Israelis seem to be preparing for an Obama presidency that tries to cut a Clinton-like deal early on, with Dennis Ross supervising. So better make more facts on the ground now! David Horovitz, the editor of the Jerusalem Post, whom I saw at AIPAC last month, interviewed Obama in Jerusalem, with Ross in the hallway, and tried to pin him down on “67-plus” borders, i.e., the Israeli landgrab since ’67, on security grounds. Obama comes off as oracular, vague, well-schooled. Just to the right of J Street in his answers: Jerusalem is Israel’s, and to the extent it’s the Palestinians, that depends on the negotiations. And I’m against the settlements, but don’t quote me.
I believe that
Jerusalem is the capital of
Israel. But I think that how
Israel and the Palestinians resolve this issue is a final-status issue. It needs to be left up to the two parties.
Wait: Jerusalem is the world’s business, dude. Otherwise there’ll be more violence. Now here’s the settlements answer. If you can understand what he’s saying, please write it on a note on the stationery of the King David Hotel and stick it in the western wall.
I think that
Israel
should abide by previous agreements and commitments that have been
made, and aggressive settlement construction would seem to violate the
spirit at least, if not the letter, of agreements that have been made
previously.
Israel’s
security
concerns, I think, have to be taken into account, via negotiation. I
think the parties in previous discussions have stated that settlement
construction doesn’t necessarily contribute to that enhanced
security. I think there are those who would argue that the more settlements there are, the more
Israel has to invest in protecting those settlements and the more tensions arise that may undermine Israel’s long-term
security.
Ultimately, though, these are part of the
discussions that have to take place between the parties. But I think
that, based on what’s previously been said, for
Israel to make sure that it is aligned with those previous statements is going to be helpful to the process… Look, I think that both sides on this equation are going to have to make some calculations.
Israel may seek “67-plus” and justify it in terms of the buffer that they need for
security purposes. They’ve got to consider whether getting that buffer is worth the antagonism of the other party.
The Palestinians are going to have to make
a calculation: Are we going to fight for every inch of that ’67 border
or, given the fact that 40 years have now passed, and new realities
have taken place on the ground, do we take a deal that may not perfectly align with the ’67 boundaries? My sense is that both sides recognize that there’s going to have to be some give.
No wonder Israel announced more settlements as soon as he left the country.
Astute take on the timing of the latest Israeli "surge," Phil. It's interesting, who has actually paid for all those settlements over the years.
So Phil, have you finally come around to realizing that Obama is every bit in the clutches of the Israel firsters — if not more so — than any other presidential candidate we've seen in the last two decades? He's even more paranoid about arousing their suspicions than Kerry or Gore or Clinton. It's about more than money, too. This isn't going to change when he's President.
"Jerusalem is the world's business, dude. "
NO. Its not. The world is concerned, but it is the two sovereign entities concern.
The world failed to assert that it was their concern when Jordan invaded in 1948.
It NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, the world's, the US's, what agreement that Israel and Palestine come up with.
To regard it as your business, is TO impose.
If you are concerned about a fair outcome, that is one thing. To insist that the game be that the US wag the dog, is overstepping.
Obama has been consistent.
If YOU (Phil and others) imagined that that Israel's security is not a necessary part of the mutual consent that comprises a treaty, then you are in left field.
Drop the outrage as driver of your comments. It makes you look petulant rather than serious.
The Middle Eastern Dilemma: Israel and Arabs
The two-state models for Palestinian and Israeli is not working. Many experts on the Middle Eastern politics and people would suggest that a two state solution in not viable model. We have struggled with it for nearly 60 years.
Should we be looking at the region as a Federal States with one government elected by all of the people? This model may have a much better chance of survival as a solution for both Israeli and Arabs.
We have been forced into one box by the Israeli Lobby; we need to look outside of this box. We can’t afford war after war to support a failed two-state model.
Both Jewish and Palestinians have paid a high price for a failed system to consider the human side of the Israeli-Jewish struggle for a lasting peace.
I suggest that only as one nation, Federal State of Israel-Palestine, the peace may endure. We, Americans, have failed to see the both side of the struggle for a lasting peace. As Semitic people, they have common historical and religious heritage.
Obama made it clear that Jerusalem would remain the capital of Israel and that he would not see the city divided. Those who advocate one-state solution as a Federal State would also suggest Jerusalem as the capital of the Federation.
The advocates for one-state solution stress that under a two-state solution, Jerusalem can not be the capital of Israel. This city is religious holy city belonging to Jews, Muslims and Christians. This city should not be controlled by a theocratic Jewish state; in that case, it should be an open international city.
If it's not America's business, or the World's what agreement the Israelis and Palestinians come up with because to regard it as such is to impose, then both Israel and Palestine should give us all proportionate foreign aid refunds. God knows we can use more tax refunds.
On the other hand, if it is more the fact that (after 60 years), there will never be a peace agreement without USA and/or World guarantees regarding the security of Israel and Palestine, what does "impose" mean?
Impose means impose.
The effort to make a peer-to-peer playing field is a good one, but that is not imposition, that is mediation.
And, so long as Fatah and Hamas are at functional civil war, there is no peer on the Palestinian side. (Many claim that Israel conducts false-flag operations to distract from Palestinian unity, but if that were the case then NEITHER side would be so gullible as to escalate tensions between themselves, as is occurring now. They both KNOW that it there own parties that are escalating.)
They have three choices:
1. Organize on the basis of DEVELOPMENT of Palestinian nation and institutions.
2. Organize on the basis of opposition to Israel.
3. Fight among themselves
Which do you recommend? Phil, Saif, others? Which do you encourage? Phil, Saif, others?
Obama's statements were appropriate, and certainly appropriate for someone that is not yet in a position of authority.
The appeal of the single-state solution is proposed as a solution imagining that the problem is simply binary – Israel vs Palestine.
The reality is that the problem is NOT binary, but at least triangular. The fight among the Palestinians is severe, and not ignorable, not rationalizable.
You want the US to be the "nation-builder" in Palestine, parallel to Iraq?
Not only should the Palestinians organize themselves in opposition to zionism, but ALL OF HUMANITY should do so, because zionism is a racist colonial landgrab.
Richard has never told us which other forms of colonialism he supports, besides Jewish.
Re: Palestinian in-fighting, I know what would settle it:
President Obama, taking a cue from Lord Balfour, could write a letter to a super-wealthy Palestinian banker, proclaiming that the American empire would "view with favor" the establishment of a Palestinian state … in Israel.
Sound fair?
Mondowoshkis prick.
No point in trying to turn this crowd. They are hopeless.
Israel's standing is hopeless too. Bush has betrayed Israel. Obama is firmly anti-Israeli. But all this doesn't matter. Israel is a burden for the US since Cold War ended. Everyone know that.
For the US to deal in fates and lives of millions of its former allies, is lowthesome and reprehensible.
But it's nothing new, ask any South Vietnamese about it.
Americans deserve their future fate for living by the Russian Vor Law – Die You Today, And I Tomorrow.
In other words, every man for himself.
Don't expect any South Vietnamese to shed tears for American cities lost, burned.
When the victorious Jihad makes deportation of Jews a condition for its 10 year non-agression Treaty with the US, expect its government's easy agreement on that. After all, they have the American interests at heart.
Mr. Mondowoshkis is sure to be included in the transports with the other undesirables.
For the US to deal in fates and lives of millions of its former allies, is lowthesome and reprehensible.
You're right and I wrote a blues about it.
It's called:
"Lowthesome and Reprehensible"
Six million checks to cash
Six million checks to cash
Six million checks to cash
Wanna staunch ally
Tickets to Tel Aviv
Tickets to Tel Aviv
Tickets to Tel Aviv
Signature on the dotted-line
Mama I want that bread
Mama I want that bread
Mama I want that bread
Think you be owin' some
Saddam he just so low
Saddam he just so low
Saddam he just so low
It's downright lowthesome
Sell yo army out
Sell yo army out
Sell yo army out
House of Reprehensibles
Sell yo dolla flat
Sell yo dolla flat
Sell yo dolla flat
Federal Reprehensible
Baby it's just so low
Baby it's just so low
Baby it's just so low
Lowthesome and Reprehensible
Palestine got to go
Palestine got to go
Palestine got to go
To make Israel defensible
"The reality is that the problem is NOT binary, but at least triangular. The fight among the Palestinians is severe, and not ignorable, not rationalizable."
Rationalizable? Err…right.
The reality, Twitty, is that this infighting amongst the Palestinians is an official – if not openly declared – policy of Israel.
You continue to support the destruction of Israel, Richard.
Why?
The infighting among the Palestinians is also sponsored by the USA. What did the USA-Israel duo do, after Bush (in his infinite
willed ignorance encouraged by this neocon cohorts) allowed a real vote and HAMAS came out the winner?
Is HAMAS the mirror image of Zionism?
"Impose means impose."–Witty
Oh, I see, like the Israelis and the Palestinians, as two equally sovereign peoples, with the same military and economic power,
are to sit down and hammer out an agreement?
Would it be an imposition to take some of that foreign aid we give Israel to put those negotiations on C-SPAN and MSNBC, so the USA masses can watch the offers-counteroffers?
Or haven't the American masses paid enough out of their blood and treasure to deserve such?
Is HAMAS the mirror image of Zionism?
Only if it took over the entirety of Israel, acquired a 11-figure military budget, and commenced a policy of ethnic cleansing of non-Arabs for the next 6 or 7 decades.
MM, good point. Perhaps in 6 or 7 decades we would be treated to a Palestinian Richard Witty on this blog?
Dunno, I doubt that Palestine will be able to manufacture the same caliber of hypocritical chauvinist sociopath. Zionism really mints the finest.
Though I truly hope that no nakba of the zionists will occur–it will only perpetuate the cycle of violence for centuries more.
"Dunno, I doubt that Palestine will be able to manufacture the same caliber of hypocritical chauvinist sociopath. Zionism really mints the finest."
This feels like a statement with a slightly racist bend. Do you think the Palestine society is not as complex as the Israeli one?
Do you think there are no hard core people that ultimately see only one solution:
The Israelis have to leave all of Palestine. They took over our land.
We may not like the constant repetition that the "Arabs" only want to push Israelis into the see, but it surely must be on the extreme end of the axis of Palestinian opinion; just as this extreme outlook is there on the Israeli side.
The Palestinians have no rights. They were no nation when we came here. They could easily go to Jordan or Syria with whom they intended to unite then.
To take sides, is a completely different story. I prefer for instance not to take the side of hardliners or fundamentalists on either side or anywhere.
"Would it be an imposition to take some of that foreign aid we give Israel to put those negotiations on C-SPAN and MSNBC, so the USA masses can watch the offers-counteroffers?" This is a great suggestion. We'd find out where the bear shits in the forest then, which is why of course it will never happen. Too sensitive, too complex for the average man to comprehend would be the excuse.
This feels like a statement with a slightly racist bend. Do you think the Palestine society is not as complex as the Israeli one?
Do you think there are no hard core people that ultimately see only one solution:
The Israelis have to leave all of Palestine. They took over our land.
No, it's that I don't think even Islamic fundamentalist propaganda can shape minds the way the American (hence worldwide) media has, since WWII. The English language still reigns supreme and in English, zionist propaganda has no Arab peer.
Now, especially since future hegemons will likely be conducting their affairs in Mandarin, I just don't see the Palestinian diaspora coming to dominate future narratives–with the same kind of massive ignorance and chauvinism that can result–the way that zionism has.
Even with Phil beautifully banging that nakba gong again and again (and may he keep gonging), that narrative (the nakba) just doesn't even hold a candle to "Keeping the world safe for democracy" and "Never Again". It doesn't hold sway. There's no eternal image, no flag being raised at Iwo Jima, no rail thin corpses falling in piles.
(LeaNder, read David Seaton's recent post about JFK and the rhetoric used to get the American people behind the war crime in Vietnam for a good illustration of the power of narrative.)
"This feels like a statement with a slightly racist bend."
Now I'm banging my head on the main stem… I see monkeys falling from every branch, cursing, swearing revenge but I will keep banging because a good fight and a headache are all I want now to forget this insane world.
Little David's slingshot is the USA's tax money. But, how long will that last? Look around you.
"We may not like the constant repetition that the "Arabs" only want to push Israelis into the see, but it surely must be on the extreme end of the axis of Palestinian opinion"
are you completely MAD? Hamas gets steady support at 50% and up; its charter calls for total purge of "Palestine" from Jews.
Are you completely MAD?
Now to the MM character. He doesn't even have an excuse of being greedy immoral profiteer. I wish he'd directly experience 90% of his immediate family and relatives exterminated, expunged. Then let's all gather around and hear him blabber about "narratives".
Not to worry–just small town goys & their families will pay the price.
"Not to worry–just small town goys & their families will pay the price.
Posted by:charles Keating "
said like a true Nazi. Erm, I mean Hitlerist. Ehm, White supremacist with their fixation on Hebraics.
So far the price for American policy of appeasement of radical Islamist expansionism was payed by almost 3000 New-Yorkers mostly.
Do you contend there were no Jews among them?
The whore of American Empire riding the Islamic Jihadi Beast, under the cover of bleeding hearts singing songs of self-admiration of their supposed sensibility and self-righteousness.
Enjoying the ride?