From "Why isn't Netanyahu backing two-state solution?" in Ha'aretz:
Netanyahu believes Israel must insist on retaining 50
percent of the West Bank – the open areas in the Jordan Valley and the
Judean Desert that are vital as a security zone. In light of statements
the outgoing government has made to the Palestinians, Netanyahu's
position is a joke meant to kill the negotiations before they even
begin.
And Avigdor Lieberman continues the charm offensive in his campaign for foreign minister in an interview with Newsweek:
Weymouth: You've proposed that the Israeli
Arabs in the Wadi Ara [an area inside the 1967 border] be transferred
to the Palestinian Authority and that Israeli settlers in other areas
be annexed to Israel in a land swap.
Lieberman:
The dividing line for Yisrael Beytenu is who supports terror and who
fights terror. We cannot accept that there are people in Israel that
even during even the war openly supported Hamas.You're talking about Israeli Arabs?
Of course, but not only Arabs. I'm sorry to say that there were also Jews.You propose to say these people are no longer Israeli citizens or that they're supposed to go to the Palestinian territories?
First
of all, [I propose] to outlaw these parties and these political leaders
[who supported Hamas]. Secondly, there must be some kind of national or
military service for all Israelis.We take all our
examples from Europe or the United States. For example, the pledge.
When I suggested the exact procedure like in the United States for the
pledge, everybody here said, "You're a racist, you're a fascist." Why?It's not mandatory in America. No one's going to kick you out of the country if you don't take it.
I
agree with this. We don't have a proposal to kick people out of the
country. But I think the country must demand from the citizens real
responsibility. It's a crazy thing in Israel that a minister doesn't
agree to our anthem. I can't imagine it … The next point is our
relations with the Palestinians. What is [the] reason for so
longstanding a conflict? Many people say it's about occupation,
settlements, settlers, etc. I think that's a misunderstanding. Before
1967, it was the same. And what was before 1948? It was the same. We
have friction between Jews and Arabs.
So it seems he's changed his tune to show he's an equal opportunity demagogue.
Both Netanyahu and Lieberman show that their administration will be guided by a clash of civilizations mentality that offer Palestinians an apartheid state instead of actual sovereignty. Ha'aretz points out that this model is "based on the work of Stanford
University political science professor Stephen Krasner, who was
director of policy planning in the State Department under Condoleezza
Rice. Krasner developed a "restricted sovereignty" model for
problematic state structures."
Will the new administration go for this? We'll see. In the meantime the US media needs to dig into the reality of this new Israeli administration and the fact that the policies they are advocating are not consistent with US policy or values. Newsweek tried to get to the second point:
But people in the United States think you are a racist. What do you say to those people?
I think they don't understand our reality …
Will this answer suffice?
No partner for peace indeed.
This morning in the Guardian:
"Israel PM's family link to Hamas peace bid Olmert rejected
Palestinian attempts to set up talks through go-between before Gaza invasion
Hamas, the militant Palestinian organisation, attempted to conduct secret talks with the Israeli leadership in the protracted run-up to the recent war in Gaza – with messages being passed from the group at one stage through a member of prime minister Ehud Olmert's family.
Confirmation of attempts to establish a direct line of communication between Hamas and Israel – and the willingness of senior figures in Hamas to contemplate direct negotiations – fundamentally alters the narrative of the build-up to the war in Gaza which claimed more than 1,300 Palestinian lives and led to about a dozen Israeli deaths.
Most remarkable is the story of the involvement of a member of the prime minister's family in the passing of messages to Olmert about the case of the kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
Although the Observer is aware of the identity of the family member and full details of the role played, it has agreed to protect anonymity. Gershon Baskin, a veteran Israel peace activist, was at the centre of attempts to open negotiations. Baskin was in touch with senior members of Hamas, Israeli officials and Olmert, via the member of his family.
Over two years, from the kidnap of Shalit, which triggered Israel's economic blockade of the Gaza Strip and its 1.5 million residents right up to the days before Israel launched its three-week long assault, Hamas officials expressed a willingness to talk to Israel directly about the kidnap, conditions for a new ceasefire and the ending of the blockade.
…
Two years after his first contacts through the Olmert family – and with war looming – Baskin said he tried to use his contact again. "I only involved [the person] one more time. I was desperate to get a message to Olmert." This time, however, he was told bluntly that he would "need to find another messenger". He told the Observer: "At this point war had already been decided on."
With the conflict only two weeks away Baskin arranged a meeting with his key Hamas contact in Europe, which resulted in another offer to link Shalit to the lifting of the ceasefire. Nobody on the Israeli side replied to the final offer."
These two men are insane. If our desultory press goes along with this insanity, as they did the arguments for the Iraq War, then our newspapers deserve to go under. ON the other hand, maybe Netanyahu and Lieberman should get more whacko; easier for everyone to see.
We, as a nation of taxpayers, need to pull our money out of this nutcase country. I mean, they can do what they want, but not with my money.
The "model for problematic state structures"? This attitude itself is an abstract model used by every group who ever fought against what are now hailed as virtues by every official USA domestic policy proponent. Richard Witty could have invented this copycat 1984 & Animal Farm attitude and phraseology. It gives hopeful replenished life
to bigotry.
I like the way Lieberman effortlessly switches here:
"We take all our examples from Europe or the United States. For example, the pledge. When I suggested the exact procedure like in the United States for the pledge, everybody here said, "You're a racist, you're a fascist." Why?
(Next question to Lieberman: It's not mandatory in America. No one's going to kick you out of the country if you don't take it.)
"I agree with this."
1st, Lieberman says he follows the example of the USA (& Europe). Then when told it's not mandatory
to take the oath if you were born in the USA, he says that's true. Ignoring that he proposes to do exactly that. Then goes on to pretend he wouldn't kick anyone out of Israel who was born there–just what would he do if they refused?
Many over the years have proposed that native-born Americans should also be made to take a loyalty
oath. They have always been regarded by Jewish organizations as equivalent to NAZIs. It's always been called un-American to demand such an oath. Now it's different, some say, because Israel is a tiny state surrounded by anti-semitic nations.
Whenever dual loyalty came up in the USA, it has always been in the context of some claimed 5th column here. Shrub actually tried to resurrect that kind of thinking, and under the mantel of Commander In Chief, he shredded citizen's right to protest, which is even now a source of calls for
investigation for denial of constitutional rights, even treason according to the claims that have supported the past claims for his impeachment. Shrub's rational, like Lieberman's is that anything goes
if state security is involved.
The arguments for loyalty oaths and military conscription will never go away. Did the USA ever
demand a loyalty oath of civilian native Americans? Or Civil Rights demonstrators? Maybe a conscientious American should argue that all native Americans should take a loyalty oath before
they press, and any government slot with the slightest involvement in foreign policy? Just asking.
BTW, the oath-taker can always lie through his or teeth. Or, if they convince their self the two loyalties
are equal, they wouldn't be lying, right? Wrong?
Should anyone getting a job with the American press also take a loyalty oath?
"Will this answer suffice?"
Phil, for many Americans probably yes. Old habits die hard. I went round a few American conservative bloggers showing that many Israelis consider L. to be a racist, some a fascist or at least a proto-fascist. Well, all these Israel-firsters were apologetic about L. because they'd already been softened up beforehand. So in their book L. isn't great but he's only an 'idiosyncratic Nationalist', something like that. And for the real hardcore ones, L. is gefundenes fressen: supporters of a future Arab-rein Eretz Yisrael will cheer him on (a sizeable minority but I can't see John Hagee e.g. objecting to the Moldovian bouncer).
That his loyalty test thingy is a far cry from America's pledge of allegiance will be lost in translation, I'm afraid.
How he will be perceived by the mainstream will depend a lot on what kind of media profile they fit him out with. Hasbara's good at things like that: they could make Margaret Thatcher look like Michelle Obama if they wanted to…
"Will this answer suffice?"
Phil, for many Americans probably yes. Old habits die hard. I went round a few American conservative bloggers showing that many Israelis consider L. to be a racist, some a fascist or at least a proto-fascist. Well, all these Israel-firsters were apologetic about L. because they'd already been softened up beforehand. So in their book L. isn't great but he's only an 'idiosyncratic Nationalist', something like that. And for the real hardcore ones, L. is gefundenes fressen: supporters of a future Arab-rein Eretz Yisrael will cheer him on (a sizeable minority – I can't see John Hagee e.g. objecting to the Moldovian bouncer).
That his loyalty test thingy is a far cry from America's pledge of allegiance will be lost in translation, I'm afraid.
How he will be perceived in the mainstream will depend a lot on what kind of media profile they fit him out with. Hasbara's good at things like that: they could make Margaret Thatcher look like Michelle Obama if they wanted to…
There has never, not for one moment, ever been an Israeli partner for peace. Not from 1948 when David Ben Gurion assured his fellow Mapai members concerned that they did not have possession of all the land they wanted that "The war will give us the land", not in Oslo, where that agreement was nothing more than a way to buy time for Israel to tighten its grip on the Occupied Territories, and escalate its policy of slow ethnic cleansing, not since Oslo, and certainly not now.
There is no prospect for a viable two-state solution during a Netanyahu led administration.
The blog entry author may be missing the bigger picture in which the discourse fits that is espoused by Netanyahu and Lieberman.
The targets are not merely Palestinians. See Boston (Stoughton) Jews Gone Wilders.
Why dwell on netanyahu and leiberman when 90% of israelis say that israel didn't massacre ENOUGH people in Gaza?
The leaders are a side issue. The question is how to get rid of israel–a Nazified state long beyond any possible hope of redemption.
How do we achieve a post-israel world? That's the only question. The rest is a distraction.
We will see what kind of pressure Obama can exert on the Israelis. In one sense, having Netanyahu form a government with Lieberman may have a silver lining for the peace movement. First, how can Obama and Congress NOT pressure these guys. Certainly the American Jewish community is already divided over past too-harsh Israeli actions, and the "even more" crowd will not be swallowed by many progressive American Jews, so Obama will have increasing cover to separate American interests from Israeli right wing interests. When the students are this restless, political change is in the air. Once this separation occurs, it won't be so easy to go back to identity of interests. Blunderling belligerence will weaken Israel just as it did the US during Bush. Second, if anyone can compromise for Israel without being assassinated and reviled by the Israeli far right, it would be these two. Sort of Nixon to China. Only these two would have the self-confidence to cut the best deal. Livni's Gaza war can be seen in part as stemming from her lack of stature and resulting insecurity on her security credentials. "See, I can be just as bad as the bad boys," doesn't come across as effectively as actually being a bad boy.
Probably being Pollyanna, but hope springs eternal . . . .
I meant "blundering belligerence," but my typo suggetss a new name our last president: Bush the Blunderling.
Livni's dad blew up the King David hotel while his daughter earned her youthful street cred as a participant of violent Judeo-Nazi rallies in israel. Of course, she recently reaffirmed her status as a genocidaire in good standing during the gaza massacre, claiming no humanitarian crisis existed and no end to the extermination jamboree should be contemplated.
There's no substantive difference between any of the israeli leaders. Golda Meir was just as vile as Avigdore Leiberman. The great "dove" Rabin presided over the largest ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in israeli history. These people are filth.
Obama needs to impose an immediate naval blockade with the explicit aim of reducing all of israel to gaza-like conditions.
When the neocons met Shrub in person, that's exactly what they saw, a Blunderling–one they could use he was so ignorant of world history and then current world identifies, both nations and nation leaders. It was like meeting an ignorant drunk who fell off the road, found Jesus and end times, and the rest is history.
Phil and Adam:
Have you heard about this?
From Shamai Leibowitz' blog: link to pursuingjustice.blogspot.com
Perhaps you could attend one of these presentations and report on it, or perhaps get an interview with the two?
Thanks for all your work.
–tree
What engaging responses and lack of Hasbara road humps ! Can we have more of this please?
JCR
Tree's response negated all of the bullshit posted by you and the rest of Phil's Phools. There was no need, at that time, for a voice of reason.
After your mild demonstartion of plaing the perpetual asshole, a response was then required. Congrats, you just went to the asshole level of Phil's Phools.
Ditto Chris…Tree's post was refreshing. He's posted good stuff today! Thanks Tree! :-)
"Whenever dual loyalty came up in the USA, it has always been in the context of some claimed 5th column here."
America doesn't need any loyalty oaths but it also doesn't need citizens who put the interests of other countries ahead of that of the United States. And don't give me that notion that it's okay to be loyal to Israel first because that's the same as being loyal to America.
This country and Israel are different countries with different origins, a different ethnic mix and totally different goals. Right now Israel (and its American supporters) want the US to bomb Iran for it because Iran threatens its Middle East monopoly on nuclear weapons.
America should tell Israel to go pound sand on the matter of the US attacking Iran. Defense Secretary Gates says Iran isn't close to having even one nuclear weapon. But even if it did, Israel still would have 299 more. That's a 29,900% advantage in nuclear devices.
If Israel feels to attack Iran it should do so on its own dime and leave America out of it.
Gregor
i have to disagree. Obama has been doing plenty of saber- rattling toward Iran, in the same idiotic and brainlessly hypocritical way we've come to expect of America. It was the US who destroyed iranian democracy and the US which shot down their civilian passenger jet, refusing to apologize for the blatant act of terror. The US (not israel) named Iran part of the "axis of evil." One could go on.
I'm not trying to say that the Israelis are not depraved filth, reviled by the entire world…of course they are. I'm just saying that America's stance with regard to Iran has likewise been pretty shameful.
"I'm just saying that America's stance with regard to Iran has likewise been pretty shameful."
agreed.
I'm not trying to say that the Israelis are not depraved filth, reviled by the entire world…of course they are. I'm just saying that America's stance with regard to Iran has likewise been pretty shameful."
Is it my imagination or has Rowan outed himself as a sub? haha!
"There is no prospect for a viable two-state solution during a Netanyahu led administration."
There has not been a prospect for a viable two-state solution during any Israeli administration. What there has been under some is a pretense that they were seeking a two-state solution, but that they had no partner on the other side. What there has been under all is a calculated obviation of a two-state solution, in some cases under the guise of seeking same while they took steps to make sure it could not happen. Oslo is a good example, as is that "generous offer" that was made at the end of the Clinton administration – an offer that even some of the Israeli negotiators later admitted they would not have found acceptable in `Arafat's place.
Since they knew Arafat compromising on anything meant his assasination, of course they stated that Arafat would accept nothing less than 100% of his demands.
Which is why there has never been a Palestinian partner for peace.