Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditGiven that the new Israeli government is an inflexible bunch of hardliners, the best area for the Obama administration to make progress in the Israel-Palestine conflict is for the United States to either encourage or accede to the creation of a Palestinian unity government.
Such a government would include both Fatah and Hamas. Both Egypt and Saudi Arabia have tried in the past to secure a Fatah-Hamas accord. Under President Bush, the United States said it would not deal with any government that includes Hamas. In 2007, President Bush sabotaged a nascent Fatah-Hamas deal brokered by Saudi Arabia. So the question is: is the Obama administration showing any willingness to finesse the ban on Hamas?
For the Israelis, and the Israel lobby, any US-Hamas detente crosses a red line.
At Wednesday's testimony before the House Foreign Affairs committee, Secretary of State Clinton seemed to suggest an opening--though just a crack:
"We will not deal with nor in any way fund a Palestinian government that includes Hamas unless and until Hamas has renounced violence, recognized Israel and agrees to follow the previous obligations of the Palestinian Authority. ... We want to leave the door open."
At the State Department press briefing on Thursday with spokesman Robert Wood, there was the following exchange, in which Wood seemed to indicate some degree of openness toward dealing with a government that might include Hamas. It's lengthy, but read it anyway:
QUESTION: In her testimony today, the Secretary seemed to indicate that there would be some flexibility in dealing with a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas. She referred to the – to Lebanon's government which includes Hezbollah, saying – and also the Northern Ireland situation.What kind of flexibility are you thinking of? And the supplemental language can be read in many different ways, so maybe if you could just explain how flexible you plan to be when it comes to the national interests of the U.S.?
MR. WOOD: Look, we've been very clear, this is not an issue of being flexible. This is an issue of what Hamas needs to do. We've outlined those conditions for Hamas if it wants to be a partner for peace. It's been very clear. We will not deal with a Hamas government. We – the Secretary has made that very clear and --
QUESTION: But it's not actually that clear. I mean, today she seemed to indicate some --
MR. WOOD: Well, it may not be to you, but it's very clear to us.
QUESTION: She's saying on the one hand, she doesn't want to deal with them. But then on the other, she's used – the other hand, she's using examples where you are dealing with governments that include people you don't like. So it's not clear to me.
MR. WOOD: Well, it should be very clear that we have those three principles. And the Secretary's made clear, she made clear yesterday, what Hamas needed to do. And our position has not changed. What we're trying to do is to get a process going, at some point, so that we can move forward on our vision of a two-state solution. And nothing has changed with regard to our principles.
So I think what the Secretary was trying to show you was that there have been cases where we have dealt with various groups. She used the issue of Lebanon.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. WOOD: Yeah. Well, but again, there are some very strong solid principles that we have to see adhered to before we can deal with Hamas.
QUESTION: Well, but you're not – but you're not dealing with Hamas. I mean, the question is --
MR. WOOD: I didn't say we were dealing with them.
QUESTION: Okay, but the question is not whether you're going to deal with Hamas. We know you're not going to deal with Hamas. The question is: Will you deal with a government that is kind of led by the – or a unity government? Will you deal with PA members of that unity government?
MR. WOOD: Well, look, first of all, there isn't a unity government.
QUESTION: As in Lebanon, you deal with members of the March 14 Movement, but you don't deal with members of Hezbollah?
MR. WOOD: Look, what I'm saying to you is that there is not a unity government. We have principles, conditions that we have put on Hamas in order for us to engage – in order for Hamas to become part of the solution instead of being what they are, which is the problem, and – you know, so it's premature to start talking about what we would --
QUESTION: But Secretary Clinton was talking about it today, so it's not premature.
MR. WOOD: Well, I'm just – no, no, what I'm saying is it's premature to talk about what a unity government is going to look like. What I'm saying to you is that our principles, we stand behind them with regard to what Hamas needs to do if it wants to become a partner for peace. Hamas is not a partner for peace. It rejects Israel's right to exist. It rejects previous agreements that have been agreed to by the Palestinian Authority, and it continues to perpetrate violence against its own people.
Our principles remain the same. They haven't changed. I'm not going to start speculating about what we might do, what might be, or what kind of engagement we might have with some future unity government that doesn't exist. The only thing I can tell you is that our principles remain the same with regard to Hamas.
Meanwhile, as the Obama-Clinton teams officially skirts the issue, the BBC is citing various indications in the United States that talking to Hamas is unavoidable:
A senior economic advisor to Mr Obama, Paul Volcker, recently put his name to a paper which included a "more pragmatic approach to Hamas" among wider policy recommendations.Harry Siegman, the head of the think-tank behind the document, believes there are "early indications" that the new US government will adopt its advice to "cease discouraging" third parties from dealing with Hamas.
Mr Siegman says reaction to the document was "very positive" at a recent meeting which he says was attended by several "senior members" of the Obama administration, including US Middle East envoy George Mitchell.
Meanwhile, Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel who advised US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her presidential campaign, recently co-wrote a book chapter asserting that "a peace process that excludes" Hamas is "bound to fail".
If an Israel-Hamas ceasefire held and Fatah and Hamas reconciled, the US should deal with a Palestinian unity government and "authorise low-level contact with Hamas in Gaza", it said.
And, said the BBC:
Hamas has had more international visitors since US President Barack Obama came to power, and they seem to be getting bolder, says Ahmad Youssef, an advisor close to the Islamist movement's political leaders in Gaza.Groups of lawmakers from the UK and EU, travelling independently, have made widely publicised visits to Hamas's exiled leader in Damascus in recent months.
And Mr Youssef says official representatives of European governments have also come calling - and not just the Norwegians who have long had contact with Hamas.
Mr Youssef says it seems such delegations are now "getting the green light from the Americans".
"They are more courageous than during the Bush administration," he insists.
In March, Khalid Meshaal, the Hamas leader in Damascus, said that he was encouraged by the new line from the Obama administration:
Mr Meshaal, speaking in an interview with La Repubblica, said "a new language towards the region is coming from President Obama."He did not directly mention Mr Obama's message to Iran.
"The challenge for everybody is for this to be the prelude for a genuine change in US and European policies," Mr Meshaal said.
"Regarding an official opening towards Hamas, it's a matter of time."
Several top Obama officials are proponents of a detente with Hamas and Hezbollah, including John Brennan, the deputy national security adviser. Dan Shapiro, the senior director for the Middle East at the NSC, is said to be open to the idea. Will Obama have the courage to do what's necessary? A good first step: the president should say, in public, that he'd welcome efforts by US allies in the Arab world, to broker an accord between Hamas and Fatah.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
DREYFUSS: "A good first step: the president should say, in public, that he'd welcome efforts by US allies in the Arab world, to broker an accord between Hamas and Fatah."
As we've gotten to know, whether we like it or not, talk, especially "in public", is easy and cheap for our Lovest-to-Talk POTUS.....how can we forget the way he talked his way into the Presidency....
Memory Lane: We're the ones we've been waiting for!
Bottom line for the US and Europe, until Hamas recognizes Israel's Right to Exist and changes its charter, "an accord between Hamas and Fatah" is well and nice, but NOT nearly enough; most especially, from Israel's perspective!
Posted by Happy at 04/23/2009 @ 5:50pm
all this is moot.
there's a bunch of wackos running israel right now.
and besides, if obama talked to the "terrorists" (i.e. anybody brown; oh, the irony)
the midterms would be a disaster.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/23/2009 @ 5:54pm
our Lovest-to-Talk POTUS.....Posted by Happy at 04/23/2009 @ 5:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You're just mad because this Prez speaks ENGLISH.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/23/2009 @ 6:01pm
It's pathetic, watching the Obama administration attempt to deal with the Israel problem. The administration is completely under the thumb of the Israel lobby. Obama can't even manage to appoint his own intelligence officials, as was seen in the case of Ambassador Freeman. The Obama administration is apparently pulling the plug on prosecuting Israeli spies for espionage against the US because this is upsetting to the Israel lobby and threatens to embroil high-ranking Democratic Party figures as well.
There is not going to be any sane approach whatsoever to dealing with the Israel problem. In Israel, the US is essentially being directed by a nuclear-armed rogue regime with a decades-long record of profound human rights violations and flouting international law and opinion with impunity. In Israel, the US has an "ally" that engages in espionage against us, has infiltrated our national capitol, and influences national elections and the prospects of any elected or appointed national figure it chooses.
Israel wages a barbaric war against Gaza, and the US does not utter a peep; but if a single complaint at the UN is made about Israel, Israeli violence, and Israeli apartheid, the US acts as if crimes against humanity have been committed.
With respect to Hamas, there is no hope for dealing effectively with the Israel problem and the issue of Palestinian refugees and the nakba without addressing Hamas as a central party. They are the Palestinian ANC. However, the US under President Obama continues to pretend that it can boycott reality and act as if the precondition for "recognizing" Hamas (Hamas does not need US recognition) is that Hamas become some sort of Zionist ashkenazi organization before initial diplomatic contact is initiated.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/23/2009 @ 6:07pm
Step back and take a look at what our Lovest-to-Talk POTUS has `accomplished' so far:
April 23, 2009
Crazy Times -- Crazier Ones To Follow
By Victor Davis Hanson
We are in a weird age....
Washington is more confusing.....We are lectured that prior reckless federal spending and borrowing got us into this mess -- but now are told that even more federal spending and borrowing will get us out of it.
Nonsense is passed off as wisdom.....big-spending government claims it may cut our annual $1.7 trillion deficit in half by 2012 - but only after piling up trillions more in national debt.
In our Orwellian world, borrowing to spend what we don't have has been renamed "stimulus." Those who pay no federal income taxes - almost half of Americans - can somehow be promised an income tax "cut.".....
And the list of big-tax liberals who cheated or avoided taxes they want to raise on others is astounding.... Geithner....Daschle; and Rep. Charles Rangel,.....
.....We are warned that we must be careful not to explicitly associate the radical Islam that fueled the Sept. 11 attacks with terrorism; yet, we are advised that we should worry about returning American veterans as potential terrorists.....
There have been a few crazy years like 2009 in American history - 1860, 1929, 1941 and 1968. And given what followed all of them, it might be wise to prepare for even crazier times for us ahead.
Posted by Happy at 04/23/2009 @ 6:14pm
For those interested, here are two articles showing the Obama administration trying to drop the charges against the Israeli spies in question (Rosen and whats-his-name) because Israel is allowed to commit espionage against the US on pain of losing campaign contributions, and because Jane Harman and Nancy Pelosi are becoming embroiled along with the Israel lobby in an espionage scandal:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article /2009/04/21/AR2009042102602_pf.html
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Harman_begins_to_ backtrack_denials_of_0422.html
This tawdry episode would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Further, here is Hillary Clinton doing what the Israelis want her to do: managing the PR disaster from their barbaric and savage assault on Gaza for them stateside. http://www.minnpost.com/cynthiadizikes/2009/04/22/ 8269/ellison_questions_clinton_on_gaza
Posted by syfriendly at 04/23/2009 @ 6:17pm
" ... A good first step: the president should say, in public, that he'd welcome efforts by US allies in the Arab world, to broker an accord between Hamas and Fatah."
posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 04/23/2009 @ 4:28pm
It's very difficult to imagine this happening or being meaningful it happened. For one thing, the only outcome of any such accord the US/Israel would accept is the impossible and ridiculous accord that produces a Palestinian entity that basically pre-capitulates to Israel completely prior to any further "peace process" ensuing. For another thing, it is apparently the case that Abu Mazen and Fatah are basically regarded with contempt by the Palestinians themselves, broadly. The only thing being a "partner for peace" a la Fatah has brought in recent years is more Israeli apartheid and more "settlements" in the West Bank.
The problem is the truculent and imperious Israeli nation, which regardless of majority party in power in its precious Knesset has been racist, expansionist, violent, and beholden to the most fanatical members of its society. The way to deal with the Israel problem is to stop giving them our money, our best weapons, and a green light to do anything they want, including spy on our national security planning, influence our elections and officeholders egregiously. It is easy to understand: a drug junkie cannot change his/her behavior alone, and cannot be changed by being given lots of money explicitly to go spend on drugs with complete carte blanch to shoot smack in the town square without worry of consequences. The Israelis have to be made to understand that if they continue to act as they do as a nation, that if their regimes continue with the status quo, they won't have help or sanctuary from the US.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/23/2009 @ 6:37pm
I'm tired of hearing about Israels problems. Maybe if they stopped murdering civilians all the time it would be easier to avoid getting bombed constantly.
Posted by Milhaus at 04/23/2009 @ 7:46pm
Posted by snowball666 at 04/23/2009 @ 7:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The real problem isn't so much AIPAC (or the alphabet's soup of organizations and wealthy donors behind it) so much as Israel itself.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/23/2009 @ 8:03pm
@syfriendly
Does it matter so much who Obama's official advisers are, so long as he follows the correct advice? This article shows that there is promise from the Obama administration regarding this issue, which being Jewish, has some slight importance to me.
Posted by zmann at 04/23/2009 @ 8:20pm
"Hamas is not a partner for peace. It rejects Israel's right to exist. It rejects previous agreements that have been agreed to by the Palestinian Authority, and it continues to perpetrate violence against its own people."
That pretty much sums it up. We should not send one penny to Hamas until they stop firing missiles into Israel and/or killing Jews.
Posted by pyeatte at 04/23/2009 @ 9:16pm
That pretty much sums it up. We should not send one penny to Hamas until they stop firing missiles into Israel and/or killing Jews.
Posted by pyeatte at 04/23/2009 @ 9:16pm
so you agree that aid to israel should be cut off, too?
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/23/2009 @ 9:24pm
Don't be so daft, FZ.
For heaven's sake have you gone completely mad?!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/23/2009 @ 9:40pm
Posted by zmann at 04/23/2009 @ 8:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I think that the point is that the president tried to pick an intelligence official to be in his administration, and that he and/or members of his party were sufficiently threatened by members of the Israel lobby or other similar figures that they had to back down on their own nomination.
When the head-of-state cannot choose officials who do not toe the line set by a foreign power, there is a very serious problem.
In other words, yes, it matters a lot, who gives an official like Obama advice. Especially when de facto agents of a foreign power prevent him from choosing his own advisers.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/23/2009 @ 9:47pm
That pretty much sums it up. We should not send one penny to Hamas until they stop firing missiles into Israel and/or killing Jews.
Posted by pyeatte at 04/23/2009 @ 9:16pm
Such a tired rant. It's plain to see for everyone that israel isn't on higher moral ground. They left that behind long ago, let's get real. Their army abuses, humiliates, harasses, injures and kills people for no good reason, daily. You don't have to shoot teenage boys for throwing rocks at tanks. The holocaust doesn't give Israel license to murder kids. It's to late anyways. The whole government there is predicated on the conflict. People are making to much money and political points off of it. It's an industry now. The problem isn't neighboring countries refusing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, it's that to many Israeli's believe that they cannot ever stop fighting or they will be overrun. Israel has nuclear weapons, seriously, how would anyone invade Israel? Every Arab capitol could be flattened inside of an hour making the entire arab world uninhabitable for thousands of years. They all know this. Neither side will ever concede, neither side has a shred of honor left, neither side will ever win. I want my country to wash it's hands of the whole thing, the sooner the better.
Posted by Milhaus at 04/23/2009 @ 10:06pm
"We will not deal with nor in any way fund a Palestinian government that includes Hamas unless and until Hamas has renounced violence, recognized Israel and agrees to follow the previous obligations of the Palestinian Authority. ... We want to leave the door open."
End of discussion by H.R.Clinton! Hamas will never do what is required but by making the conditional offer the ball is in their court for the next 4 yrs.
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/23/2009 @ 10:29pm
I appreciate the concern which is been rose. The things need to be sorted out because it's not about the individual but it can be with everyone.
cartmellauneas
<a href= http://www.drug-intervention.com/nevada-drug-intervention.html >Drug Intervention Nevada</a>
Posted by cartmellauneas at 04/23/2009 @ 11:54pm
don't ya "see the links,,,torture indictments,the WP-intrigues ,the economic downscaling ,the Iranian energy,medicine aka super fusion potential,the perceived end of foreign subsidations,the recessed state of economic divisature and doublespeak etc,not to mention the shadow runs in front and death walks behind,all happening in a connected way to coincide with what,ask a commercailised spy employed by the empire &consumer style capitalism incorperated & of events that are not allowed to occur or find their natural way,creep world really needs to get a life and leave the living alone , yer mis read of the hour of the crossing of the photon belt must be the laughing stock of the entire known universe ,which coincidently may or may not be as big or resemble the likeness of our collective skull"the mOOn,that's the MooN 2, war pig operating system_?
Posted by doalive at 04/24/2009 @ 12:07am
Posted by snowball666 at 04/23/2009 @ 11:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Question is would a snowball in a very hot clime stand a better chance than Hamas NOT calling for the death of all Israelies and destroying the existence of Israel as a state or not?
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/24/2009 @ 12:29am
Posted by syfriendly at 04/23/2009 @ 6:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
the Israel problem.?
you and your ilk are the ones we should definitely not consult.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/24/2009 @ 09:14am
Don't be so daft, FZ.
For heaven's sake have you gone completely mad?!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/23/2009 @ 9:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yes Kool - noted expert Howard Kohr says that US aid to Israel increases the prospect for peace in the Middle East. Do check out his scintillating analysis which I am sure was met with many a "amen" on The Hill. An AIPAC summary of Israeli begging followed by cite to a transcript of Kohr's prepared remarks from AIPAC's website.
'AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr recently testified on Capitol Hill about the importance of U.S. security assistance to Israel in the face of growing threats from a nuclear-minded Iran and its terrorist proxies, Hamas and Hizballah. Speaking before the House Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Kohr urged lawmakers to support $2.775 billion in aid to Israel for fiscal year 2010 as called for in a 2007 Memorandum of Understanding signed by the United States and Israel. "The United States and Israel face a very different Middle East than they did during the mid-1990s," Kohr said. "Terrorism, Islamic radicalism and the spread of sophisticated weaponry have significantly increased, as a belligerent Iran seeking hegemony and its proxies have seen their influence rise throughout the region." Click here to read the full text of Kohr's congressional testimony.'
see: AIPAC Testifies on Capitol Hill in Support of Aid to Israel http://www.aipac.org
Posted by OneVote at 04/24/2009 @ 09:49am
See video about AIPAC's 2008 Policy Conference.
http://www.aipac.org/about_AIPAC/Learn_About_AIPAC/2841.asp
Posted by OneVote at 04/24/2009 @ 09:54am
If you want to be crass, say that it's about So Cal job retention, not protection of Israel.
Posted by snowball666 at 04/24/2009 @ 09:58am | ignore this person | warn this person
You know....that would be alot more believable than the crap spread by Kohr and his legion of Congressional whores.
US is THE ENABLER.....that is why we have so many problems in the Middle East, and for so long........
Posted by OneVote at 04/24/2009 @ 10:01am
Benefits of Assistance to Israel
'The $2.775 billion in aid to Israel called for in the 10-year MOU is highly cost-effective, especially compared to the costs of deploying U.S. troops around the world. Aid to Israel supports American ideals by helping the only democracy in the Middle East to defend itself and prosper. Aid to Israel also supports American diplomatic efforts in promoting a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. By ensuring that Israel can defend itself on the battlefield, U.S. aid helps encourage potential enemies to come to the negotiating table and deter potential aggressors. The unwavering commitment and continuity of U.S. aid sends a powerful signal to these adversaries that a negotiated settlement with Israel is the only option. As in the past, U.S. assistance will enable Israel to negotiate with confidence and take historic steps for peace.'
From Howard Kohr - AIPAC testimony cite to above.
Golly....I am convinced...LMAO
Posted by OneVote at 04/24/2009 @ 10:10am
AIPAC 2009 Policy Conference: "The Master Class"......scheduled for May 4, 2009 - should be titled "Blame It on the Palestinians"......sure to be a lesson and master class in denial. Don't want to miss it.................
Master Class - 'The Palestinians Have Never Missed an Opportunity to Miss an Opportunity': The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict This class examines one of the main causes for the Palestinians' failure to establish a state of their own and make peace with Israel: their leadership's tenacious insistence on establishing a Palestinian state that would replace the Jewish state, while repeatedly rejecting opportunities to create a Palestinian state that would live side-by-side with Israel. This session is also offered on Sunday, 11:45 a.m.-1:00 p.m.
Posted by OneVote at 04/24/2009 @ 10:29am
Memorandum of Understanding on U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel 8/16/2007
'The United States and Israel signed a memorandum of understanding that provides $30 billion in U.S. military aid to the Jewish state over the next decade. The memorandum notes that foreign aid enhances the "political, security and economic interests of both countries" and that the two nations "intend to continue their active dialogue on security and economic policy in existing bilateral committees." The new memorandum will replace a previous 10-year aid agreement signed in 1997 that expires next year and that phased out economic aid while gradually increasing the amount of military aid.'
Ah...the MOU.....Israel strong arms Bush to get the nod for the Saudi arms deal backed up a Congress firmly in Israel's back pocket - No MOU - no approval from Israel for sale of arms to the Saudi...reportedly worth about $20 billion. This is a decade long military aid commitment that you the taxpayer is on the hook for - just for the right for our military contractors to sell to the Saudi. Funny Kohr did not mention how this MOU came about in his enumeration of the benefits of continued and unwavering military aid to Israel.
Posted by OneVote at 04/24/2009 @ 10:44am
""Hamas is not a partner for peace. It rejects Israel's right to exist. It rejects previous agreements that have been agreed to by the Palestinian Authority, and it continues to perpetrate violence against its own people."" Posted by pyeatte at 04/23/2009 @ 9:16pm
Pyeatte,
What if Hamas agreed to live side-by-side with Israel? What are the Israelis prepared to give the Palestinians in return? The new fascist leaders of Israel, Netanyahu and Lieberman, reject the two-state solution period. And the new Nazi Lieberman wants to purify Israel as Jewish-only state and expel all Palestinians out of Israel.
Mahmud Abbas gave the Israelis all what they wanted and negotiated peace with them since Oslo 1993. What did Abbas get in return? Abbas got more Jewish settlements, more military checkpoints in the West Bank and an Apartheid wall of partition that robs the best fertile land and water aquifers from the Palestinians. America should suspend all aid to Israel until it agrees to negotiate for the two-state solution seriously and stop murdering Palestinians and building more settlements on Palestinian land.
The Palestinians have no real partner for peace; the Israelis have been practicing pure deception and snake-oil salesmanship for years.
Posted by CripThink at 04/24/2009 @ 11:05am
Hamas? Hamas can't even satisfy the PA as a workable partner. How could they possibly be acceptable to the USA, much less Israel. Hamas has repeatedly and unambiguously declared, as recently as this week, that it will never recognize Israel.
Dreyfuss -- In 1936, Churchill condemned Czechoslovakia (I know, it's spelled wrong, my bad) to Nazi oppression, and encouraged Hitler to commence WWII. Israel and worldwide Judaism will not appease unrepentent terrorists who seek the destruction of Israel. You are a modern churchill, willing to sacrifice others. Make your own sacrifices. It's easy to talk when one is secure, comfortable and unthreatened.
Posted by gren at 04/24/2009 @ 12:59pm
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1238562897110&pagename=JPost% 2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Posted by gren at 04/24/2009 @ 1:00pm
Netanyahu admittedly raises conderns about the immediate future of peace negotiations. But who is to blame for the past failures. Let's consider the following:
(see my last post re: link)
Assuming the facts contained therein are true (neither I or anyone else on this site can verify or refute the accuracy of any particular detail of that report), the PA appears to be under the thumb of hard line extremists unable or unwilling to make the compromises necessary for peace.
Posted by gren at 04/24/2009 @ 1:01pm
Another opinion:
'Even if Binyamin Netanyahu were to offer us a Palestinian state tomorrow morning, I'm not sure that we are prepared to meet such a huge challenge."
These were the words of a Palestinian Authority official who briefed reporters hours after US special Middle East envoy George Mitchell held talks with PA President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah last week.
The official said that the continued power struggle between Fatah and Hamas did not only hamper efforts to establish an independent state, but also posed a major threat to the entire "Palestinian national project."
This is from a column by KHALED ABU TOAMEH in today's Jpost.
Posted by gren at 04/24/2009 @ 1:48pm
gren,
You are a deceptive Zionist and no different than your Israeli brethrens who overwhelmingly voted the fascists Netanyahu and Lieberman to office. What peace are you talking about in the first place?
The West Bank has been totally annexed; the Jewish fundamentalist settlers have stolen 80% of its water resources and its most fertile land. The for-Jews-only roads have turned the West Bank into a large Jewish settlement. The Apartheid wall has separated Palestinians from their farm lands and water resources. The daily demolition of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem has given Israel total control of the city; and you are still talking about peace. What kind of peace has been left for the Palestinians to negotiate for and with whom; the fascist Lieberman?
You are a shameless Zionist who selected the wrong medium, The Pages of the Nation, to perpetuate your lie and deception. Why don't take your BS lie to Fox News; where you can find more receptive audience (Idiot Evangelicals who buy into your propaganda).
It is only a matter of time before the Apartheid state of Israel will meet the fate of its mentor; the racist South Africa.
Posted by CripThink at 04/24/2009 @ 1:52pm
Hey Crip -- calm down before you have a heart attack. And let go of all the hate.
I know you are invested in your worldview. but facts are facts. If you have contrary facts, cite them. I showed you mine, now show me yours. But I suspect you're all propoganda and no factual basis. are you a leftist or a progressive. The former is a partisan ideolgue who rants and raves regardless of the facts in the mirroe image of the right wing lunatics. A progressive is rational and engages in reasoned discourse to investigate the facts and truth.
BTW -- the Israeli proposals are based on withdrawal from 93% of the West Bank. Except for 4 urban centers within a couple of miles of the green line, and sections of East Jerusalem, all will be palestinian. All other settlements will be evacuated. Know the facts.
Posted by gren at 04/24/2009 @ 2:14pm
MY BOOK IS BETTER THAN YOURS!!!!!!
(if god is so smart, why does it write so many books?)
i think god should start a blog.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/24/2009 @ 2:28pm
Posted by emile duBois at 04/24/2009 @ 09:14am | ignore this person | warn this person
I don't know who "my ilk" are or are not, but here is noble, enlightened Israel at its best:
http://www.btselem.org/English/Testimonies/2009 0410_Settlers_assault_pregnang_woman_near_Um _al_Kheir_witness_al_Hazalin.asp
Courtesy of the anti-Semitic, Islamo-fascist, terrorist-sympathizing radical-fanatic Jew-hating Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.
Yes, there is definitely an Israel problem here in the US. Our national government is unable to independently assess and determine policy for reacting to a nuclear-armed rogue nation engaged in expansion with "settlers" who assault pregnant women in addition to all the other terrible things they do.
No, no, don't "consult" me ... listen to the Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. That is, since, apparently, in your mind, anyone who is candid about the reality of Israeli truculence, racism, violence, and Machiavellian political operation here in the US is apparently of some "ilk" and not to be heard.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/24/2009 @ 3:51pm
Somehow, the Israel/Palestine issue always evokes maximal looniness from the loony left.
Israel's political mood, at the moment, is truculent, but not intransigent. It reflects the country's understandable anger at the Hamas response to the evacuation of Gaza and a number of West Bank settlements in 2005, which was to accelerate the use of various terrorist tactics. There is a strand of crazy nationalism in the spectrum of Israeli public opinion, to be sure, but it is far from dominant and would wither but for the even crazier revanchism of Hamas and its friends. Of course, the patronizing advice from the international "left" to the effect that Israel should commit national suicide hasn't sweetened the Israeli mood; it has merely fed the disgust that translates into votes for Likud and Yisrael Beitenu.
Hamas is just plain bad news, however you look at it. Nothing in their history suggests any ability to find some kind of modus vivendi with a Jewish state. By contrast, Netanyahu, disagreeable as he may be, is a politician in the western mode and can be brought to heel by shrewd US diplomacy and pressure from American Jews, pressure that is already being felt. In any case, his government probably couldn't survive a serious parliamentary crisis; he has lost considerable popular support in the short time since his ambiguous electoral win.
In sum, the best course for the US is probably to keep pounding away at Netanyahu on the settlements and the larger territorial issues, while doing what it can, openly or covertly, to render Hamas toothless. Kowtowing to it at any level simply prolongs the agony of all concerned, especially the Palestinians.
Posted by fossil at 04/24/2009 @ 4:53pm
>>>A good first step: the president should say, in public, that he'd welcome efforts by US allies in the Arab world, to broker an accord between Hamas and Fatah.<<<
You got it, DREYFUSS!
Encourage the formation of a unity government between Hamas and Fatah, in which this unity government recognizes Israel's right to exist in borders to be negotiated in accordance with the Annapolis agreements, renounce violence, and pursue two-state solution.
Who cares what Hamas leaders say separately if the unity government is on board?
Posted by Metteyya at 04/24/2009 @ 5:04pm
BTW -- the Israeli proposals are based on withdrawal from 93% of the West Bank. Except for 4 urban centers within a couple of miles of the green line, and sections of East Jerusalem, all will be palestinian. All other settlements will be evacuated. Know the facts.
Posted by gren at 04/24/2009 @ 2:14pm
Gren,
Your deceptive delusion and hallucination are taking you to different world; what 93% are you taking about?
In 2008 alone, under the so-called moderate kadima government, settlements on the West Bank increased by 60%.
http://www.btselem.org/English/Settlements/
B'T selem is an Israeli organization.
Netanyahu Stated that he will not recognize the two-state solution and Lieberman voided all Israeli obligations pertaining to the Roadmap or Annapolis Peace Conference. So what 93% are you bragging about?
Are telling us that the hardcore likudists and the AIPAC extremists are going to allow Obama to pressure Netanyahu and Lieberman to moderate their extremist views? This group of fanatics (The like of Daniel Pipes, Abe Foxman, Allen Dershowits, Haim Saban, etc…) make a guy like Lieberman looks like an angel.
Israel can't deceive the world any more about peace; the fig-leaf has finally fallen. Israeli fascism has been pushed to the forefront of Israeli politics. The racists Netanyahu and Lieberman are now leading the charge on their way to establishing their pure fascist state.
Posted by CripThink at 04/24/2009 @ 5:54pm
@syfriendly
I have been thinking for a time now that most politicians that unconditionally support Israel, at least the Christian ones, are motivated more by evangelical/fundamentalist religious prophecy than favors from AIPAC. I'm Jewish, so I don't really know the details of wacky Christian sects, but I have heard of a prophecy that if all Jews are in Israel, and if Israel controls all of the holy land area, then Judgment Day comes...good for them, since supposedly they go to heaven, and bad for everyone else, who get annihilated. Religion is a powerful motivator everywhere, not just in the Middle East. And unquestioning, literalistic religious faith is disturbingly strong here in America. There are probably no Republicans, and I doubt more than a couple Democrats/Independents, that would dare appear to be anti-Israel in any way, not only from the hell AIPAC could raise, but also that of the Religious Right.
Posted by zmann at 04/24/2009 @ 8:07pm
@zmann
Given that there are assuredly wacko-religious politicians as you describe, I comtinue to believe that to the politician, money and power are the goals and religion a tool to wield against the susceptible.
I believe that elite support for Israel is mainly about power and wealth, most specifically the wealth of pro-Israel party donors and the power they therefore have to bribe and threaten, collectively.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/24/2009 @ 8:17pm
In 1936, Churchill condemned Czechoslovakia (I know, it's spelled wrong, my bad) to Nazi oppression, and encouraged Hitler to commence WWII.
what nonsense. Churchill did no such thing in '36. he wasn't even in the gov't at that time. he was a member of the house of commons.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/24/2009 @ 9:10pm
Anyone who sets preconditions before negotiations begin is not serious about resolving conflicts. You do not know what is possible until you start talking!
Posted by pjcasey at 04/24/2009 @ 9:22pm
"Given that the new Israeli government is an inflexible bunch of hardliners"
Okay Mr. Dryfuss, given that Hamas (in writing) consistently and unwaveringly declares that the state of Israel can NOT be allowed to exist and they are devoted to killing all Jews;
Reality sets in now doesn't it?
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/24/2009 @ 10:26pm
@syfriendly
You might be right. I would prefer to think that they're just greedy, which can be countered by exposure, public shaming, prison, etc rather than religious fanaticism. It disgusts me that all of these schmucks think that they're helping Israel by letting it do whatever the hell it pleases. Without honest criticism, problems can be ignored until they lead up to collapse...the Soviet Union is a good example of this. And unfortunately, the United States and Israel might be the next examples. The crap that's being put out by the mainstream media (and not quite MSM such as Fox which nevertheless has an impressive audience) is so ignorant as to be a danger to America's security.
Posted by zmann at 04/25/2009 @ 10:56am
Posted by zmann at 04/25/2009 @ 10:56am | ignore this person | warn this person
In general, I found everything you wrote to completely reasonable and easy to agree with. Lunacy reigns.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/25/2009 @ 11:01am
All the usual suspects who want to see the Jews destroyed are here.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/25/2009 @ 11:45am
"...Lunacy reigns."
~Sy
"All the usual suspects who want to see the Jews destroyed are here."
~antisocialist (aka the minister of sinister)
In a strange sense there is beauty to be found here.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/25/2009 @ 12:11pm
In an off topic, Bob Herbert's column today in the NY Times is absolutely superb.
Excerpt from "A Culture Soaked in Blood":
We're confiscating shampoo from carry-on luggage at airports while at the same time handing out high-powered weaponry to criminals and psychotics at gun shows.
There were ceremonies marking the recent 10th anniversary of the shootings at Columbine High School, but very few people remember a mass murder just five months after Columbine, when a man with a semiautomatic handgun opened fire on congregants praying in a Baptist church in Fort Worth. Eight people died, including the gunman, who shot himself....
When something is as pervasive as gun violence in the U.S., which is as common as baseball in the summertime, it's very hard for individual cases to remain in the public mind.
Homicides are only a part of the story.
While more than 12,000 people are murdered with guns annually, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (using the latest available data) tells us that more than 30,000 people are killed over the course of one typical year by guns. That includes 17,000 who commit suicide, nearly 800 who are killed in accidental shootings and more than 300 killed by the police. (In many of the law enforcement shootings, the police officers are reacting to people armed with guns).
And then there are the people who are shot but don't die. Nearly 70,000 fall into that category in a typical year, including 48,000 who are criminally attacked, 4,200 who survive a suicide attempt, more than 15,000 who are shot accidentally, and more than 1,000 -- many with a gun in possession -- who are shot by the police.
The medical cost of treating gunshot wounds in the U.S. is estimated to be well more than $2 billion annually.
End Quote
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/25/2009 @ 12:47pm
Just as in individuals, entire cultures have idiosyncrasies and hideous blind spots --the trick, in both cases, is finding effective means to minimize the worst of these blemishes.
For example, it never ceases to amaze me how utterly absurd it is for creatures here --like Happy the Clown, or Comanche the Silly Indian to name a couple favs-- to rail ad nauseam against "Demoncrats" and Barack "Magic" Obama while failing to catch even the faintest glimmer of the fact that unhampered power in general is a clear and present danger to them no matter which party is actually running the show.
In the end we're essentially all in this together, but I think many "conservatives" in particular are too often typically blind to this concept. Is this a uniquely American phenomenon? I don't think so, but it must be admitted by clear headed observers that America is pretty fucked up.
P.S. If anyone here would like to read a stellar book that is of immense value on the topic of clear thinking and how to go about doing it, I cannot recommend highly enough Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World".
Excerpt from an Amazon reviewer:
As the book states, "the siren song of unreason is not just a cultural wrong but a dangerous plunge into darkness that threatens our most basic freedoms."
This book challenges the reader to critically scrutinize information professed by supposed experts, and be more of a skeptic. Sagan states early on in the book that "some 95 percent of Americans are scientifically illiterate." By using the scientific method combined with a little bit of logic and common sense, one should find that it is much more difficult to be mentally taken advantage of by pseudoscience "experts."
End quote
~Copies are available starting at $2.38, whadd'ya say Happy and Comanche?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/25/2009 @ 12:47pm
If Happy shows up, bloggers here should feel free to let him know that I just addressed his sorry ass.
The pussy has me on permanent ignore. Which is apropos I suppose, since we ARE talking about a monumental ignoramus.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/25/2009 @ 12:51pm
Dead day at The Nation blogs it seems.
Here's another gem from the Times today:
"Does Susan Boyle Know What's Next?" by Tom Bergeron
Excerpt:
Ms. Boyle's experience seems to suggest that people are willing to overcome their prejudices and see the world anew. But those same people can turn back into snarky snobs just as easily. Some already have. Post goose-bumped pundits are speculating about a deliberate charade to increase ratings.
The truth is, more often than not we look only for what we expect to see. I've been guilty of this too. Once when I was hosting a daily talk show in Boston, I greeted the studio audience before the broadcast and put them through a training exercise in applause. One woman didn't seem to be buying it. She wasn't applauding at all.
"Come on," I teased. "You're going to have to do better than that. Show a little enthusiasm."
Minutes later, a nervous staff member came up to me in my dressing room.
"That woman you singled out called me over when you left," she said.
"Too bad," I said. "She wasn't clapping."
"Right," the staff member agreed. "But she just wanted you to know something. She only has one arm."
I felt like an idiot. I was looking right at that woman, but I saw only what I needed. And I worry that many of the people looking at Ms. Boyle now are just seeing dollar signs. What happens if she lets them down?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/25/2009 @ 1:37pm
After all, "Yes We Can!" communal euphoria is tough to sustain and even harder to market. We're already grumbling about our president's choice of puppy and asking whether his wife's arms are too toned for national magazines. It's always something, and it's usually nonsense. But it sells newspapers. At least it used to. Now it sells Web sites and cable television.
The real problem is that too often we don't have the courage to sustain wonder. Susan Boyle walked onto that stage and faced down a sea of smug. We need that kind of courage nowadays, and not just on reality shows. We need the courage to believe that stirring voices can be found in unlikely places.
End quote
Oh, by the way. Sorry I called you a sorry ass, "Happy".
;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/25/2009 @ 1:37pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/23/2009 @ 9:24pm:
No, I would not cut of aid for Israel because I support western style democracies. I do not support militant Islamic movements - they want western style democracies destroyed. That was not very difficult...
Posted by pyeatte at 04/25/2009 @ 1:44pm
"That was not very difficult..."
~pyeatte
A truer thing could not have been spoken.
Nothing you seem to say here is particularly well thought out.
Next.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/25/2009 @ 1:46pm
Posted by Milhaus at 04/23/2009 @ 10:06pm:
Your tired rant condeming Israel completely ignores a simple fact. If Israel were not surrounded by throwbacks bent on their destruction, they would be the most peaceful people on the planet to live next to.
Posted by pyeatte at 04/25/2009 @ 1:49pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/25/2009 @ 1:46pm:
Very thoughtful of you for not being specific.
Posted by pyeatte at 04/25/2009 @ 1:52pm
Balderdash, Pie-eye.
Read yer Bible lately?
Here's a link you'll likely not go to, or in any case, understand with anything approaching real human dignity:
tinyurl.com/cr6kb7
Just click on the video interview with your intellectual and humanitarian better, Tikva Honig-Parnass.
I dare ya.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/25/2009 @ 1:55pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/24/2009 @ 2:28pm:
Better to leave blogging to mere mortals otherwise there would probably be a lot of little pillers of salt scattered around the country in front of computer terminals.
Posted by pyeatte at 04/25/2009 @ 2:03pm
You're a light weight, Pie-eye.
Head on over to "Human" Events or The Weakly Standard for more comfortable surroundings.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/25/2009 @ 2:06pm
Your tired rant condeming Israel completely ignores a simple fact. If Israel were not surrounded by throwbacks bent on their destruction, they would be the most peaceful people on the planet to live next to.
Posted by pyeatte at 04/25/2009 @ 1:49pm
If Israel did not commit the grandest heist in history against the Palestinians, why should anyone care? Those who thrive on stealing other people's land are condemned to live in fear forever.
Posted by CripThink at 04/25/2009 @ 2:58pm
Those who thrive on stealing other people's land are condemned to live in fear forever. Posted by CripThink at 04/25/2009 @ 2:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
the US excepted of course.
thank you for continuing to represent the Hamas point of view in these pages.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/25/2009 @ 3:54pm
Posted by pyeatte at 04/25/2009 @ 1:49pm
People just don't care anymore. No one involved has shown any interest in being a leader in the peacemaking process, for to many years.
Posted by Milhaus at 04/25/2009 @ 5:17pm
If Israel did not commit the grandest heist in history against the Palestinians, why should anyone care? Those who thrive on stealing other people's land are condemned to live in fear forever.
Posted by CripThink at 04/25/2009 @ 2:58pm
Yeah Crip, how dare the Jews live on their historic home which occupies 6 tenths of 1 percent of the ME?
How dare they live in the land of their ancestors going back thousands of years, right Crip?
Tell me, was Nazareth a historic home for Jews or Arabs?
Who built Jerusalem, Jews or Arabs?
When the Arabs were sacrificing their children to Molech, who was bringing a religion of peace and respect to the Middle East?
Posted by antisocialist at 04/25/2009 @ 5:18pm
"How dare they live in the land of their ancestors going back thousands of years, right Crip?"
~Sinister Minister
By that logic it's safe to assume that you're a strong proponent of giving back the land we stole from the American Indians.
Oh, that's right, they're just stinky smelly brown people. Kinda like those stinky, smelly philistines. You know, those Palestinian nonentities.
I catch your drift, Reverend. The aroma is pungent enough to be sliced by the proverbial knife. The same one you daily use to stab yourself in the back with your own "arguments".
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/25/2009 @ 5:58pm
thank you for continuing to represent the Hamas point of view in these pages.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/25/2009 @ 3:54pm
duBoise,
It is unusual indeed for someone to advocate for the right of the oppressed Palestinian people in America. You have had the entire Zionist media empire playing your tune and brain-washing Americans for generations. If speaking of the fascist nature of Israel reflects Hamas point of view; then I will gladly agree to be Hamas spokesman any time.
Posted by CripThink at 04/25/2009 @ 6:20pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/25/2009 @ 5:58pm
I do realize that you leftists love red herring arguments rather than address the core issue, but once in a while it would be nice to see a direct response.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/25/2009 @ 6:22pm
Even when I have some time to burn on the blogs, I find myself with an eye and back problem with you, "Reverend".
I just can't see going back there.
You are apparently incapable of showing that you've learned something new and have changed your view on anything of significance. It's really no different arguing politics with you than arguing with a true believer Christian about the thinness of their faith. History and probing inquiry are strictly verboten.
Funny thing is, you seem to have some good qualities but what issues from your mouth all too frequently is frankly, grotesque.
As an aside, my own life journey has included several shifts in philosophy beginning with the shedding of my Christian faith upbringing due to life experiences and upon reading ranging from Hume to Bertrand Russell to Michael Martin and much else besides. I take it as a badge of honor to seek out sound sources and attempt --to the best extent possible-- to understand reality.
I don't claim to have it figured out by any means, but it's almost painful to look at where you stand, Larry.
Where's your growth, man?
And I'm not talkin' about the large cancerous one that hangs off the side of your head --i.e. your loathsome and fearful views.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/25/2009 @ 6:44pm
When the Arabs were sacrificing their children to Molech, who was bringing a religion of peace and respect to the Middle East?
Posted by antisocialist at 04/25/2009 @ 5:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I don't think the so-called palestiniens have actually given up sacrificing their children to their God of hate and lies to date! They just don't name him anymore!
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/25/2009 @ 6:44pm
It is unusual indeed for someone to advocate for the right of the oppressed Palestinian people in America.
I have done so myself. the west bank palestinians are entitled to the west bank.
they are not entitled to Israel, which is the result of a partition. the arabs were given their "half", which of course was far greater than Israel, and is now called Jordan.
on both sides there are many who wish warfare forever, you have given no indication that you are not in that group.
let me know when you have some realistic proposal to end the warfare and the stale mate. I won't hold my breath.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/25/2009 @ 6:52pm
Yeah Crip, how dare the Jews live on their historic home
Posted by antisocialist at 04/25/2009 @ 5:18pm
Anti Social,
It is easy for you to pontificate about Biblical Prophesies when it involves other people's lives. Had you been a Palestinian, I take it that you would have willingly surrendered the Grand Deed to your House in Jerusalem to the first Brooklyn Jew who comes asking for it. Assuming that you lived in Jerusalem for generations and the Jew spent his entire life in Brooklyn. Furthermore, I take it that you would have been more motivated to give up your home if the Brooklyn Jew presented you with an eviction order issued by the Court of King Solomon 3000 years ago. Is that what you want the Palestinians to do, you hypocrite? You know damn well that I avoid responding to your threads on purpose, unless you address me specifically. I am always willing to engage in rational and intelligent debate, but I have always felt it is a waste of time to engage a hypocrite evangelical like you.
Why it is in your view that the Palestinians have to pay for what the Germans did to the Jews? Do you think that God would be really pleased to see the Jewish settlers take over the homes of Palestinians and make refugees out of them; how cruel can your God be?
Why it is that a Polish Jew has more right to settle the West Bank than a Palestinian peasant whose family lived there for generations? Can you set your Bible aside for a minute and respond like a human being?
Posted by CripThink at 04/25/2009 @ 7:12pm
Crip,much of the above is complete nonsense. jews have always lived in Jerusalem. jews have always lived in palestine. as many as 40% of the jews in Israel at its founding came from elsewhere in the middle east, where they were expelled. Israel was conceived decades before the final solution.
that said, I don't take the satanic preacher seriously. that the jews were promised something in a 3000 year old book is not a basis for discussion or politics.
when we are talking of the west bank settlers, we are in some agreement. I believe in "settlers raus".
the west bank was a part of Jordan. they don't want it or the west bank palestinians back. that should tell you something.
try to let some light into the rhetorical cave in which you dwell.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/25/2009 @ 7:25pm
let me know when you have some realistic proposal to end the warfare and the stale mate. I won't hold my breath.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/25/2009 @ 6:52pm
duBoise,
It is not up to you buddy, even if you got my consent.
You got the fascist Lieberman and the snake-oil salesman Netanyahu to contend with. Then you got the likudists and the AIPAC's fanatics who graduated from Meir Kahane's religious schools in America and won't yield an inch of land for peace.
The Arabs have put their peace proposal on the table. It calls for full recognition of Israel by 22 Arab countries and full political, economic and cultural ties with the Arab World, if Israel pulls back to its June 4, 1967 border.
If you are not a hard core Zionist, and you told me that you aren't, then you don't have a seat at the table and can't vote on this issue; sorry.
Posted by CripThink at 04/25/2009 @ 7:34pm
It calls for full recognition of Israel by 22 Arab countries and full political, economic and cultural ties with the Arab World, if Israel pulls back to its June 4, 1967 border.
does that include Hamas? I think not.
does it include a cessation of rocket attacks?
you make simple that which isn't simple. right of return, status of Jerusalem, and many others are what complicate matters.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/25/2009 @ 8:29pm
i say give the jews kansas and the palestinians can have west virginia.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/26/2009 @ 12:51am
does that include Hamas? I think not.
does it include a cessation of rocket attacks?
you make simple that which isn't simple. right of return, status of Jerusalem, and many others are what complicate matters.
Posted by emile duBois
Hamas has said they will abide by whatever treaty the larger Palestinian entity agrees to. The rocket attacks have been a response to the blockade. The Israelis broke the ceasefire with targeted assassinations and then blamed Hamas for fighting back as per usual.
The right of return issue can be resolved through reparation payments and resettlement in the new Palestinian state. Jerusalem should either be shared or divided. It's not Israel's to claim in its entirety. Their claim ends at Jewish W. Jerusalem. The complications are all part of Israel's footdragging to grab more territory.
Posted by nukemind at 04/26/2009 @ 1:13pm
Posted by nukemind at 04/26/2009 @ 1:13pm
Do they let people like you drive a car or operate other moving equipment?
No one can be that ignorant of the facts (well, Cripthink, Syfriendly and other anti-semites).
Jerusalem has never been an Arab capital in all history. Only the Jews have ever had Israel as their capital. Check your history besides what the jihadists and anti-semitic, Anti-American professors have filled your brainless mind with.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/26/2009 @ 6:11pm
Do they let people like you drive a car or operate other moving equipment?
No one can be that ignorant of the facts (well, Cripthink, Syfriendly and other anti-semites).
Jerusalem has never been an Arab capital in all history. Only the Jews have ever had Israel as their capital. Check your history besides what the jihadists and anti-semitic, Anti-American professors have filled your brainless mind with.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/26/2009 @ 6:11pm
Haha, good one 'anti-socialist' or can we just use a more accurate euphemism for you like fascist? As for ignorance, I've been getting a good laugh at your rudimentary understanding (or the lack thereof) of the Mideast.
You dimwit, Jerusalem is occupied territory. What does it being a capital have to do with anything? And trotting out ancient history to support your point (which is as yet unreadable)? There is a centuries long gap between the British Mandate and the UN creation of Israel and the diaspora. Or are you willing to award the Magyars territory in Central Asia. Your posts are good for some laughs albeit in very small doses. Keep trying sport, you'll maybe learn something here you wouldn't at your Rush Limbaugh worship forums.
Posted by nukemind at 04/27/2009 @ 01:37am
Question for the Israel bashers who want a mutually acceptable peace, not Israel's defeat.
Since the Oslo accords, all negotiations have been premised on the paradigm that Israel would retain some land (less than 10%) of the west bank where if has urban development, with the Palestinians to be compensated with land elsewhere. Yesterday abbas declared publically that he would not agree to less than every square inch of the west Bank, demanding a return to the 67 lines. Perhaps that is mere posturing for public consumption and in response to Netanyahu's resistance to publically affirming the continuation of the Oslo/Camp David/Livni negotiating process. But if not, don't you think that's a significant and damaging step backwards.
Posted by gren at 04/27/2009 @ 1:20pm
Posted by gren at 04/27/2009 @ 1:20pm
It is the inevitable posturing given the current Israeli govt.'s intransigent position. Regardless of these specifics, which are generally used to hold up a final peace it seems, the Arab League's proposals specify that if Israel wants acceptance in the region, as a whole, it need only return to the 1967 borders or their negotiated equivalent. Ball's been in Israel's court ever since. Let's keep in mind the past as well. The Carter admin. had to put significant pressure on the Israelis to give up the Sinai and yet few in Israel today regret the long-standing peace they have with Egypt (which led to the peace with Jordan as well). Other factors are at play, such as water rights. The Israelis siphon water from Palestinians areas and want to keep these areas and they want ALL of Jerusalem including Arab East Jerusalem. This to me sounds like a drunk with power imperialist state that refuses to share and, at the same time, calls those who oppose them terrorists. It seems apparent that this conflict could end very quickly if the Israelis would just accept a land for peace deal with the Arab League, but, currently, they feel they don't need to. They have nukes, a potent military of their own and unlimited US backing. Power on one side and a weak disorganized people who lash out at their oppressors on the other. I simply can't see any reason to sympathize with the Israelis given their track record and current position. This is hardly being anti-Israeli as I don't wish them to be destroyed and I find that rhetoric silly given their HUGE military advantage replete with 100s of doomsday devices.
Posted by nukemind at 04/27/2009 @ 2:53pm
tell nukemind
I appreciate your reasoned response. However, please note that Israel has offered to divide jerusalem, including dividing the Old City, both in connection with the Camp David/Taba negotiations, and the recent Annopolis negotiations conducted by Livni.
It's not an issue of sympathy. I believe that all of the blame for the lack of a peace treaty is being unfairly placed on Israel. While there are issues that I criticize Israel for, and other issues that reasonable people can disagree as to whether Israel is at fault, I believe there also is not-insignificant fault and blame that the Palestinians also must shoulder.
Posted by gren at 04/27/2009 @ 3:22pm
Posted by gren at 04/27/2009 @ 3:22pm
Actually, the Israeli position was to cede some suburbs of Jerusalem, while maintaining control over the city proper. This has never changed. Barak's final deal to Arafat was just that (and included a falsely publicized offer of giving them 90% of what they wanted which is not true) and left the Palestinians wanting.
Annapolis only had mention of discussing the status of E. Jerusalem and no Israeli concession (google Ha'aretz). In fact, only when Olmert was assured of being pushed out of power did he say the solution is a return to the '67 borders. His fellow politicians were notably silent with most criticizing his position. So yes I'm blaming the Israelis for the lack of a peaceful resolution at this time.
It's not unfair when one side is the powerhouse and continues to footdrag and annex territory that isn't theirs. They aren't budging on E. Jerusalem and they never stopped settlement activity and expansion. Sharon even made it clear that they were leaving Gaza to tighten their hold on the WB (and Gaza was too small and had too many Pals). The Palestinians are the colonized. Blaming them is like blaming the Native Americans for American expansionists. Of course they are fighting back. I would too if a bunch of invaders showed up claiming my ancestral home as theirs. And in this country, you even so much as say one thing critical about Israel and you're an anti-Semite. Most of the rest of the world is a different story obviously, but this country, even with Democrats who are as beholden to the pro-Israel lobby as anyone, don't waffle when it comes to backing the Israelis to the hilt. There is a one-sided debate in the mainstream and it is pro-Israel.
Posted by nukemind at 04/27/2009 @ 8:18pm