AIPAC has hailed the Netanyahu speech as a "bold" step. But six years ago Netanyahu wrote a Washington Post op-ed in which he called for "A Limited Palestinian State." Bibi in June 2003:
The guiding principle is this: The Palestinians would be given all the powers needed to govern themselves but none of the powers that could threaten Israel. Put simply, the solution is full self-government for the Palestinians with vital security powers retained by Israel.
For example, the Palestinians would have internal security and police forces but not an army. They would be able to establish diplomatic relations with other countries but not to forge military pacts. They could import goods and merchandise but not weapons and armaments. Control over Palestinian daily life would be in the hands of the Palestinians alone, but security control over borders, ports and airspace would remain in Israel's hands. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon expressed these ideas last year, and most Israelis sup
Related posts:
- Warm n fuzzy Netanyahu hugs Obama and peace, but nuthin about a Palestinian state
- Netanyahu would deny Palestinians 4 rights of any sovereign state, and ‘Washington Post’ won’t tell you that
- AIPAC aligns itself with Netanyahu: Iran is the issue, forget for now about a Palestinian state
- AIPAC line differs with Netanyahu in mentioning eventual ‘viable Palestinian state’
- Possible Netanyahu coalition partner calls for one-state solution
{ 23 comments }
Is there any other country in the world so circumcised ? Just asking.
Good question, especially since before Israel became a state among states it had an army and pacts with various countries–back when it was known as the Jewish Agency…. It got its guns from the red Czechs.
You see I mostly talk to myself, that's what a non-Jewish American does, we have so much power with our 98% of the population….
Indeed, there is very little difference from Netanyahu's "limited sovereignty" and what Ehud Barak was proposing when he was PM. Remember Barak's five nos: – no withdrawal to the pre-1967 boundaries, – no (full) withdrawal from East Jerusalem – no (complete) dismantlement of Jewish settlements – no right of return for Palestinian refugees – no additional army west of the Jordan river No change then from Israel, for oooh, last decade or so at least. Still think the best thing would be for Abbas to announce a fresh new offer known as the "Arab Peace" plan, but maybe could get J-street to call it a "bold" step.
I'm allowing some fuzziness on the edges, but there is a lot of support for a two-state solution of sorts, and inside Israel there are enough players that are already convinced or are not strongly opposed. So from the viewpoint of Obama (I have a lot of imagination) the general idea of a Palestinian pseudostate is not out of reach(and he'd be stupid if he had a hardedged plan for it now). Unlike a real two-state solution it could be achieved with a combination of pressure on Israel and support from some big players inside Israel. For the Palestinians anything is better than now, even if the end result is terribly unfair and far short from a real state. Of course considering the superhuman concessions the Israelis are already doing by stopping settlement expansion, one wonders if they should go much farther than that…
"For the Palestinians anything is better than now, even if the end result is terribly unfair and far short from a real state." … if they just were the good little colonial subject they should be, right? Oh, why can't they just accomodate to being Helots for all eternity?
Why not? If the UN can create a state based purely on tribal loyalties it ought to be able to create a "state" which has no way to defend itself. Then the Palestinians can just be transported a la Diego Garcia. Problem sol-ved! Freedom reigns!
Give the 'Pals' Uganda: a land without people for a people without land!
Palestinians have just tossed aside yet another opportunity to have a homeland. Why? They want to remove the Jews from Israel or at least return the Jews to their diminimus (spelling?) state that Jews held in Arab lands since Mohamud's era. Remember, more than half of Israel's Jews either escaped from Arab lands or are descended from people that escaped Arab lands. These Jews fled Arab domination, created a homeland, were successful, than they were attacked. They beat the attackers back. The attackers created a refugee problem and those attackers kept the Palestinian people as pawns. Time for Arabs to free the Palestinians from their role as pawns. Time to encourage Palestinians to end their war status and build a future for their children. Enough with the revisionist history. Enough blaming the evil Jews. Build a homeland and get on with your lives.
"Enough with the revisionist history" Then take your own advice. The garbage you wrote is exactly that.
"Palestinians have just tossed aside yet another opportunity to have a *homeland*." [Emphasis mine] Probably, yeah. You did mean that kind of "homeland", right? Because it's exactly what Netanyahu offered. (If you're terminally clueless: "Homeland" was another term for the South African Bantustans.) I really rue the fact that our primitive technology makes this difficult, but show me a map (or draw one) of what your "Palestinian homeland" should look like. Then I will either laugh at you for expecting me to take serious a patchwork of tiny territorial specks or for expecting Netanyahu, of all people, to evacuate (or turn over to Palestinian authority) a hundred thousand Jewish settlers at the very least.
Old.
that is a good question. what are the circumcision rates of countries?
Wishing the Palestinians would just disappear doesn't sound your typical colonial project to me. But I'm just making guesses. What would happen if policymakers decide at some point that the facts on the ground preclude even a semblance of a Palestinian state?
poor boy. You start to get really obsessed with that number. Are you gonna repeat it till finally someone pays notice?
God is this tale boring by now.
yes, very. But you like the headline too, do you?
Nothing is more boring than the anti-Israel racist hate of the Pali-propogandists and their KKK fellow masturbators.
Doesn't matter what Netanyahu says. Israel has to play Obama's game now . Everyone was carried away with Obama's Cairo speech but mostly missed two important messages. (Although the think tankers picked upon it) 1)Stopping settlements are a "requirement. Israel can't offer them as a 'concession'..(land for peace) in peace talks "because they don't belong to Israel to begin with". 2) By which he seperated the US from Israel ..as two different countries with different interest …and said that US policy going forward will made by the US…not by Israeli influence from Israel or in the US..
Netanyahu is never going further than Olmert, who made an incredibly generous offer, only to be turned down by Abbas. Jackson Diehl: " In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank — though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert "accepted the principle" of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees — something no previous Israeli prime minister had done — and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert's peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it's almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further. Abbas turned it down. "The gaps were wide," he said. " http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...
Except your boring racist garbage, Chas.
Olmert in retirement stated publicly that the settlements were a core obstacle to sincere peace attempts.
How Phil's people took over from his wife's people: a historical display: http://www.alternativeinsight.com/Agenda_of_Hate.... So now we are down to Phil's favorite jeans?
Comments on this entry are closed.