Hillary Clinton just landed in Israel and the Israeli press is already pessimistic about what she'll think about the state of Israeli politics. From the YNet article "Official: Rightist government may hurt US-Israel relations":
"Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu's views on the Mideast peace process and the narrow right-wing government he is about to establish will undoubtedly harm Israel's relations with the US," a senior political official told Ynet Monday night shortly after Hillary Clinton landed at Ben-Gurion Airport to begin her first visit to Israel and the West Bank as US secretary of state.
"If Clinton did not realize that the process launched at Annapolis was dead before her current trip to the Middle East, she will be made aware of this during her talks with Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials," the source said. . .
"Netanyahu will make it clear to Clinton
that in the framework of a final agreement he will be opposed to any
alliance between the Palestinians and Iran and will object to the
formation of a Palestinian army," a senior aide said. "He will tell her
that while he does not favor diplomatic stalemate, he will not commit
to the Annapolis process and the two-state principle."
Just to be clear: Hamas, who the the US refuses to even give rebuilding materials to, supports the two-state solution more than the incoming Israeli prime minister.
In an interview this past weekend in preparation for her trip Clinton said:
"We are still committed to a two-state
solution. I will also be visiting with Palestinian leaders in Ramallah
to consult with them," she said."We want to strengthen a Palestinian partner willing to accept the conditions outlined by the Quartet and the Arab summit."
I think she may be worried about the wrong side.
According to Haaretz, the Israel govt is going to lay down three "red lines" for the USA. Now the usual concept of "red lines" is that it is forbidden to cross them. One wonders what the sanction behind this forbidding might be, i.e., what will Israel do if the US refuses to observe them? Stamp its little foot?
Just as the previous other times in which the "behind the scenes players" have been there in the picture of policies and what actions are taken when either feelings against the occupiers of the F/P and Palestinians have hurt, the world suffers to date the 13th economical spinter in yet an unknowledgible pubic for so many years the numbness of the blood letting is painless ..for now. The fact that the risks that are taken in the ever broadening relistic efforts of those willing to die for what is "there legally" will never dissapear and drive the settlers from new york into yet another ferver of," blah-blah, it is ours rightfully,=blah blah"
These underlining facts of illegal occupation and the genocide and the players complicit are growing every day..and very worrysome in the cases that have been put to a test by the USA ability to take needed steps to release prisioners of the hague for crimes against humanity, but has anyone relized it implicate the very people that would attempts these actions and have all and any needed steps to ensure ALL criminals are put on trial for their crimes..just as nuremberg, BUT as always a new plan by the occupiers to ensure their gameplane with the personel attached to the leaked helicopter planes which are happenstance in Irans internet arena to use for a solidarity strike after a patsy whom had been put there just for the sole purpose of this advancement and a…coming out of the wood work..so to say. yes they are not through with us by a long shot. we could have all been bailed out already.
"Just to be clear: Hamas, who the the US refuses to even give rebuilding materials to, supports the two-state solution more than the incoming Israeli prime minister. "
Bullshit. Hamas this week refused to participate in any reconciliation with Fatah that included ANY wording acknowledging Israel's existence.
And, it has unilaterally shelled civilians for six years, and before that suicide-bombed civilians gruesomely, to PREVENT a two-state solution.
You live in the ozone. When they change, then you can say they've changed. "Willingness to change in the future" is better than not, but is not yet substantive.
Change? I change ?what change,You Witty ,berely,sog,and the rest of you murderers need stinking change.Iam the rigthful owner of the land .Your power and western supporters dont mean shit to me .Get it morons. WE ARE STAYING.WE WILL NOT ,EVER,ACCEPT YOUR RACIST PRESRNCE AS A STATE FOR THE JEWS .Hillery said that the poor fuckers cant take living with rockets.But iam supposed to take what israshell dished out for me for the last 60 years.I DID NOT COME TO PALESTINE.YOU DID YOU FUCKERS.DONT COMPLAIN.This is my only and last comment directed at the trolls .its really futile trying to reason with zionist murderes.
Seems, dagon reached down to the truth of the matter.
But you did come. You came when the Jews offered jobs. You came from Sria, Egypt, Eastern Palestine (Now known as Jordan), Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and other places. No doubt, some of you were actually born there, but like millions of arabs born in Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Egypt, you are not citizens there.
It is futile trying to reason with you, however.
Dagon,
Your approach keeps your people at war forever. People suffer in that state.
Its unnecessary, and therefore cannot ever be considered a righteous or progressive choice.
On who came to Palestine. There is NOONE on the planet that was "always there".
Harms need to be healed, not revenged, Israel's harms, Hamas' harms.
Richard wants Hamas to recognize Israel, but makes no demand for Israel to recognize Hamas. That's his Jewish conception of fairness. Beautiful thing.
The Arabs are not native to the region. They are invaders.
"You came when the Jews offered jobs"
Since the Zionist slogan was "Jewish labour" those Jews who offered jobs to non-Jews would presumably have incurred the wrath of the Berels of the day (though Berel is such a chemically pure product of the age of illiterate internet moronism that any such projection would be a historic anachronism). In any case, the UN Special Commission on Palestine of 1947 summarised the situation in the real world: "Apart from a small number of experts, no Jewish workers are employed in Arab undertakings and apart from citrus groves, very few Arabs are employed in Jewish enterprises"
Apart from that, the idea that you are not entitled to citizenship of a country because your ancestors came there to seek employment is as repugnant as it is kooky. I don't think even Lieberman has come out with this kind of nonsense.
"The Arabs are not native to the region. They are invaders".
So were the Israelites. Have you read the Bible?
No one but you mentioned 1947, LD.
"the idea that you are not entitled to citizenship of a country because your ancestors came there to seek employment is as repugnant as it is kooky" Tell it to the Arabs. It is their understanding of citizenship.
I'm not LD. If you don't like 1947 perhaps you can give me evidence from any other year concerning large scale Jewish employment of non-Jews which would be sufficient to entice mass migration.
"Tell it to the Arabs. It is their understanding of citizenship". No, it seems to be your understanding of citizenship. But perhaps you can present evidence of Arab countries, or any other countries, which exclude people from citizenship because their ancestors came to those countries in search of employment in preceding centuries.
@Witty
"On who came to Palestine. There is NOONE on the planet that was 'always there'"
True. Since the days when ape man roamed the earth, progressives like to think mankind has advanced.
For example, under the international laws recognized, based on the Nuremberg Trials and their progeny.
Not to mention the on-going zealous pursuit around the world well over half a century later of anyone, for example, who might have been a NAZI guard in a NAZI concentration/death camp. No statute of limitations. Meets with world approval, as do the current attempts to put certain Israelis on trial for what was authorized so recently in Gaza.
Appears, you, Witty are an apartheid apologist, and certainly, a regressive. Go back to your cave, knuckle dragger.
RE: "The Arabs are not native to the region. They are invaders.
Posted by: Julian "
1778: A group of religious Jews purchased land and settled in “Petah Tikva” (=opening of hope” taken from a biblical passage). The purchase and development was helped by generous funds from Baron Edmond de Rothschild who also helped founding Rishon LeZiyyo near Jaffa and Zikhron Yaaqov near Haifa.
1881: By this time, about 10,000 Jews had relocated to these pioneering settlements in Palestine (then part of the Ottoman Empire). From this time up to 1903 ( “first Aliya” ) the total number of jews in the founding few communities was no more than 10,000 people.
"In 1902, the inhabitants of three Palestinian villages – al-Shajara, Misha and Melhamiyya – held a collective peaceful protest against the takeover of 70,000 dunums (7,000 ha) of agricultural land by the first European Zionist settlers." link to palestinemonitor.org
1914: Up to this year, some 418,100 dunums (Dunum= about 0.25 acre) of land were acquired by Jewish Europeans in Palestine. 58% of this was purchased by Zionists from absentee land lords who were not Palestinians, 36% from Palestinian Absentee landlords and the remainder 6% from local landlords and fallahin.
“In 1914 a circular distributed and published in the press and entitled ‘General Summons to Palestinians-Beware of Zionist danger’, warned that ‘The Zionist desire to settle in our country and expel us from it’, and was signed by ‘a Palestinian’.” (Mandel, The Arabs and Zionism, pp220., cited in (“the Palestinians, the Road to Nationhood” David McDowall, 1994 –library reference: DS119.7.M3).T
1919 -1936: The ruling British supported unlimited Jewish immigration and unfair practices of transferring land ownership effecting tens of thousands of fallahin (Palestinian villagers). By 1936, things had gotten so bad for these villagers and for most other Palestinians that they all declared a general strike accompanied by boycotts of all British and Zionist institutions. The strike lasted several months and crippled commercial activities in Mandate-ruled Palestine. The strike was met with extreme physical force and resulted in a popular uprising (some of it violent, some by demonstrations). The uprising was eventually crushed, leaders killed or deported, thousands of Palestinians were killed or injured, and hundreds of homes demolished in collective punishment. But the mayhem resulted in the British white paper of 1939, which recognized and attempted to address some of the grievances. Unfortunately, the White Paper was too little, too late to effect a long-term move toward peace. Britain had created a huge problem by supporting the Zionist program and Britain's regime felt it was not possible to draw back.
The Second World War, Nazi atrocities, and the establishment of the powerful Yishuv (Zionist settlement movement) with British support, all added up to continuing the Zionist project full force.
France then furnished Zionist support, followed by Uncle Sam.
@ Rowan
"According to Haaretz, the Israel govt is going to lay down three "red lines" for the USA. Now the usual concept of "red lines" is that it is forbidden to cross them. One wonders what the sanction behind this forbidding might be, i.e., what will Israel do if the US refuses to observe them? Stamp its little foot?"
No, merely make a few phone calls to key Zionistas in the USA. Congress and the White House will roll over. It's been that way since Kennedy tried to revalue the dollar and stop Israel from building nukes.
He not only lost his public office, he was shot. The Zionistas can meet with the goy government leaders
and just drop a napkin on the table, write down the congressmen in pocket. Sans campaign reform,
nothing will change.
I guess … but looked at that way it's just one particularly glaring case of the bogusness of capitalist 'democracy'.
I looked up the Haaretz story again, and in fact there are four "red lines" and they all concern Iran. The "red lines" regarding the Palestinians and their territorial and national claims don't seem to have been formalised, and I can think of two reasons: one, the political climate in the US establishment is not softened up sufficiently yet, and two, the Iran-related "red lines" have immediate appeal to the very influential military and armaments interests behind the US govt., which are salivating over the prospect of another great big blow-out war.
Well,I see the zio crazies are are hard at work here today. If Phil wasn't having an impact they wouldn't be here foaming at the mouth every day. Phil is right, his side is starting to win.
I said this before but I will point it out again…PRIOR AGREEMENTS,PRIOR AGREEMENTS,PRIOR AGREMENTS….is the tagline to every speech Hillary and the US zionist and Israel makes.
I can recite every US zio and Hillary and Israeli speech by heart…"Hamas must rennounce violence,recongize Israel and ABIDE BY ALL PRIOR AGREEMENTS". You will never hear a speech or demand by the zios that doesn't include demending ALL PRIOR AGREEMENTS be included.
Those PRIOR AGREEMENTS between Israel and the former PLO and Afarat are what Hamas will not agree to.
Who would?
They include water rights and other economic and military controls STILL to be under Israel direction that every US dependent Palestine leader caved to to avoid the ire of Washington.
Then there is the fact that all those PRIOR AGREEMENTS were made in EXCHAGE for Israel not continuing it's settlements…a COMPROMISE by the PLO to try and retain enough viable land for a STATE….but of course Israel continued to expand while whinning that it was Palestine that hadn't lived up to it's agreements.
If I were Hamas I wouldn't accept the US and Israel's CONDITIONS either.
Here is a good rundown( link to boell-meo.org
on one issue that Hamas will not agree to… water rights…(not to mention the agreement that Israel collects all taxes on goods sold by Palestine and hold them and holds them)…Israel diverts and uses 80% of Palestine surface and ground water in the West Bank , Palestine stills gets only 20% of their own water resources..Israel allots it for personal consumption and allows NONE for any other activities in Palestine like farming or industrial uses.
Israel isn't viable without the natural resources of Palestine…just like it is still not self sufficent and economically independent from US and German foreign aid and Jewish donations.
To picture how to make a deal with Israel think of Shakspeare's 'Shylock' character and treat it accordingly.
Then there's Gaza's offshore natural gas fields. Don't forget them.
If you were Hamas, you'd still be an idiot. Just like Rowan.
Real American Life: "what will Israel do if the US refuses to observe them? Stamp its little foot? No, merely make a few phone calls to key Zionistas in the USA. Congress and the White House will roll over."
Boy, you got that right.
What Bibi faces in liberated Washington (extract)
Gershom Gorenberg, Haaretz, Mar 4 2009
link to haaretz.com
… Benjamin Netanyahu will have a tense time when he visits Washington – just as he did during his first term when he faced a president who demanded that he advance a peace process. That assessment isn't quite right – because this time, Netanyahu is likely to have an even more tension-fraught time than he did in the 90s. In his new term, he won't be able to count on Congress as a counterweight to the administration in his relations with America. During his first visit to Washington as prime minister in 1996, Netanyahu spoke before Congress to repeated applause. The part of his speech praising deregulation and tax cuts helped him by warming the hearts of the Republican majority. Today that economic approach is correctly seen as the cause of a worldwide disaster, and the Republicans are a defeated minority. Economic spin won't help Netanyahu build a responsible image. More important, Congress' attitude toward the Arab-Israeli conflict has begun to shift. The conservative line of AIPAC, the veteran pro-Israel lobby, is no longer the only understanding of how to support Israel. The principle of two states for two peoples has become conventional wisdom on the Hill, as someone with a close knowledge of Congressional discussions of foreign policy recently told me. That's the same principle that Netanyahu refused to endorse during his talks with Tzipi Livni …