NEWS: Congress just passed a resolution urges the U.S. administration to “deny recognition to any unilaterally declared Palestinian state and veto any resolution by the United Nations Security Council to establish or recognize a Palestinian state outside of an agreement negotiated by the two parties.”
It also urges Palestinian leaders to “cease all efforts at circumventing the negotiation process, including efforts to gain recognition of a Palestinian state from other nations, within the United Nations, and in other international forums prior to achievement of a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians… and calls upon foreign governments not to extend such recognition.”
By Ted Belman
If anyone thought the new old peace process was for real, forget it. According to Haaretz, Mitchell proposes ‘parallel’ but separate U.S. talks with Israel, Palestinians with an aim according to Palestinian sources, of finding out what the two parties want. After all these years and all these processes, don’t they know. And he wants six weeks to do it.
-
“What is discussed with each side will not be divulged to the other, but the aim is for the U.S. administration to form an idea of what the two parties want with a view to drawing up a strategy to relaunch direct negotiations at the time it deems appropriate,”
Fat chance on two accounts; how can it not be divulged and what, another strategy? The parties are so far apart that a “new strategy ” won’t solve the problem. How about a new paradigm?
While Netanyahu was expected to hash out with his ministers Israel’s positions on a variety of issues, the foreign ministers from Arab nations came out out Wednesday against any talks between Israel and the Palestinians, direct or indirect, unless the United States takes a firm stance on the future borders of a Palestinian state. At least they have no illusions.
The PA continues to demand a settlement freeze. Since Netanyahu is not allowing building in any event, some say he should have agreed to the extension for all the goodies it entailed. On the other hand, he didn’t have the option. The US never delivered the letter.
There is not much chance that Netanyahu will authorized much construction while the US is still trying to develop a strategy.
Mean while JPOST reports that the Arab League will turn to the UNSC.
-
“The negotiation track between the Palestinians and Israelis is futile. There is no return to talks. Any resumption is conditioned on a serious offer that ensures the end to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on the peace process references,” the Arab ministers said in a statement.
The Arab League foreign ministers also agreed to go to the UN Security Council for a resolution against settlement construction.
The ministers decided to “bring up the issue” of Israeli settlements with the Security Council, AFP reported.
The Arab League wants “to obtain a decision that confirms, among other things, the illegal nature of this activity and that would oblige Israel to stop it,” a ministerial committee meeting at League headquarters in Cairo said.
The statement put out after the meeting also urged the US, which has used its veto many times to block anti- Israel Security Council resolutions, not to block the move.
As we know, the Obama administration has hinted (threatened) that they might not veto such a resolution.
Don’t make me laugh. I could not defame you if I tried. You have done that to yourself. The Israpundit is full of examples of your hate-filled rhetoric against Christ and Christians. A recent example was equating Christian missionaries with Islamic terrorists. Now you are proving you are a delusional liar as well.
I think it I am quite safe in describing you as uncivilized in the modern context.
Thanks for proving that you are uncivilized better than I can.
You are not in control of this argument, You defamed me and I said it was a lie and challenged you to show proof. You refused so I resubmit that you are in fact a liar and a defamer.
No one has to accept your definition of what is civilized whatever you mean by the term.
Yes some of us do and it’s our call not yours as we are the objects of the missionaries. We decide how and in what context we put missionary unsolicited attempts to destroy Jewish souls and Judaism itself. Not you. You have no say in this matter so butt out.
It is no lie as every honest Israpundit would know. Look in the afrchives and you will see for yourself. After all, you are an Israpundit insider.
I was referring to a civilized situation, not one that you control.
This from a man who equates Christian missionaries with Islamic terrorists.
A Lie! Produce them
Really? Where is that right codified? Every blog Adm has the right to set his own standards and to be arbitrary about them. This is Israel and not America. Most Jews here never heard of Jefferson and I could do one hell of a critique on him and his ideas.
I would never presume to go on A Christian advocacy blog and rant against the concept of the virgin Mary. Some things are not done, some things are inappropriate in certain forums. This is a Jewish blog with a primary rason detre to advocate for Israel. Many Christians read and comment and most are respectful enough to desist from imposing NT and Christian concepts and theology because they understand this is not the forum for it or just out of respect for we Jews who take exception. Most if not all of my comments are directed to Jews and not Christians and since I assume we are all adults, I suggest that if any of my comments are offensive just don’t read them.
Gibberish. You are no conservative. You are just a hateful provocateur. You hate everything you aren’t. Actually I think Tshuvah is correct. You are a Muslim posing as a Christian. You seem to know almost zip about Christianity and Catholicism and are no conservative. What’s left to deduce? Ya Allah is a pagan moon god. 😛
The Israpundit archives will show that you have said so.
People have the right to espouse their views in a civilized society without having to worry about being attacked by hate-filled bigots who equate Christian missionaries with Islamic terrorists.
You have frequently quoted from the Scriptures what are your beliefs.
Modern political conservatism has nothing to do with conserving anything that is going on – just the opposite. It seeks to re-establish the founding principles of the US and all the philosophies and attitudes that made this country great. Wise up.
If you “hate” the creed, common sense, which you cannot be accused of having much of, dictates that you “hate” anyone who believes in the creed. No one seeks to impose their hate-filled, bigoted and disgusting beliefs on others with less sensitivity or more chutzpa more than you do. Your “hate” for Christianity shows that you are somehow threatened by its beliefs. No one is trying to convert you by expressing their view, their personal beliefs or their opinions.
BTW, Hashem is not a word in the English language. In English, Hashem is known as and spelled as God or Allah or Bhagwan, and mis-spelled as G-d.
Not true I don’t hate Christians. I do hate the creed of Christianity though and when a Christian seeks to impose or reflect that belief on a blog like this I think it’s not only offensive to me and some other Jews it’s pure insensitivity and chutzpa.
That you disagree is for me complimentary. As for being an American or Israeli patriot well lets say I’ve paid my dues and I don’t mean paying taxes. You a typical big mouth coward!! What have you you paid in terms of self sacrifice for G-d and Country except spouting off with a big mouth small brain about (conservatism ) and those vile 78% of Jews who voted for the black guy with an Arabic name in 2008?
You call yourself conservative but what values are you seeking to conserve. Most of your polemics and diatribes indicate that you have few if any real values that you wish to conserve except those of a self interested nature.
I would not classify you as a Conservative but more of a Libertarian.
Note some philosophical differences:
Conservatism
It is much easier to locate the historical context in which conservatism evolved than it is to specify what it is that conservatives believe.
Lets say that a working political definition could be: Political attitude or ideology denoting a preference for institutions and practices that have evolved historically and are thus manifestations of continuity and stability. It was first expressed in the modern era through the works of Edmund Burke in reaction to the French Revolution, which Burke believed tarnished its ideals through its excesses. Conservatives believe that the implementation of change should be minimal and gradual; they appreciate history and are more realistic than idealistic.
Libertarianism:
Based on everything you have commented on up till now I would gauge you to be more Libertarian than conservative. The most precise form of libertarianism rests on a belief in the essential separateness of individual persons who possess, quite irrespective of whether or not they are part of a society or subject to the laws of a state, a set of inalienable rights, which necessarily include rights to acquire and retain property. The denial of these rights by states can never be defensible and people should only consider themselves subject to states in so far as those states enhance their rights or rest on voluntary procedures. The clearest modern statement of this doctrine is in Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia published in 1974. It has been described as a brilliant drawing of conclusions (such as that taxation is ‘forced labour’) from premisses (the a priori existence of rights) which are merely asserted and which we have no good reason to accept. Libertarianism in this sense is fundamentally opposed to utilitarianism: an individual’s rights must never be abrogated in the general interest.
I do not misconstrue I set out the facts of the matter which you seldom refute but either ignore or obfuscate in your replies . Seek to reverse the facts and contexts I supplied mostly through ad-homenim attacks. That you state your opposition to my factual positions by conjecture and baseless opinion, is not to your credit and is intellectually puerile. Repetitive stating untuths is a tacitc worthy of Goebbels and our Arab Cousins but it is no replacement of truth.
Now how I or anyone else spell G-d should not disturb you or anyone else but it does disturb you. I wonder why? You insist on using Allah in place of god as any decent Christin might but you go for Allah a pagan diety. Interesting, yet you attack ron for showing his respect as he sees it to some of the Jewish commentators here. Then you have the effrontery to call and defame others as bigots.
For your information: h/t Tshuva
The Encyclopedia of Religion says: “‘Allah’ is a pre-Islamic name … corresponding to the Babylonian Bel*” (ed. James Hastings, Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1908, I:326).
*Bel = Baal = Allah = Satan.
http://www.nccg.org/islam/Islam01-Allah.html
http://comingworldwar3.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/allah-pre-arabic-pagan-moon-god-an-expose-on-islam/
Excerpt below:
?The Arabs, before the time of Mohammed, accepted and worshipped, after a fashion, a supreme god called Allah? ? (Encyclopedia off Islam, I:302, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1913, Houtsma)
?The name Allah, as the Quran itself is witness, was well known in pre-Islamic Arabia. Indeed, both it and its feminine form, Allat, are found not infrequently among the theophorous names in inscriptions from North Africa? ? (Islam: Muhammad, and His Religion, New York: The Liberal Arts Press, 1958, p. 85)
The word ?Allah? comes from the compound Arabic word, al-ilah. Al is the definite article ?the? and ilah is an Arabic word for ?god.? It is not a foreign word. It is not even the Syriac word for God. It is pure Arabic. ? (There is an interesting discussion of the origins of Allah, in ?Arabic Lexicographical Miscellanies? by J. Blau in the Journal of Semitic Studies, Vol. XVII, #2, 1972, pp. 173-190)
Neither is Allah a Hebrew or Greek word for God as found in the Bible. Allah is a purely Arabic term used in reference to an Arabian deity. Hastings? Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics I:326, T & T Clark, states:
??Allah? is a proper name, applicable only to their [Arabs’] peculiar God.?
Never equate a pagan deity Allah with the Hebrew G-d of Abraham. Personally I don’t care if a billion or two billion Muslims worship the moon god, numbers do not reflect truth only wide spread stupidity and those who would stamp that stupidity with the stamp of being kosher is no less stupid or at best blindingly ignorant, take your pick.
Hashem
Obviously he is referring to you and perhaps some others, though I doubt it. Until I came along you were free to abuse and intimidate everyone on this forum. Only Ted thinks you are God’s gift to Israpundit.
Who else do you have in mind?
AE is a bully He is looking for people to beat up on. He should allow people their opinion whether he likes it or not. If he wants to take issue, he should take issue with the article.
I consider Yamit (Uncle Nahum) a friend. I don’t always agree with him, having said that I know where he is coming from and he is a great Israeli and a great American. I respect him for that.
Who is using G-d/God's name in vain? Fool who???
Look, do us both a favor, don't comment on anything I post.
Thanks
But I’m sure you’re going to try, anyway.
I acknowledge this when I wrote:
Then I added:
because this pious pretense doen’t fool anyone or avoid the issue of using God’s name in vain.
Yet, where are you when Yamit and others try and prove that we are not friends of theirs using selective and bogus facts and contrived reasons?
Because opinions are synonymous with those who make them.
Aren’t you doing what you are accusing me of?
In these discussions we are seeing Rongrand present himself as a Catholic super-supporter of Israel who thinks that this means he needs to mis-spell God as G-d
_________________________________________________________________________________
A/E, first of all I don't need to prove anything to you, second it should not be a concern of yours as to how I post G-d or God. Since this is primarily a Jewish site, I chose to use G-d as they do. (G-d & God one in the same). It has nothing to do with support of Israel.
With respects to support of Israel, I consider myself a super-support of Israel because I have no reason not to. I have always recognized Israel as our only true friend and trusted ally in the ME.
Your the one who strays from issues and attack the individual.
I think your overly impressed with yourself.
In these discussions we are seeing Rongrand present himself as a Catholic super-supporter of Israel who thinks that this means he needs to mis-spell God as G-d, because this is some sort of Jewish practice, which has nothing to do with support for Israel or the price of oil. Who is anyone fooling with such a spelling – certainly not the Allmighty, who could care less what name you call him. Some Jews use Hashem, Muslims use Allah, Hindi speakers use Bhagwan, based on their native languages. In English it is God, not G-d. BTW, not all Jews follow this practice either, which I believe comes from the First Commandment but is subject to interpretation as to when HIS name is taken in vain. I don’t think mis-spelling the name changes whether HIS name is taken in vain or not – thus my comment about not fooling anyone, which seems to have gotten Rongrand ticked off.
When I point all this out the not-so-grand Rongrand is left fuming and calling me names and being abusive.
I wonder if he thinks G-d, God, Allah, Hashem – take your pick – would approve.
AmericanEagle says:
A/E further states:
Explain that stupid statement.
You portray yourself as a friend of Israel but, I believe you have a different agenda.
I think you should change your title to American Chicken-Shit, suits your style.
The cure, try Ex-Lax.
The world will call it American hegemony. The Europeans will look the other way. America will be accused of being controlled by the Jewish lobby. The radical Muslims will call America the Great Satan and hate us even more than they do now – they forget that we rescued Kuwait and Kosovo, were first on the scene with aid after the Iranian earthquakes and Indonesian tsunami, liberated 50 million Muslims from Muslim tyrants in Iraq and Afghanistan, and provide foreign aid to Egypt and Jordan.
Well after you and I are long gone, an uneasy status quo will prevail as in the Korean peninsula.
OK, thanks for that. I know how you feel, based on your statements here. My question is what would the world, bigger picture, do if the US stood up and said these things I listed in my prior post.
Not quite, because you focused on Jerusalem, which is false, because the US is focusing on “negotiations” on all outstanding issues.
OK. Lets change what I said previously to, “The US is pressuring its long-standing ally, Israel, which it is committed to standing with no matter what, to negotiate with the Palestinians towards a two-state solution, which is also official Israeli policy, but the pressure is meaningless because the final decisions are the responsibility of the Israeli government.”
BTW, I just read in an American newspaper that Jeremy Ben-Ami, President of J Street, who comes from a family of pre-independence Israeli freedom fighters. says that it is now up to Imam Obama to provide Israel with a “firm hand” to re-start the critical peace process. Mr. Ben-Ami said that 70% of Israelis favor a two-state solution, but that 80% of Israelis believe it will not happen. No kidding! It is the Palestinians who do not want a two-state solution as far as I know from reading the Hamas Charter.
Only when someone demonizes America. We have done too much for too many people, including Israel, and I will not stand for it.
I would have said it years ago, but unfortunately many Israeli governments have agreed that everything is up for negotiations, which undercuts any American leader saying something so undiplomatic, even if they believe it as I do. But you need to calm down. The Palestinians will prevent any talks from happening as long as Israel does not get wobbly as they have done so many times in the past – trying to be the good guys instead of using the Genghis Khan approach. Israel should demand full recognition as a Jewish state as a pre-condition to any talks. I would throw in a renunciation of violence for good measure. No Palestinian leader will agree unless he is in a hurry to meet Allah, so no talks or negotiations will occur as long as you and I are alive.
Thank you for answering the question finally. There’s nothing wrong with asking for a simple yes or no and nothing wrong with you adding your reasons for that yes or no in your response. Just make sure that the yes or no part come in that response somewhere.
So after all this dancing around the subject, your statement “that I falsely think that america is pressuring Israel” was complete and utter BS.
Yes, I know what you have written on here before. You say some good things, but as soon as america is mentioned you go haywire.
Here’s another question – what do you think would happen (big picture included) if America stood up and said “Israel captured Jerusalem in a defensive war with Jordan. They annexed it, its theirs. There is no right of return for any arabs that left in 1949. Jews in comparable numbers had to flee their arab countries and were absorbed into Israel. Arabs must likewise do the same.” I know there are other issues,but lets forget about them for this second. What would the ramifications be, in your opinion? Would you support the US making such a statement?
Good for you. I hope you don’t think you are fooling anyone, especially Allah. BTW, that’s what the Muslims call HIM.
Here is what you wrote in No. 38:
Is English your first language?
Yes – but the reason is that they want Israel to sit down and shoot the breeze with the Palestinians who are refusing because of the settlement activity in East Jerusalem.
Unless you are a complete moron you must know by now from all I have written here that I don’t think Israel should talk to anyone who has refused to accept their right to exist as a Jewish state, AND, they have renounced violence.
I have also written that Israel, at every opportunity, should add to their territory, unlike the past, where they have withdrawn from land acquired while defending itself, so that the status quo covers a larger, more defensible country. Everyone else will piss amd moan and eventually get used to the idea. In between, yoy may have to return Iran to their pre-Persian civilization if that is what they want. We will watch your back when you do this. I don’t think we will take the lead in this, unless we get a Sarah Palin – Allen West team in the White House, who are both used to pulling triggers when necessary.
And, NEVER, EVER ask me for a Yes or No response to any question. I will decide wheter that is the appropriate response.