himself with….
    I believe that EVERYONE on this forum is in agreement that the son of a bitch is a slimy hypocritical antisemite, most likely PAID to post his garbage on this forum.
    Nonetheless, the benefit of his antisemitic posts are reading the amazing rebuttals such as yours and yamit’s as well (I can not say it often enough) and learning so much in the process.
    Thanks!

  18. CuriousAmerican Said:

    Bernard Ross Said:
    still waiting for an answer re your claim the White paper was LEGAL. Now that you are more informed have you backed off that claim yet? Ted thought you might be ignorant of the facts.
    Curious American said:
    From Yale Law School: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp

    You always re-confirm my suspicions of your dishonesty and stealth.
    You were asked a direct question regarding your prior statement that the British White Paper was LEGAL.
    As Ted stated that you might have been ignorant of the reasons for its illegality I asked if now that you are familiar with those issues,the legal obligations of a Trustee, the track record of the swindling british govt. and the Mandate Commissions conclusion of its illegality submitted by Dweller: do you still support the british govts argument?
    Your answer was to supply me a link givng the details of the British White Paper.
    Therefore, your answer was to give me the position and testimony of a swindler, reproduced by Yale Law school, as a proof that he did not swindle. You pretend to the forum that you answered my direct question and you simply reprinted the swindlers argument.

    CuriousAmerican Said:

    The key is who you ask.

    Obviously I was asking YOU and you avoided a direct answer, you evaded the question. Certainly, I would not ask a swindler if his swindling was LEGAL! You continue to submit and support the argument of a known swindler of the Jews but refuse to declare that fact because you know that it is a swindle.
    Citing the swindler as proof of the swindles LEGALITY beggars belief.
    this is why I continue to regularly point out your behavior as you regularly repeat that behavior.
    How about a simple yes or no answer:
    Do you continue to support the argument that the British White Paper of 39 was LEGAL now that you are aware of the Mandate Commissions conclusions, the legal obligations of Trustees and the track record of the British towards the Jews?

  20. CuriousAmerican Said:

    Even the Palestinians areas are invaded by the IDF as needed.

    poor example of anything. Sovereign states also get invaded when needed. e.g. russia/georgia

    still waiting for an answer re your claim the White paper was LEGAL. Now that you are more informed have you backed off that claim yet? Ted thought you might be ignorant of the facts.

  21. CuriousAmerican Said:

    I am amazed you have not figured this out. The pro-Arab sites read Netanyahu better than you do. They hate Netanyahu because they know he will not surrender sovereignty.

    Gosh, so much baloney in a short space:
    Pro arab sites may know a lot of things but I don’t use them as a source of knowledge or of good judgement in analyzing situations.
    Here’s is something I figured out: Israel has evacuated 3 of the 5 areas it conquered since 67 Sinai,Gaza, Lebanon; It has also evacuated some areas of the west bank plus it has indicated through its behavior that it is willing to evacuate completely at least areas A & B(it has almost done this already defacto). These are facts, not opinions. All that remains are area C and east Jerusalem. You and your arab friends may say that Netanyahu will not surrender sovereignty, and I hope you are correct. However, your basis for making the statement is not supported by facts or the credibility of your sources of opinions(arabs) Invoking an epiphany as your source and basis would have more logic.

  22. CuriousAmerican Said:

    History.

    Has Israel evacuated one inch of Judea and Samaria in 46 years?

    Liar liar pants On Fire

    All of area C and most of area B, then the settlements of Chomesh and SaNur in the Shomron.

  23. Bill Narvey Said:

    C.A. is it clairvoyance or superior powers of deduction that has led you to that conclusion?

    At least dweller (the self proclaimed mystic who claims he has a direct line to jeezuz) thinks he is clairvoyant. CA is only reverse projecting what he hopes doesn’t materialize.

  24. @ Bill Narvey:
    C.A. is it clairvoyance or superior powers of deduction that has led you to that conclusion?

    History.

    Has Israel evacuated one inch of Judea and Samaria in 46 years?

    They haven’t and they won’t. Even the Palestinians areas are invaded by the IDF as needed.

  26. Promise the bastards gornisht mit gornisht. Which applies to the mamzers both in Ramallah and Washington. But give away no lands that are the 3400 year old inheritance of the Jewish nation.

    And no, I really don’t know much about Yiddish. So I consulted an appropriate dictionary for usage.

    Arnold Harris
    Mount Horeb WI

  27. Netanyahu is stalling. He has no intention of surrendering any piece of land. From 1967, Israel had NO intention of ever surrendering sovereignty.

    The Sinai evacuation, may have been stupid, but it was NOT Israel proper.

    Even Gaza’s borders are controlled by Israel. (except the South, which might as well be patrolled by Israel, with Sisi in Egypt).

    I am amazed you have not figured this out. The pro-Arab sites read Netanyahu better than you do. They hate Netanyahu because they know he will not surrender sovereignty.

  28. The prime minister drew the outline first. In Netanyahu’s map, the Palestinian state is farther away from the Jordan Valley, is surrounded on all sides by areas under Israeli sovereignty, is demilitarized, and preserves for Israel the greater Jerusalem area and the Jewish settlement blocs.

    what about the vacant unowned lands of area C? There should be no assumption that such lands go to the pals when Jews had a legal right to settle these lands.
    It appears that BB has already accepted the narrative that the starting point is the 1949 borders and that everything else belongs to the pals and that anything past those borders Israel must pay for in money or land within pre 1949 borders or claim for security reasons. No legal claims for jews, all the agreements are reneged and their reneging accepted by the Jews without a word or a whimper. If this is so then what was the point of electing BB and likud?

  30. That’s why I think reports the US can simply impose the Arab position on Israel by fiat are greatly exaggerated.

    The US needs Israeli consent for any peace agreement to work – and a peace agreement that falls far short of Israel’s minimal needs is not going to go too far with the Israeli public.

    Anyway, we all know the true value of Obama’s word and its worth zip, zero, zilch and nada. And he and Kerry will be out of office in the next three years. Israel has to deal with the Middle East after they’re long gone from the scene.