yup the Israelis are really concerned about not wanting to be surrounded by Arab enemies…

by on May 18, 2010 22
0sharesFacebook
0tweetsTwitter
0stumbledStumbleUpon
0sharesReddit
0recommendGoogle

Haaretz: Israel rejects Qatar bid to restore diplomatic ties--

In exchange for renewed ties, Qatar demanded it be allowed to carry out a series of reconstruction projects in Gaza.

Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 22 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Shingo says:
    May 18, 2010 at 9:03 am

    How surprising. They reject the Arab Peace initiative, they rejected the offer by Hams to exchange ambassadors and now this.

    Yet, Witty and the like will keep lamenting about how Israel isn’t being recognized.

    I imagine that they’d even reject being recognized by a state and argue that it represents an existential threat.

    • thankgodimatheist says:
      May 18, 2010 at 9:14 am

      Don’t worry about Witty, Shingo. Not worth your time. He’s no different than zamass. Just a little bit more English torture.

      • Richard Witty says:
        May 18, 2010 at 9:36 am

        Its an indication of intent.

        One of Israel’s primary concerns in negotiations and reconciliation is of confident safety for civilians, and permanence for the state (nothing is permanent).

        To ignore those concerns, and to only rely on assertion, is to commit to war rather than reconciliation.

        • eljay says:
          May 18, 2010 at 11:01 am

          >> A senior source in Jerusalem said that in return for renewed diplomatic relations, the Qataris demanded that they be allowed to carry out a series of reconstruction projects in the Gaza Strip and to import the necessary construction materials.

          An offer of reconstruction – damned if that’s not the green yarn and poetry of peace! But, no, it’s apparently nothing but latent evil, easily devined by Qatar’s “move closer to the radical axis headed by Iran”. (Whose ass did “radical axis” get pulled out of?!)

          >> One of Israel’s primary concerns in negotiations and reconciliation is of confident safety for civilians, and permanence for the state …

          Blah, blah, blah. Israel presents more of an “existential threat” to Palestinians – and Israel and the U.S. present more of an “existential threat” to Iran – than Iran represents to anyone and yet, hypocritically, neither Israel nor the U.S. is part of this “radical axis”.

        • eljay says:
          May 18, 2010 at 11:04 am

          >> One of Israel’s primary concerns in negotiations and reconciliation is of confident safety for civilians, and permanence for the state …

          I forgot to add: And, of course, any move by Iran to secure the safety of its civilians and permanence for the state is viewed as threatening, but when others do it, it’s righteous and good and just. The hypocrisy of it all makes me ill.

        • Sumud says:
          May 18, 2010 at 11:42 am

          “Blah, blah, blah”

          An eloquent summary eljay.

    • Frances says:
      May 18, 2010 at 11:01 am

      “I imagine that they’d even reject being recognized by a state and argue that it represents an existential threat.”

      Exactly. The day Iran recognises Israel, Netanyahu will probably start whining about how it’s a sinister Jew-hating move and they only acknowledged us so they can target their non-existent nuclear weapons in our direction etc.

  2. Richard Parker says:
    May 18, 2010 at 9:27 am

    Qatar was perhaps the first Arab Gulf state to have trade relations with Israel. Not diplomatic relations, but pretty close.

    It gave them up in disgust after Cast Lead (which is the name for an Israeli toy, by the way).

    Now it is asking to help Gaza reconstruct, but has been refused, because Israel says cement introduced into Gaza may help Hamas build bunkers, etc, for war, and not for those thousands of people whose homes were wilfully destroyed 18 months ago.

    Can you have a better example of the bunker mentality of Israel right now?

  3. Richard Witty says:
    May 18, 2010 at 9:42 am

    Likud is dumb. There is not much you can say, relative to Qatar.

    They are hoping that Hamas either moves to declare Gaza a state, or join with the PA.

    I get the reluctance to do both. Both could play into the right-wing Israeli plans to go to war, and justify expansion on the basis of defense, especially if both Hamas and the PA are not confident of their ability to retain discipline among their cadre (which I don’t think either are currently).

    The best would be for Israel to shift to a status of confident (but still conditional) definition of acceptance of Palestine at the green line. As far as Jerusalem goes, I think it would be best if both states chose to site their capitals elsewhere, and let Jerusalem be a non-political city.

    Both capital sites end up either/or. If Palestine establishes its capital outside of the “basin”, and Israel does likewise, who cares whether they call their city “East Jerusalem” or “Jerusalem”, so long as it does not stimulate riots.

    Tel Aviv and Ramallah would be more rational.

    • Chaos4700 says:
      May 18, 2010 at 9:46 am

      And if Likud was “merely” Palestinian instead of “Jewish AND democratic,” you’d be endorsing totalen krieg being dropped on the city of Tel Aviv, instead of on Gaza.

    • Shingo says:
      May 18, 2010 at 6:49 pm

      “They are hoping that Hamas either moves to declare Gaza a state, or join with the PA.”

      If that were true, they wouldn’t be fearing an imposed peace settlement. Needless to say, you won’t be able to produce a single statement from any Likud mdmber yo that effect.

      Kadima and Likud are 2 cheeks of the same backside.

    • Shingo says:
      May 18, 2010 at 7:37 pm

      “I get the reluctance to do both. Both could play into the right-wing Israeli plans to go to war, and justify expansion on the basis of defense, especially if both Hamas and the PA are not confident of their ability to retain discipline among their cadre (which I don’t think either are currently).”

      Don’t you just love the white supremacist tone in Witty’s statements?

      He simultaneously admits that Israel is anxious to go to war and seize any pretext to do so, but admits that he will be heaping the blame on Hamas and the PA for whatever war eventuates, on the grounds that they not prepared to allow Israel to murder their constituents.

  4. GreatLeo says:
    May 18, 2010 at 10:42 am

    “As far as Jerusalem goes, I think it would be best if both states chose to site their capitals elsewhere, and let Jerusalem be a non-political city.”

    So you’re saying Jerusalem should be some kind of corpus separatum. Interesting idea! Too bad nobody thought of it earlier.

  5. potsherd says:
    May 18, 2010 at 10:53 am

    There was a very significant throwaway line in this report. Apparently the first Qatar initiative was rejected in part due to pressure from the US.

    The people running US foreign policy have their brains cast in epoxy, fixed and immovable. They are committed to the Bantustan scenario, to their Mahmoud Quisling, to the idee fixee of “isolating Hamas” and no solvent of reality can shift them.

    • Sumud says:
      May 18, 2010 at 11:44 am

      I wondered about that also potsherd. Pressure from the US means pressure from Obama. I’d like an explanation.

      • Chaos4700 says:
        May 18, 2010 at 11:46 am

        Myself, I don’t need one any more, at least one that is any more detailed than “Rahm Emmanuel.”

      • Colin Murray says:
        May 18, 2010 at 1:30 pm

        Not necessarily, Pres. Obama can’t micromanage every little diplomatic decision. That’s why there is a State Department. Theoretically they are supposed to execute the policies of the President, but in reality they often have their own agenda.

        This is where the Israel Lobby comes in. Political pressure and backscratching get Israel-firsters like Dennis Ross and arguably Hillary Clinton decision-making positions and they proceed to push their agendas right up to the limit of getting fired, which is a pretty high bar for political appointees. What would be the repercussions of firing either of them?

        The question to ask is “Who made the decision?” The abstraction of “the US government said/did …” is highly useful for those who wish to maintain anonymity and avoid responsibility for their actions. Recall the clusterf-ck when some idiot (or not, if they had a shred of brains they would have known what would happen, and the result was consistent with the neocon agenda of smashing the capability of a potentially powerful Arab state to ever again challenge Israel) decided decided to disband the Iraqi army and put hundreds of thousands of men with military training out of work with no other jobs available when they could have been used to reestablish order?

        To this day no one has admitted making the call. The US government decided …

        • Citizen says:
          May 18, 2010 at 2:32 pm

          Apparently, it was Cheney and/or Rumsfeld; most likely Cheney–and order carried down through Wolfowitz-Feith-Bremer.
          link to slate.com

          What’s amazing is nobody knows to this day and Shrub said he didn’t know, nor, apparently, did he care. The order actually defied the agreed US plan to boot, which was to keep the Iraqi army intact minus some top political heads.

  6. RoHa says:
    May 19, 2010 at 8:00 am

    Very sensible of the Israelis. Let the Qataris into Gaza and they might start having beauty contests. Those evil Ay-rabs will stop at nothing.

  7. Chaos4700 says:
    May 19, 2010 at 8:11 am

    As Witty would say, how dare those “violent” “fascists” put Israel in the position where it has to reject yet another peace proposal! Don’t they know that giving Palestinians homes and places to go to school and work and get medical attention is a violation of “Jewish self-determination!”