Haven't seen the speech transcript yet. AP says that Netanyahu broke new ground by offering a limited Palestinian state. A flag and currency– sounds like. A friend who has seen it writes that the speech was red meat to the right wing:
Netanyahu opted to pander to the consensus, most especially to the
settler base, which was his audience at Bar Ilan University. He made
them very happy.
Mean-spirited in the extreme, he emphasized on Israel's god-given
right to the "Land of Israel" (euphemism for Israel Plus–plus Judea
and Samaria, i.e., the West Bank, aka Palestine). And on Israel's right
to all of Jerusalem. There was not a generous word about the
Palestinians. Only the usual tone of threat. There was no surprise in
this, of course, but the nasty, supercilious, and hypernationalist tone
even took my breath away.
Lest you think it was all negative, he did offer to cooperate with the Palestinians on solar panels.
So, as expected, Bibi has learned nothing, and hasn't even enough sense to realize that standing tough when you have nothing to back you up is a recipe for failure. His coalition government won't survive long at this rate. The Palestinians have never been interested in the idea of living in the equivalent of a Native American reservation. That he thinks they should jump at the chance now just shows how out of touch he is.
Elsewhere I wrote that Netanyahu might just as well have taken the day off since his speech was bound to be nothing but empty, self-serving polemics, with no substance whatsoever. Seems I was correct.
Same Hasbara talking points on history. Same presentation of victims. Same position on "natrual growth." Same position on Iran
MondoLies Brings another imaginary SCOOP! I just heard the speech, live, in Hebrew and nothing presented here at MondoLies relates to Netanyahu's speech. I pity you. Have a look at real, published reports, even in the anti-Israeli MSM and see for yourselves…
Perhaps that is the ultimate goal of the US and its Israeli friends—-get rid of Netanyahu and his coalition, to be replaced by a "moderate" such as Livni who of course will do no more to advance the peace process than Bibi, but will stall with the same old nice talk of peace, a more personable face to the Occupation and far more acceptable to the majority of American jews.
In Netanyahu's speech, which he completed less than one hour ago, the Israeli Prime Minister offered to meet any Arab leader, anywhere, any time, without any pre-conditions, to engage in peace talks for the Middle East. He specifically listed Riyadh, Damascus and Beirut. Have a look at how the so-called "Palestineans" responded to Netanyahu's offer to discuss peace. Senior Palestinean Negotiator Sa'eb Erakat responded immediately (it's already on the news wires): "Netanyahu tonight unilaterally ended the negotiations and there is no need for these negotiations anymore. He will have to wait 1,000 years before he finds one Palestinian who will go along with him with this feeble state.' So much for "peace-loving" Palestineans. Jihad forever!
Netanyahu gave a number of conditions for acceptance of a Palestinian state. He said that it must be demilitarized and the Israel must have rights over the airspace. This according to Israeli Internet sources. Also, Ha'aretz reported two days ago that all the points of the speech where given to the Americans. It was also reported that an unnamed US official said that the speech would not be enough to satisfy the Obama administration. Netanyahu indicated settlement expansion would continue invoking the phrase "natural growth."
What again does declaring Netanyahu's preconditions absolutely unacceptable have to do with "Jihad"? Did Sa'eb Erakat call for anything like that? And what again is meeting with Arab leaders going to accomplish if there is absolutely no willingness on Israel's side to accomodate to any of their interests? It'd be just a waste of Kerosene.
You are partly correct. Obama is meddling in internal Israeli affairs, hoping to topple the coalition govt and bring in a more pliant (i.e. spineless) govt. With Cuba, Iran, N Korea, you guys get soooo upset when the White House tries something like that… but when do it to Israel, and you think it's such a great idea….
Netanyahu didn't said the word God in the whole speach. All he said is that "the land of Israel is the land of our fathers, where the Jewish nation was born" etc. Nothing about God.
Relax. Livni or some other smiley-face will come much further in keeping the Occupation going than Bibi-Lieberman. Btw–are you hinting at some moral equivalency between Iran, North Korea, and Israel? What do you suggest, sanctions?
I am reading some headlines in the Hebrew press. Abbas and his people are expressing anger. Erekat said that the speech is a "slap in the face to Obama's efforts." Abbas said that there cannot be any negotiations under these conditions. Aluf Benn's article is titled, "Soft Words, Hardline." NRG has the headline, "Anger on the Right: Netanyahu's Speech Betrays His Constituent." It shows how hard it is to be a politician in Israel. I do not think many people expected anything different from Bibi. The ball is in Obama's court now. He will have to lean on Bibi and fight off the pro-Israeli lobby if anything is going to change.
Another example of expectation management – put the bar so low on the hope that it won't be obvious that its only the crumbs on offer. And that tired old argument about God promising etc. So if the Reverend Moon of the Moonies announced that his God had promised him Manahatan, how many New Yorkers woudl say, "that sounds reasonable?" and depart to live in a tent in the New Mexico deserts?. Not many I'm guessing.
I believe the world is seeing the zionist mental midgets for what they truly are. A murdering clan that lives with a fantasy fairytale belief that they are Gods chosen people, superior to all others, above the law. Sorry to break it to you mental midgets but we don't see you as Gods chosen people. We see you as just an evil clan that was cast in the same mold as Hitler vying for a super race of people that are all jews. May you all rot in hell for all your evil deeds that you have done in the name of your fantasy fairytale belief. The actions you have taken to attempt to make that fantasy fairytale belief a reality are a stain on our modern civilazation. Like Hitler and the prejudice South African regimes that the world tired of, you zionist will also be put in your place in short order. I would not shed a tear or show a bit of remorse if one of the Arab countries encased you zionist mental midgets in a sheet of glass made from the sand you assclowns claim to be your God given land.
Come take my farm and tell me that based on the Bible that my farm belongs to you and is God given, and I would send you to meet your God with my own bare hands as I believe the Arabs should do to you mental midgets. Every human has a right to defend their land from thieves. The zionist are nothing more than a thieving, murdering, prejudice, dilusional religious sect that should be sent back to Europe where they belong. But then again…Europe doesn't want the thieves either!
Don't dismiss the solar panels.
I think the closest US parallel is the Mormons, who have done quite well for themselves, considering that their faith is arrant rubbish. They own a state (albeit a pretty useless, arid one) and are reputedly big in the FBI.
What he said was "Let us begin discussions without preconditions," which is an utterly absurd thing to say, given that his entire speech contained nothing but preconditions. It's always interesting when people say things that are completely nonsensical — it suggests that they don't really care what they say, and are operating under a sort of hypnosis, or 'autopilot'.
Did you expect the truth from these "progressives"?
Richard, your triteness would be comical if it wasn't such a waste of everyone's time and energy.
No moral equivalence. Rather an immoral disproportionality where Leftists get soooo upset when the US topples dictators who are favorites of the Immoral Left, but praise and cheer when the White House does this to Israel. That the Hussein-Obama White House might be seeing Israel in the same bag as the others DOES concern me. Obama is turning out to not be very good on the honesty front…
Fine. So you don't support peace talks. Just remember that next time you go demonstrating for "peace". Erakat says it'll be 1,000 years before peace arrives. Jihad is the only other thing in their pathetic lives. They have waged Jihad for over 1,000 years to date. Another thousand won't bother them. Obama wants to see this 1,400 year old Jihad ended in2 years. Boy, does he have a thing or two to learn.
Did any of you listen to Netanyau? I did. There is no resemlance between what he said and what is being represented here. None.
Wrongo. Netanyahu simply stated that the PRECONDITIONS DEMANDED BY THE PALS are non-starters. The PA has DEMANDED that Arabs be allowed to flood into Israel (while their own areas are kept Judenrein, in the best Nazi fashion). They are not shy about their plan to destroy the Jewish State, even as part of a "Peace Process". Netanyahu simply said that they are free to discuss things but they cannot demand (like Syria always does) that they first agree to win the game before they start playing.
Israeli pols NEVER mention any god. Israelis are remarkably secular, especially compared to Americans who are largely church-going.
Considering we taxpayers are footing the bill to the tune of 3B, I would say that we definitely have a say in the matter and if you would like us not to, please return the money!
But will Hussein-Obama lean on the Arabs? Or will the corrupt dictators continue on their merry way…?
The speech is important, and represents likely the farthest that Netanyahu will go. If this speech was made in 1993, it would have been considered moderate, as it was just slightly to the right of Rabin's positions. But, thankfully, the world has changed in that time. The elements of the Palestinian assertions that are rational remain so, and the Netanyahu proposal really attempts to imagine that Palestinians should merely accept limited legal rights relative to their neighbors. Obama is more committed to equal rights in form and practice, and will at most temporarily compromise, while continuing his insistence on a peer oriented resolution. It would be wonderful if Israel elected leadership that the rest of the world regarded as a pleasure to regard (even if they differ in many details), rather than a irritation. I still would accept and collaborate on the solar panels.
NYT says that Israeli media have reported Bibi meeting with Kadima prior to his speech. He must have known that his more feral supporters would consider his speech a major betrayal. Preparing to defect? He joins Kadima and, under their aegis, continues Israeli rejectionism but with a lipsticked and powdered face? The "Peace Process" then can go on for another several decades as more and more Palestinians are disenfranchised.
JERUSALEM, June 8 (UPI) — A former Israeli finance minister was convicted Monday of stealing millions of shekels from a national trade union he once headed. Avraham Hirchson was found guilty by the Tel Aviv District Court of stealing 2.5 million shekels (more than $600,000) from the National Federation of Workers and its subsidiary. What did you mention? Corruption?
Haaretz has the transcript at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1092810.html.
http://www.forzionssake.net/2009/06/transcript-of... Do you consider any of this wrongly translated? If so, just speak out. If not, I repeat my assessment: Self-serving polemics without any substance. We've all heard this before: Israel has never done anything wrong, everything is the Palestinians' fault, Jews have all the rights to all the land, etc. etc. Turn to any right-wing pro-Zionist blog , and you will find the same stuff, over and over again. It becomes almost comical when he says he will talk about the Palestinians' rights, but then talks at length about Jewish rights or when he brags about the great Israeli achievements of science.
Its corruption for everyone else. For the chosen it is fulfillment of biblical prophecy or some such nonsense.
These are two first sentences of Netanyahu speech, paragraph nine, after solar panels: I appeal to you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Let us begin peace negotiations immediately without prior conditions. He proceeds immediately to exclude East Jerusalem from negotiations, to demand that Palestinians committ themselves to the Jewish nature of Israel, to refuse Palestine armed forces and control over its airspace and demand for a tighter control over West Bank's border than Israel achieved during siege of Gaza. I want this guy to negotiate with my bank manager: We accept unconditionally that Ms Smagacz must repay her £100 overdraft in the next 7 days as agreed, subject for the bank offering her another £100 000 for her immediate disposal with complete control over repayment schedule, no interest whatsoever, ever, and none of those nasty letters as they are so bad for the environment……… "
No, he says it'll be a 1000 years before Netanyahu will find any Palestinian who'd be willing to go along with his plans. He's probably right, and for good reason too. Try and read what you're quoting once in a while. Fortunately, Netanyahu won't be in office for a 1000 years, so the whole question is academic.
Please enlighten us then.
Please give us a url so we can see how misguided we are. Thanks.
Enter text right here!Have a look at real, published reports, even in the anti-Israeli MSM and see for yourselves… Agreed, Jake. Writers like David Brooks and Tom Friedman at the NYTimes, together with Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Jackson Diehl and Fred Hiatt at the Washington Post, sicken me.
Netanyahu just wants to protect Palestinians. The same way that Israel has been protecting the United States from the Moslem world for the last sixty years.
Your link has an extra period at the end. Full text of Netanyahu's foreign policy speech at Bar Ilan http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1092810.html
They've demanded 67 borders, with possibility of consented equal modifications if it leaves Palestine viable to govern, and right to their day in court for contested land on both sides of the green line. They've admitted a willingness to compromise on the demand for "right of return". Its unfortunate that you don't acknowledge that there are different "they"'s, that are polarized by your attitudes of generalization. There are important concerns that must be designed into any practical just peace settlement that accomplish the mutual goals of security for Israeli civilians, and security and self-governance for Palestinians. But those are tangible and practical concerns that can be designed. The circle does meet. Individuals like King Abdullah of Jordan and Abbas are calling Israel's bluff on this currently, BY willingly incorporating features satisfying Israel's security and legal concerns into discussions floated. If a proposal is on the table that confidently leaves Israeli civilians protected and self-governing, then the logic of danger is less compelling, if at all. It leaves, by process of elimination, the wonder of what really is the motivation for settlements. I ask those questions, even as I am a STRONG supporter of Israel's right to exist as Israel, securely, and to defend herself, and for the US to support that.
I think that is accurate. He will do so incrementally, not by grand confrontation.
Nantayahu has agreed to nothing more than a name change for Israel's brutal occupation of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. The occupation will be deceptively passed off as an independent state for the Palestinian people. Netanyahu's so-called concession to the Obama admin. is laughable and an insult to the Palestinian people. It is up to the Obama admin. to use its leverage to force Netanyahu to negotiate a just peace agreement with the Palestinians. The Obama admin. can do this by tying US aid to Israel's progress on the peace agreement with the Palestinians. Otherwise, the Palestinians and arab countries should not support the so-called peace process, which will only be a plot to gain legitimacy for Israel and its brutal occupation of the Palestinian people.
Bibi has accepted the Palestinian's right to statehood, offered to negotiate anytime, anywhere. Sounds good to me. You don't like his final status positions? I don't like all of them either. That's what NEGOTIATION is for.
Perhaps you are right. It's time for sanctions with teeth on Israel – at least on the level of North korea and iran. Though that is unfair to the latter, seeing how Israel is already in possession of a threatening cash of nuclear weapons whereas NK is just starting and Iran has none. i say – let's formalize the BDS and aim it at the one country that has already aattacked its neighbours and is threatening others. Not to mention violations of every UN resolution that passed, much less the ones that were vetoed. Actually Obama is very good on the honesty front – but is still way too polite for most of us. We kind of would like to see israel treated with the same respect afforded South Africa. Or at least with the same respect due to any other client state. Just because you jake is raving racist against muslims, arabs, blacks and who knows what else, doesn't mean we need to continue to support your lavish life style, bought at the expense of the suffering of a great multitude next door. Enough already.
Hey jake, seems to me that it is you who are the true jihadist – along with the settler buddies. Net n' yahoo's proposal is a non starter because he puts carts before horses. been there done that – the palestinians simply don't want to play in a rigged game, or what we call it here – state-sdie – cheaters' poker. Not that i want or have any hope of convincing you. merely bouncing balls here.
… except they have all been presented as preconditions. In any case: This was allegedly an offer of peace (we won't have to wait long for the phrase "an outstretched hand") to the Palestinians. All Palestinian politicians, doves or hawks, have flatly rejected it. The majority of ordinary Palestinians is sure to do the same. If you make a speech trying to better relations with a certain group, and the result is is crass refusal, you did something wrong. Plain and simple. For an example on how to do it right: See Obama's speech in Kairo. But then again, we can be honest here, right? This speech wasn't directed at the Palestinians. He doesn't give a damn about them, much less about successful peace negotiations (if anything, he means to sabotage them.) The audience for the speech was not in Ramallah, but in Washington. Netanyahu hopes he can lull Obama for some time by repeating his past position and postscripting the words "Palestinian state" to it. I kinda hope it won't work.
These are not his final status positions, these are his before-we-even-start positions. His final status positions include Full control of Israel military over whole of the West Bank, 600 checkpoints to stay, jewish only roads, separate legal regimes for Palestinians and Israelis, siege of Gaza to continue indefinately, and, whoever heads PA and sneezes in a way that displeases Netanyahu to be confined to the bunker in Ramallah until their misterious death.
Good points Eva. By all means let me know whether your bank has agreed to your non-pre-conditioned conditional offer. If so, I'm like so abandoning my no-good bank (which keeps sending me good faith offers to raise the interest rate in return for me agreeing to keep them in the black through ever-better bailouts…). israeli style of negotiations: 1. no pre-conditions – all we ask is that you agree it's all ours, always been, always will be for i say so. Allah akbar! 2. all settlement advancements are hereby defined as strategic withdrawals, for which much sympathy 9and mucho dollaro) are expected. 3. what settlements? please define (if it takes 5 years, no problem. We'll wait)
negotiate anytime, anywhere? how about in jerusalem, ie, the palestinian capital portion – under a Palestinian flag? you think that's a possibility? I think the Palestinians should immediately respond with a similarly generous counter-offer: 1. negotiate anytime anywhere. 2. No pre-conditions except that israel should recognize the settlements (including gush etzion) as part of the historic state of palestine, to be annexed to the future state along with their populations. the palestinians may agree to an equal number of their people to be settled in israel, of course. A very generous offer! 3. No pre-conditions except that israel recognizes that palestinians are the true descendents of the emorites and the philistines who are therefore entitled to their ancestral land (which includes all the coastal areas just south of tel aviv). This is actually extremely generous since chances are the palestinians may really be the true descendents of the lost tribes and judean remnants and are really entitled to a lot more of the land. But they are too generous to ask for what's theirs. And are content to consider themselves descendants of non-jewish tribes.
You contradict yourself. How interesting. The palestinians are or are not related to the long extinct philistines. On one hand you demand that the Palestinians be recognized as such, and on the otherhand you state your disbelief in the notion.
HOw much annuAL WELFare so do we give Cuba, IRan, and N KoREA? ANd how many one-sided sweatheart deals do we with Each of them compared those we have with Israel?
Jake said: "offered to meet any Arab leader, anywhere,any time…" This made me think of what Uri Avnery wrote years ago about the v arious Israeli tricks to sabotage peace plans: "The best method is to ask for a meeting with the Arab leader who proposed the offer, "to clarify the issues". That sounds logical. Americans think that, if two people have a quarrel, they should meet and discuss the matter, in order to end it. What can be more reasonable than that? But a conflict between nations does not resemble a quarrel between two people. Every Arab peace offer rests on a two-part premise: You give back the occupied territories, and you get recognition and "normalization". Normalization includes, of course, meetings of the leaders. When the Israeli government demands a meeting with Arab leaders "to clarify details", it actually tries to get the reward (normalization) without delivering the goods (withdrawal from the occupied territories). A beautiful trick, indeed. If the Arab leaders refuse to meet, well, it only shows that their peace offer is a sham, doesn't it?"
Yeah, let the jews take whatever land they want. It's that simple. US taxpayers merely have to pay for it. Why should 98% goys complain?
The translation of his speech in Haaretz makes it very clear that P.M. Netanyahu said nothing new. This is the same tired rhetoric we have been hearing for decades from Israeli politicians while creeping ethnic cleansing and colonization of the Occupied Palestinian Territories continue. Vague talk of economic cooperation and 'collaboration' on solar energy and desalinization does not a new initiative make. He categorically rules out the Right of Return, rules out sovereignty for any Palestinian state (no defense capability, no control of its own airspace, no permission to sign military treaties with other states), rules out an end to Jewish colonization of Occupied Palestinian Territory, and rules out any Palestinian control of Arab East Jerusalem, which is currently undergoing creeping ethnic cleansing and which Palestinians want as their capital, in one breath, and then in the next lying breath says he will meet Arab leaders anywhere without preconditions. P.M. Netanyahu is being both deceptive and disingenuous. The point isn't to meet Arab politicians, it is to negotiate in good faith with Palestinians, including Hamas, the lawfully elected majority party in the Palestinian Authority, which he refuses to do. It is fantasy to pretend you can negotiate a peace treaty with your enemies by talking to everyone but your enemies. The whole point of negotiating a peace treaty is to end hostility between enemies. You can't do that by ignoring them and negotiating with someone else. P.M. Netanyahu is not an idiot; he knows this. He is just not interested at all in genuine peace. P.M. Netanyahu will meet with Arab leaders and yammer all day long for weeks so that he can make an argument to the world that he is trying to make peace. His choice of words in the speech make it very clear that he will not give an inch more now than he would have given before. He implicitly offers apartheid-style bantustans for the Palestinians. That will not solve the conflict, and thus will not meet the security objectives of the United States of America. Fortunately, our current leadership isn't anywhere near stupid enough to fall for any of his bilge.
Here are a few translations from colonial Zionist babble to English. The simple truth is that the root of the conflict has been ? and remains – the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish People to its own state in its historical homeland. "The simple truth is that the root of the conflict has been and remains the refusal" of Palestinians to leave their homes, farms, and land and let us colonize them. It is ours now, in spite of the fact that Israel ceased to exist 2000 years ago, because Israel existed 2000 years ago and some 3000 year old religious texts say God gave it to us forever. It is irrelevant that other people have been living there for the last 2000 years. That's their tough luck: they have to move, and the Americans have to pay for it and suffer the blowback. C.M. – I have much sympathy for arguments based on a Jewish need for a safe haven from possible future exterminatory antisemitism. I have no problem with a Jewish state that does not harm American interests. However, I have zero sympathy for lunatic religious arguments, especially when those making them don't believe in them, but are using them in an attempt to resonate with Americans who may in order to keep the subsidies for colonization flowing. ***************************** We withdrew from the Gaza Strip to the last centimeter, we uprooted dozens of settlements and turned thousands of Israelis out of their homes. In exchange, what we received were missiles raining down on our cities, our towns and our children. The argument that withdrawal would bring peace closer did not stand up to the test of reality. "We withdrew" our colonies from Gaza in 2005 because the IDF had to station almost as many soldiers as colonists to protect said colonists from the vastly more numerous Palestinians whose land they had stolen at gunpoint. We realized we were throwing good money after bad and that ethnic cleansing and colonization of Gaza wasn't going to be successful. Former P.M. Sharon decided that Israel's military resources would be better utilized supporting colonization of the West Bank, where the population density of Palestinians is lower and our network of Jewish-only roads, internal checkpoints, and other population control measures better keep the indigenous people properly docile and compliant. "In exchange" for us giving back the land we stole at gunpoint, we instituted a blockade of all Gazan borders in an attempt to hinder Palestinians from economic, social, and political development. Just between you and me, we are a little pissed at them for successfully resisting ethnic cleansing, and felt a little 'payback' was in order. It hasn't made the state of Israel any safer, but it has given us pro-colonization extremists no end of satisfaction. We eventually removed the IDF from the Philadelphia Corridor (on the Gaza-Egypt border) and let the Egyptians have partial control of the border crossing there. This was safe to do because the Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak is being bribed with $2 billion per year to cooperate with us, and he needs the money to pay for the medieval system of patronage by which he maintains his rule. He can be trusted to do what is in his best interest which, thanks to usefully-idiotic American taxpayers (guided by the Lobby), happily coincides with our own. "The argument" that the removal of our colonies and subsequent blockade of Gaza, especially our very helpful prevention of any commercial traffic from Gazan ports to the outside world through the seaward western Gazan border onto international waters, would inflict enough misery on Gazans to accept the blockade and de facto Israel occupation as a permanent institution "did not stand up to the test of reality".
Indeed, Ali baba. Now where do you think I learnt to make a proposition and proceed to make demands on its basis – most earnestly so – even while discounting the potential veracity of said proposition and proposing two others attached to even greater demands? hopefully they'll go with the first, or else I have proven that we can always play the escalating propositions game….just in case, mind you, just in case. The recipe book is BTW called "Chachmei Chelem" (cf "The wise men of Chelem). Also known in Lingua Franca as "Alice in Wonderland" style of negotiations. I must worn you though – it's full of rabbit holes, so dress accordingly before taking the plunge. Am merely trying to instruct the innocent here – just in case Palestinians have an ounce of credulity left. ergo, QED, or as it says in the good book – Shazam!
The idea that Zionism bases it's claim to the land of Israel on "because God promised it to us" is false. Zionism is and always has been a (mostly) secular movement, and the vast majority of Israelis are not religious. How interested can you really be in fostering peace and a just solution to these very challenging problems if you haven't even bothered to inform yourself of this important fact? A few of the reasons that Zionism does claim a right to a Jewish state in Israel include: 1. Jews have always represented a sizable part of the population in this land, and have had a continuous presence in Israel for 3,200 years. 2. A majority of "Palestinians" are actually descended from other Arab nations and migrated to Palestine (the Ottoman and then British colony) in the late 1800's through early 1900's–just as the majority of today's Israeli's did, so I don't see where their claim to the land is any deeper than that of the Jews. 3. The state of Jordan represents 80% of historic Palestine/Ancient Israel, but in 1921 was broken off and made into a completely Arab (Hashemite, not Palestinian) state, thus depriving Jews of any chance to live on 80% of what they consider to be their ancestral homeland. (Interestingly, though the majority of Jordanians consider themselves to be ethnically Palestinian, nobody seems to be upset about this usurpation of Palestinian land to Hashemite rule). From the Jewish perspective, is it really so unreasonable that Jews be allowed the remaining 20%, or at least a large chunk of it? We've been living in this land for a very long time too, after all. None of the above matters of course if your true interest is in making peace. The only way forward is through compromise and mutual respect, not an insistence on returning the clock to 1948, or 1881, or biblical times. Israelis are here to stay, and so are Palestinians, so let's figure out how to live together. I fully agree that the Palestinians deserve their own state, and that it should be in the W. Bank and Gaza. And with that, a freeze on the settlements with an eye toward eventual evacuation seems like a perfectly reasonable step. But is it so crazy to insist that in exchange for this land, the Palestinians finally recognize that Israel (as a Jewish state) has a right to exist? Or that the state created along Israel's border not have the capacity to carry out the stated aim of a large percentage of it's inhabitants, i.e. of destroying Israel? It doesn't seem like people on this board have an interest in doing anything except building straw-men out of Israel to satisfy their ghoulish fantasies about "Zionists". If that feels good to you, congrats, but I think it would be a lot more productive to try to actually see both sides' point of view and work toward building a real peace in the region.
The first thing they should negotiate is Israel's demand for a "Jewish state." Racist states aren't acceptable anymore.
I don't see that anyone has a right to demand "a Jewish state." There's no support in this country to designate America "the Christian state." That kind of religious/ethnic exclusionism should have gone out with WWII.
Reminds me of president Carter being solemnly assured that Israel undertook to freeze all the settlement activity: "On the West Bank settlements, we worked out language that no new Israeli settlements would be established after the signing of this framework and that the issue of additional settlements would be resolved during the negotiations. Begin later denied that he had agreed to this, and claimed that he had promised to stop building settlements only for a three month period. My notes are clear—the settlement freeze would continue until all negotiations were completed " Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President, 1982 If I remember correctly, a day after accords have been signed, the letter from Begin was given to Carter "clarifying" what he meant.
complete translation of speech
@ I don't see that anyone has a right to demand "a Jewish state." Even moreso, one must consider Jewish positions as "http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.11.29/news3... target="_blank">"The more diverse American society is the safer [Jews] are," what about making the same claim for Israel? Its pretty safe to say that slavery is worse than the current conditions in Palestine. Make a binational state and embrase the multicultural heritage Jews have had for so long in the United States.
I'm confused. Am I a lefty or a fascist, cause I can't be both.
There was a consistent Arab presence there and it numbered more than the Jews. You make it seem like they are not even Arabs. That they have no shared culture/history/religion. You make it seem like they never existed there. Typical Zionist racism.
Nothing but common settler-state screed – Nothing but common settler state claims – "The logic of both Israel and apartheid-era South Africa can be found in their common origins as settler states. In both cases, the settlers CREATED MYTHS, semi-religious or explicitly religious, including that GOD HAD PROVIDED THE LAND for them and that the land was unoccupied upon arrival, a very, very common theme in every settler state, whether it's the United States, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. In both cases, the settlers portrayed themselves to be VICTIMS against natives who were described as SEMI-BARBARIC OR INTOLERANT. Given the permanent state of siege, every settler state AGGRESSION came to be DESCRIBED as a DEFENSIVE ACT, an approach also common with the United States. By way of example, for South Africa, incursions into Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe or anywhere else always against alleged TERRORISTS were justified as alleged defensive actions." http://notinhisname.blogdrive.com/archive/cm-09_c...
Destroy the "Jewish" State? Tough rockos, but it's not my problem.
Where do I say or imply this? And where do you get off calling me a racist? As I said, easier to try to demonize the people you disagree with than to try to understand where they are coming from.
Hey LaidBack, you forgot your briefing notes, you are supposed to be anti-Zionist not anti-Jewish. You make the self-hating Jews here uncomfortable when you stray from the playbook.
Of course you're right about the secularism of the Zionist movement. The positive aspects of that secularism were meant to be throwing off the old shtetl and replacing Yiddish with Hebrew. The early kibbutzim had no Shuls, either, and most of Israel's leaders were atheist. While halacha has the religion passed down through the mother, Israel's Law of Return secularizes this tenant by making someone biologically Jewish through descent. And of course religious law also has provisions for cutting off Israelites from their people if they break certain of God's statutes, the sabbath among them. This makes the Jewish identity filtered through Zionism utterly secular and racial. Of course any one can convert to Judaism and make aliyah if they are approved by the chief rabbi as in the case of several Peruvian Indians a few years back, but this wouldn't make zionism the first supremacist ideology to accept "converts" from other races. Naturally, I find the state rabbis accomplices to this secularization, not a source of spiritual legitimacy.
You make out a list of justifications for the colonisation of Palestine and say they don't matter now. I think that's pretty disingenuous (the Holocaust is one reason for thousands of Jews going to Palestine after the war, many forced by the overseers of the transit camps even though they wanted to go to America. Does that still matter?). However, even though the whole "Jordan is Palestine" thing is very boring, I'm afraid the history does matter to some of us. 1. Jews are not the only ones who've had a continuous presence in the holy land for 3000 years, and even our scripture admits this. If Zionism is this secular, as you say, there shouldn't be any religious justification for the state of Israel. Of course many religious Jews will not agree but that's for another argument.
2. The Arab population in Palestine isn't due to migration. This should be obvious simply from the hundreds of villages that had to be depopulated and demolished so the Israeli villages could be built on the surrounding land (Sderot in place of Najd is an oft-cited example). The Palestinian population was not installed by the conquest from Arabia. Yehoshua Porath, who is obviously not you, wrote a long debunkment of Joan Peters's thesis of most Palestinian Arabs being recent immigrants: "the natural increase of the Arabs—at least twice the rate of the Jews'—slowed down the transformation of the Jews into a majority in Palestine." http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5249 (if you read through this, don't forget the link at the bottom) There's no way Palestine could've been virtually empty of settled Arabs on the eve of Zionist colonisation if for no other reason than it was occupied by Egypt from 1831-1840 which enacted conscription and that led to revolt in Nablus, Ramallah, Hebron and Jerusalem. Acre was also the site of Napoleon's defeat in Palestine.
3. Again, no wonder why you think forgetting history is a requirement for peacemaking. Jordan is 50%-80% Palestinian because of the 1948 nakba that sent most Palestinian refugees into the West Bank and many subsequently moved into Jordan. Not to mention the 1967 refugees, some of whom are still in camps as well. Frankly, you're not going to find too much sympathy among anti-Zionists for the aborted East Bank settlements because then we'd be speaking of Iraq as the Palestinian state! Although no one really likes the Hashemite monarchy for a variety of reasons, Jordan isn't based on chasing out refugees en masse, its demographics are due to absorbing refugees from west of the river.
And this brings us to why there's opposition to Zionism and Israel at its foundation. It can not exist without a Jewish ethnic majority and it can not have that majority without committing mass expulsions, threatening the non-Jews under its immediate control with even more and segregating non-Jews from state owned land within the green line and the exclusively Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, although wait, you're willing to give those up. Except no one believes Israel is willing to give up the territories. Anytime during the last 42 years Israel could've given the West Bank sovereignty, autonomy or at least not build settlements and not change the infrastructure on the ground. Instead the West Bank plus Israel proper is now one country for Jews and disparate islands for the gentiles who live within and can't move freely between their little cantons. Any plan for a sovereign Palestine in the 1967 territory is going to be a fig leaf to say the Palestinians have their own national territory now even though most of the West Bank will be annexed to Israel.
Israel wants to drag on the status quo until the problem of unwanted people living on wanted land somehow goes away. No one's fantasizing about rolling back to 1881 or whatnot. We don't want to wake up one day and find Israel's dirty work is finished. It should be abolished as a Zionist state because as long as it enforces ethnic supremacy within historic Palestine it will never be satisfied. Indeed, Israel has been thwarted in occupying Sinai and southern Lebanon. Demanding the Palestinians renounce the right of return before you stop making war on them and settling their land is very cynical. If you rubber stamp your own mass expulsion, we'll roll back our gains in this portion of your homeland, even though we poured billions of dollars and thousands of lives into it and show no signs of letting up. (sorry for the length of this)
Duh. All this BS about "2000 years ago this", "for 3000 years that" is comically irrelevant to any modern person. But guess who always uses it for justifying their views. Current facts about the West Bank: 1. The Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank have lived there for their entire lives. 2. Israel has full political and sovereign control over the West Bank. It rules all its inhabitants, who are subject to Israeli laws, Israeli regulations, action by Israeli government organs and who pay taxes to Israel. Palestinian inhabitants of course are subject to a different, much more severe, subset of rules than Jewish inhabitants, and have little, if any, chance to appeal. 3. None of the Palestinians have any say in above matters, while all of the Jewish settlers have these democratic rights. This is the core of the problem. And Netanyahu has offered exactly nothing helpful in this regard. If anything, he aims to cement the unequality. P.S.: As an aside. Just replace "Palestinian" with "black", "West Bank" with "South Africa", "Israel" with "the SA government" and "Jew" with "white", adjusting for grammar. Then tell me it's not apartheid – without resorting to legal semantics. P.P.S.: Ghoulish fantasies? Check out some of the reactions of the settler movement. In fact, check out the settler movement. Radical Zionist hatemongers are not a product of our imagination.
Yada,yada…same old. Bib thinks everyone is stupid. His "no preconditons"?…that was only to try and foil both Obama's 'demand' and the Palestine's own "precondition " that settlements stop before they begin peace talks. But here's what gonna happen ….Obama has already , 1) Done the Setup, 2) named the Stakes, 3) Said who writes the rules- the US,4) Clarified the settlements are requirements, not concessions since the land belongs to Palestine anyway. Now the Israelis will have to play the Obama game…they lie, stall,get called on it and pay a penny….they lie stall get called on it again and pay another penny……when Obama has extracted enough penny's from Israel,drip by drip, he will get his own version of whatever he envisions for a Palestine state.
http://www.google.com. Click on News. For extra points, click on "All News Items". Still Clueless? Why am I not surprised?
"P.P.S.: Ghoulish fantasies? Check out some of the reactions of the settler movement. In fact, check out the settler movement. Radical Zionist hatemongers are not a product of our imagination." No they aren't, but they certainly aren't a majority of zionists either. The settlers represent a small and in most ways very unpopular segment of Israeli society. The vast majority of Israelis just want to live in peace and would be more than happy to give up land if they thought it would bring peace. Israel is not the monolithic society that people on this board seem to think it is.
That says all that needs to be said about true evil.
Remember this: The Palestineans never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. It's a good bet that the Hussein-Obama administration will try EVERYTHING to establish a Pal state and the Pals, as is their custom, will refuse everything. Ask Clinton, Barak, Rabin, etc…. Don't go blaming Israel that the Pals insist on being permanent "refugees" generations after ALL OTHER REAL REFUGEES have already re-established themselves in new homes. Unless, of course, you are congenitally antisemitic and then you have this involuntary response….
"Settlements" is a discriminatory term. Remember that many of the "settlements" are JEWISH TOWNS from which JEWS WERE ETHNICALLY CLEANSED BY ARAB MURDERERS in massacres during the 20th century. Not ancient history. In some cases, "settlers" are actually living in the homes of their grandparents, which were never sold to anyone. There should be no more question on the right of Jews to live in "settlements" than the right of Jews to live in Israel.
"You make out a list of justifications for the colonisation of Palestine and say they don't matter now." This is a misrepresentation of my point. Many people on this board seem to think that the only justification for Zionism is that "God gave us the land." I am explaining why this is a false reading of Zionism. People also think that the Jews just came out of nowhere and stole all of the land. I agree wholeheartedly that the Palestinian people got f–d during Israel's foundation, but I'm pointing out that history is a bit more complicated than this simple "the Jews are exactly like colonists everywhere else," reading of things that seems to be so en vogue around here. I then go on to point out that if peace is going to be made, we are going to have to move beyond the past. That doesn't mean to forget or deny the past, including what people on both sides have suffered. But at this point, whatever you think of Israel's founding, there are now millions of Jews in the land (many, I note, who were forcibly expelled from surrounding Arab nations), and I think the idea of a binational state is an unworkable chimera. So that leaves us with trying to find a two state solution, the inevitable result of which will be a lot of unhappy people on both sides. Of course, we could just continue in a state of perpetual war if you prefer.
Is that your real name? Are you so clueless? Israel has given over 90% of disputed terrirtory since 1967 to the Arabs – but 90% of the Arab states are STILL AT WAR with Israel and won't speak to or recognize an Israeli govt. Israel gave 100% of the Sinai, an area twice as large as all the rest of Israel, to Egypt. Yet "normalization" means that Israelis are subject to harrassment and arrest and NO ISRAELIS visit Egypt today. Jordan acts the same way. Israel gave 100% of disputed territory to Lebanon. Even the normally hostile UN agrees on this. Yet Lebanon has engaged in one war after another with Israel. Israel gave 100% of the Gaza Strip to the Pals – and received thousands of rockets in response. Who, then, is guilty of dirty tricks and not meeting obligations? Who are the filthy liars who cannot be trusted? The facts speak for themselves.
Eva, you are a fool. Corrupt people in Israel GO TO COURT AND IF CONVICTED GO TO JAIL. Corrupt people in the Arab world RUN THE ARAB WORLD. Indeed, it is the Arabs themselves who suffer most from this and complain the most from this. Only true antisemites try so very hard to see the opposite….
Jake, wow, I don't know where you learned how to spin facts but this is a hell of a job you're doing. When you steal more land you can't just add it to the till and say "well we gave you back a bigger %". Reminds me of the thief who robs the bank twice, gives back the money he stole the 2nd time and says "well i gave it back but you still want more". I liked your statement that Lebanon "has engaged in one war after another with Israel", you must really have a guilty conscience when spin these stories, if not "remember Qana", specially about giving 100% of Gaza, but blocked the entrances, assasinated the leaders, bombed civilans "i am sure you still remember the scene where that little girl lost all her family on the beach when your people bombed the area. If you're really Jewish, search your soul.
Sorry about that. My mistake.
You don't quite understand. It gives media a chance to concentrate on the "no preconditions" AGAIN rejected by the Palestinians, while in fact it it is much more business as usual. Always good to trigger a well established meme.
What a crock of shit. "Jews ethnically cleansed by Arab murderers?" Read your historian Benny Morris.
From the intro to Ari Shavit's interview with Benny Morris here: Survival of the Fittest? An Interview with Benny Morris By ARI SHAVIT http://www.counterpunch.org/shavit01162004.html
I agree with Dana.
Is this Richard? That would be Richard's first ironic note I notice. It's more the style of somebody else here. But I haven't paid close attention to Richard WittyI yet. Why should Richard use a "I"?
If Jews can lie about 800,000 Jews being ethnically cleansed from Palestine by Arab murderers (and dont bring up the 1921 uprisings after the announcement of the Balfour Agreement, because there were only 76,000 Jews in all of Palestine then) — as several Israeli commenters here have attempted to do — it makes you wonder if they lied about the Holocaust facts and figures.
Are you implying that corrupt souls that are meted with punishment are morally superior than those that get away with it? That's novel. So Madoff is morally superior toKenneth Lay? Keith Weissman and Steve Rosen are morally inferior and should follow the shining moral compass of, say, Larry Franklin??????
Bismuth telluride.
I have never seen Strahl contribute anything rational or factual on MondoLies. His comments on Arab numbers in Israel is simply false. Typical.
Your assessment is, as far as my poor memory can recall, consistent with polling data, and I agree with it. However, the colonization movement is politically very powerful. One reason is that in the Knesset ruling coalitions must be constructed from a diverse array of political parties, giving small parties power in excess of their proportional representation in return for cooperation with larger parties seeking power. Another is that the second and third largest political parties in the 2009 election, Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu, are thoroughly in favor of creeping ethnic cleansing and colonization of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Certainly not all Zionists are radical hatemongers, and I try to differentiate between those in favor of a cessation of colonization, and those who don't. The ugly reality is that at the present time those in favor of it rule Israel, and their policies are diametrically opposed to critical security interests of the United States. We have done an enormous amount for Israel over many decades. It's time for a little consideration to flow in the other direction. Israeli legislative election, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_legislative_...
Zionism is and always has been a (mostly) secular movement, and the vast majority of Israelis are not religious. I know, that's why I said
However, I have zero sympathy for lunatic religious arguments, especially when those making them don't believe in them, but are using them in an attempt to resonate with Americans who may in order to keep the subsidies for colonization flowing.
My observation, perpetual war is the choice of the Jewish demographic entity, its leaders and fellow travelers. Even liberal Zionists who support two states also supported the punitive massacre of Gaza's civilians. The refrain about moving beyond the past rings pretty hollow if we're going to hear it every time there's a conventional war by one air power against a blockaded people who don't have anything to fight with. And you did try to deny the past, by painting the Palestinian Arabs on the eve of the nakba as migrants as well as the Jewish settlers.
Most Israelis don't want to colonize the territories — now. Because the natives made it more trouble than it's worth. That doesn't stop them from looking the other way while their soldiers shoot unarmed demonstrators or arrest thousands without habeas corpus. Until your people take a good look at what they're doing now and stop doing it, moving on is an abstract fantasy. I honestly do not know if one or two states is going to work out best. I only know the Palestinian refugees have the right to return where they were expelled from, and no one has the right to take that away. So do Jews from the Middle East, although in that case Israel would lose much of its rationale.
"Jake in Jerusalem": How DARE you pity me!