Netanyahu has rejected one U.S. package too many

I oppose 99% of the Editorials by the infamous Leftist band at Ha'aretz ... but I agree strongly in this instance with Eldar.
Consider this article an 'admission against interest' by me and in no way an endorsement of the rabble at Ha'aretz.

But I believe there is a deal to be had while Obama is prez, Abbas is alive, Fayyed is PM, and that the main hold-up is Netanyahu.
(and to a lesser degree, 2 Palestinian govts)

Netanyahu has rejected one U.S. package too many
After Benjamin Netanyahu's rejection of one too many sweetened deals, the Americans are now refocusing their efforts - moving closer in spirit to the Madrid process.
By Akiva Eldar
Ha'aretz 12/14/10

For the past year and a half, ever since his promising speech at Bar-Ilan University, Netanyahu's shopping basket has been bursting with American-made goodies: brand new fighter jets, an entry ticket into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a flak jacket against the Goldstone report on Operation Cast Lead, and a life preserver against the ripple effect of the flotilla incident. Moreover, the police chief of the free world granted his client Netanyahu free parking in the West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements, after construction there had ostensibly been frozen for 10 months.

The prime minister was supposed to pay for all this by entering into serious talks with the Palestinians on the core issues of the conflict. Hard currency indeed; but Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Netanyahu's right-hand man, and the one who is supposed to represent the left in the government, convinced everyone that Bibi wouldn't leave without paying.

Payment time came during the spring. Over the course of the proximity talks, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas deposited with U.S. envoy George Mitchell a detailed proposal on permanent borders and security arrangements in the territories. Netanyahu invented excuses about political liquidity difficulties and obtained more and more arrangements by which he could pay in installments.

When the time came to renew the moratorium at the end of September, U.S. President Barack Obama sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Netanyahu with a bargain package: a squadron of F-35 fighter planes and a commitment to veto proposals made in international forums for unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. All this in return for a public Israeli commitment to a three-month moratorium on construction in West Bank settlements and to avoid provocations in East Jerusalem.

After such a tempting deal failed to pass in the cabinet, the Americans finally concluded that Netanyahu was merely leading them by the nose. But they're not certain whether Barak knowingly sold them a pig in a poke, or whether he too (like President Shimon Peres) believed the prime minister really had changed.

When Clinton recently invited Kadima leader Tzipi Livni to a private meeting, this signified an unofficial announcement that Netanyahu's account in Washington has been closed. Clinton's speech, in which she demanded that Netanyahu once and for all declare where he proposes the border should run between the two states about which he spoke at Bar-Ilan, was a public declaration of the revolution in the relations between the Obama and Netanyahu administrations. [.....]

Click to expand...

Who said that he has rejected the offering?

As I remember it he has answered with an approval to Obama's offer but when Netanyahu has asked the Americans to put their offering on the paper and make it an official document it created a problem as perhaps they weren't going to stand by their word or perhaps they didn't feel comfortable with the commitment.

At no part did Netanyahu actually reject the offering, he was all for it and has even managed to convince most of his coalition that it is the right move.

Nevertheless, let's not give legitimacy to the idea that the failing of that offering is the result for the lack of peace talks right now. The result of for the lack of peace talks is the Palestinians' recently created precondition that until there will be no Jewish building in the West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem there will be no talks for peace.
As one recalls right after Netanyahu has approved the American offer Abbas' PA came up with the announcement that they aren't going to have peace talks until not only the West Bank but also Eastern Jerusalem is seeing no further Jewish building in it.

Were the Palestinians to give up on that newly created precondition we would have had peace talks right now just like we've had during the Olmert administration and the administrations before it when settlements have been built on a way larger magnitude then they are being built under Netanyahu's.

Who said that he has rejected the offering?

As I remember it he has answered with an approval to Obama's offer but when Netanyahu has asked the Americans to put their offering on the paper and make it an official document it created a problem as perhaps they weren't going to stand by their word or perhaps they didn't feel comfortable with the commitment.

Click to expand...

He has rejected a continued Freeze.
In fact, he didn't even offer a full freeze the first time, excluding the sensitive Jerusalem.
As I said at the earlier here.. it's hard to negotiate [in Jerusalem] over the sound of hammers of New construction from just outsuide the window. Not that a Jerusalem freeze was Even/ever offered by Netanyahu.

Quite obviously, if Netanyahu was really serious about peace, all he has to do is offer/respond to requests for a longer, even partial freeze and the parties would be back at the table.

Any other reading of this deadlock is disingenuous BS.
That would include those who are quite, quite, capable but didn't respond, merely thanked.
Including those who daily post byzantine technicalities/headlines trying to lay the blame at the feet of the Palestinians.
Who do deserve most of the blame historically, but not at the moment.

Denying Netanyahu is the problem is like denying Iran wants Nukes.
We all know what the problem is, even tho many here are in denial/Propaganda mode.

Make Barak PM again and serious negotiations would start within a WEEK.. and an offer similar to his (or Ohlmert's) previous one could actually get agreed on.
A deal is there to be had.

Nor did you really respond to all the goodies which have failed to move Netanyahu.
There are no talks despite all those perks and the Obama admin isn't strong at this point to do anything more about it except more begging/concessions with no reciprocity.
Nor, as the OP says, has Netanyahu elaborated his vision of peace/borders.

So nothing is what we and and will continue to have until Netanyahu is gone.
Just as Nothing will get done about Iran's nukes because no one has the stomach for it.

Another with the overwhelmingly obvious, but denied reality of the OP:

Israel and the U.S.: A lopsided relationship
The United States today finds itself in the position of a suitor proffering his beloved ever more munificent gifts while receiving in return ever more perfunctory tokens of affection.

By Andrew J. Bacevich
December 05, 2010
LA Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/05/opinion/la-oe-bacevich-us-israel-20101205

The widely reported deal negotiated by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — Israel committing itself to a nonrenewable 90-day freeze on settlement activity in return for 20 F-35 fighters and a U.S. promise to block anti-Israel resolutions in the United Nations — illuminates with startling clarity the actual terms of U.S.-Israeli relations.

What impresses above all is the gaping disparity between the American offer and the Israeli response. The United States today finds itself in the position of a suitor proffering his beloved ever more munificent gifts while receiving in return ever more perfunctory tokens of affection. You don't need Dear Abby to tell you that something's gone amiss.
[.....]

Click to expand...

But apparently we do need a Dear Abby to cut thru the BS here.

mbig said:

He has rejected a continued Freeze.
In fact, he didn't even offer a full freeze the first time, excluding the sensitive Jerusalem.
As I said at the earlier here.. it's hard to negotiate [in Jerusalem] over the sound of hammers of New construction from just outsuide the window. Not that a Jerusalem freeze was Even/ever offered by Netanyahu.

Quite obviously, if Netanyahu was really serious about peace, all he has to do is offer/respond to requests for a longer, even partial freeze and the parties would be back at the table.

Any other reading of this deadlock is disingenuous BS.
That would include those who are quite, quite, capable but didn't respond, merely thanked.
Including those who daily post byzantine technicalities/headlines trying to lay the blame at the feet of the Palestinians.
Who do deserve most of the blame historically, but not at the moment.

Denying Netanyahu is the problem is like denying Iran wants Nukes.
We all know what the problem is, even tho many here are in denial/Propaganda mode.

Make Barak PM again and serious negotiations would start within a WEEK.. and an offer similar to his (or Ohlmert's) previous one could actually get agreed on.
A deal is there to be had.

Nor did you really respond to all the goodies which have failed to move Netanyahu.
There are no talks despite all those perks and the Obama admin isn't strong at this point to do anything more about it except more begging/concessions with no reciprocity.
Nor, as the OP says, has Netanyahu elaborated his vision of peace/borders.

So nothing is what we and and will continue to have until Netanyahu is gone.
Just as Nothing will get done about Iran's nukes because no one has the stomach for it.

Click to expand...

What does this has to do with Iran getting nukes?

Anyway as I said your claims here are inherently wrong as 1) Netanyahu was not rejecting the American offering and 2) the lack of freezing is not the reason for the lack of peace talks.
You're saying that if he'd wave his wand and call another freeze in the settlements construction as he did (and he was the only PM ever to do so in the history of the state) then there would be peace talks, and that could be, but if the Palestinians would not impose the precondition to begin with - there would be peace talks - hence your claims are inherently illogical and derived from common sense.

You're also saying that Ehud Barak as a PM would have led to negotiations within a week, yet you're completely ignoring the fact that his administration was building settlements at a 4 times bigger magnitude than Netanyahu's - he said so himself.

Apocalypse said:

What does this has to do with Iran getting nukes?

Click to expand...

Nothing.
Perhaps we have a language problem, but I think logic one.
I used the comparison of Iran wanting to get Nukes to be be as obvious as The US pandering to Netanyahu and getting nothing.
Have we pandered to him? What do we have for it?
Got it now?
Which I not only put in simple logic, but backed with an/other Unanswered article saying the SAME.

Anyway I said your claims here are inherently wrong as 1) Netanyahu was not rejecting the American offering...

Click to expand...

Nonsense.
He has indeed NOT responded to the Americans goodies/many offerings in exchange for any gestures that would allow the palestinians to return to the table with any degree iof respecatability from their populous.
Again, hammers at building sites out the window is not conducive to peace talks.

Status quo will Never change unless he does take some of the american Gestures and produces a gesture of his own
ergo.. Netanyahu = No peace.

the lack of freezing is not the reason for the lack of peace talks.
You're saying that if he'd wave his wand and call another freeze in the settlements construction as he did (and he was the only PM ever to do so in the history of the state) then there would be peace talks, and that could be, but if the Palestinians would not impose the precondition to begin with - there would be peace talks - hence your claims are inherently illogical and derived from common sense.

Click to expand...

Illogical reply.
I'm saying, AGAIN, if Netanyahu offered to freeze settlment peace talks would start... near immediately.
The fact that no one else offered a freeze previously doesn't affect that.
Alternatively, as the OP, said, he could just lay out an offer/borders. (LOFL)

and Of course, unlike his two predecessors, Netanyahu has NOT offered any deal.. settlments or not.
As he doesn't want peace- but rather a 'settlers peace'.
Thus why would he want to sit down.. he doesn't want to make an offer... anyway. (!)

You're also saying that Ehud Barak as a PM would have led to negotiations within a week, yet you're completely ignoring the fact that his administration was building settlements at a 4 times bigger magnitude than Netanyahu's - he said so himself.

Click to expand...

Barak offered a deal previously and wants a settlement. (as did Ohlmert).
No One questions that.
As the OP said, (Also necessarily unanswered) Netanyahu has NOT even said what he wants as borders, much less offer a deal.

Only recently has he said he wants a settlement at all, Contrary to his previous utterances, and apparent real sentiment.

and NONE of what you said erases the Monkey he's made of the USA and how we've buried him in support for -0- in return.
That's the main gist of what I've said, and two very credible articles.. and of course the Status quo.

What's next?.. we offer him two Reagan-class carriers and Nato membership, in exchange for shaking hands with Abbas?
And get not even that.

There will be no peace and not even talks with Netanyahu, as again, sitting down would force him to spell out his vision of such, which would of course be something unacceptable to most anyone/everyone on the other side.

As an American, I find this embarrassing and humiliating.

Mbig's take on this matter is very practicical and rational, and he is as pro-Israeli as they come.

mbig said:

Make Barak PM again and serious negotiations would start within a WEEK.. and an offer similar to his (or Ohlmert's) previous one could actually get agreed on.

Click to expand...

Heh, Barak PM, now thats a good one. The one state solution is a more likely idea than this... Being PM isn't only about what you will do with the Palestinians, I believe that if Barak will be chairman of the Labor Party in the next ellections, they will be smaller than Meretz.
Just to remind you Barak is sitting comfortably on his chair in this goverment, the lack of progress in the peace process doesn't seem to bother him.

Sadly the Israeli left doesn't offer any alternatives to Netanyahu...

mbig said:

What's next?.. we offer him two Reagan-class carriers and Nato membership, in exchange for shaking hands with Abbas?
And get not even that.

Click to expand...

whats next?

well last month the US were 'deeply disappointed" over the Israeli governments plan to build 1,300 new housing units in East Jerusalem. so deeply disappointed that the government is still going to move an additional $400 million worth of military equipment to emergency storage in Israel over the next two years. the equipment, which includes so-called smart bombs, will stand at Israel's disposal in an emergency. this will bring the value of American military equipment stockpiled in Israel to $1.2 billion by 2012.

that's after being 'deeply disappointed" with them.

this is how they reward someone who they are 'deeply dissapointed in?" i'd hate to see what they come up with if they were happy with them!

mbig said:

Nothing.
Perhaps we have a language problem, but I think logic one.
I used the comparison of Iran wanting to get Nukes to be be as obvious as The US pandering to Netanyahu and getting nothing.
Have we pandered to him? What do we have for it?
Got it now?
Which I not only put in simple logic, but backed with an/other Unanswered article saying the SAME.



Nonsense.
He has indeed NOT responded to the Americans goodies/many offerings in exchange for any gestures that would allow the palestinians to return to the table with any degree iof respecatability from their populous.
Again, hammers at building sites out the window is not conducive to peace talks.

Status quo will Never change unless he does take some of the american Gestures and produces a gesture of his own
ergo.. Netanyahu = No peace.



Illogical reply.
I'm saying, AGAIN, if Netanyahu offered to freeze settlment peace talks would start... near immediately.
The fact that no one else offered a freeze previously doesn't affect that.
Alternatively, as the OP, said, he could just lay out an offer/borders. (LOFL)

and Of course, unlike his two predecessors, Netanyahu has NOT offered any deal.. settlments or not.
As he doesn't want peace- but rather a 'settlers peace'.
Thus why would he want to sit down.. he doesn't want to make an offer... anyway. (!)

Barak offered a deal previously and wants a settlement. (as did Ohlmert).
No One questions that.
As the OP said, (Also necessarily unanswered) Netanyahu has NOT even said what he wants as borders, much less offer a deal.

Only recently has he said he wants a settlement at all, Contrary to his previous utterances, and apparent real sentiment.

and NONE of what you said erases the Monkey he's made of the USA and how we've buried him in support for -0- in return.
That's the main gist of what I've said, and two very credible articles.. and of course the Status quo.

What's next?.. we offer him two Reagan-class carriers and Nato membership, in exchange for shaking hands with Abbas?
And get not even that.

There will be no peace and not even talks with Netanyahu, as again, sitting down would force him to spell out his vision of such, which would of course be something unacceptable to most anyone/everyone on the other side.

As an American, I find this embarrassing and humiliating.

Click to expand...

Mbig,

You have for some unexplainable reason taken to the false belief that Netanyahu has rejected Obama's offering.
Your entire argument here, and truly, this entire thread, is completely dependent on this false belief.
As I have repeated for the third time now, this is false, and unless you link to a news article (and not an opinion article, certainly not one from a far-leftist paper such as Ha'aretz) that reports on such (non-existing and fictional) rejection made by Netanyahu for the Obama proposal your argument would not have any credibility for it as it would be opposing reality and facts themselves.

Here is the article where Netanyahu agrees to the proposal, completely opposite to the fiction you constantly claim is reality:

Netanyahu agrees to U.S. plan for 90-day freeze on new settlements - The Globe and Mail

I hope you'd be able to see that you are wrong here and are making false statements as this argument makes you come off as irrational, like a person who would claim that Egypt is in Austria even when he's shown on a map to be wrong.

As to Barak and Olmert, as I was saying and as was also pointed out by Ido here, the settlements were being built on a way larger magnitude in the West Bank on their terms than on Netanyahu's term, and yet there were progressive peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians at those times - which really is enough to give the statement that the settlements are not the reason for the lack of peace talks the status of a fact by definition.

Is it not obvious? The US would never get mad at Israel. Israel could use a nuke on Iran and still have all the support of the USA. This editorial is no good, he or she has no idea of the relationship between the US and Israel.

Gray_Fox_86 said:

Is it not obvious? The US would never get mad at Israel. Israel could use a nuke on Iran and still have all the support of the USA. This editorial is no good, he or she has no idea of the relationship between the US and Israel.

Click to expand...

Regardless of whether the US government should or should not be disappointed with the current Israeli government actions, the US has indeed shown in the past expressions of disappointment with actions taken by the Israeli government, and thus such claim has no basis to it at all.

It does however depend of course on what would one define as "anger"; perhaps it is defined as the explanation by the US government that the US is against the action taken by the government of Israel, or perhaps some would define it as taking an actual action of hostility against the state of Israel as an expression of anger by the US, like the US does with Iran for example.

In the case of the latter it should be noted that Israel and the US are allies, and between allies disagreements are expressed in a non-hostile manner.
For that reason, the US government is not going to cut its relationships with Israel or place sanctions over it because it does not agree to the Palestinian precondition and does not continue its decision to freeze West Bank building. Likewise, the Israeli government is not going to do the same if America continues to maintain forces in Afghanistan or any other form of action for that manner.

Yegads I think Mr. Big replaced me. Lol. I am with Mr. Big on this one. Everyone knows I make no secret of a Labour-Kadima bias so I echo Big Boy's comments. I respectfully disagree with Apoc on this one but appreciate his responses.

I do think Netanyahu is making a huge mistake not continuing the freeze. If for no other reason he is allowing what I believe is an issue of optics to give Abbas an excuse to avoid negotiating the substantial issues.

Gray_Fox_86 said:

Is it not obvious? The US would never get mad at Israel. Israel could use a nuke on Iran and still have all the support of the USA. This editorial is no good, he or she has no idea of the relationship between the US and Israel.

Click to expand...

First off your Avatar is distracting. Is it someone I know. Lol. Looks familiar. Is that Tasha, Serenity, Mira or Leila? Uh that was a joke. Please do not ban me for that! Joking! Could not resist.

Well I only wish to say GF that I am sure the current US regime and current Israel government argue plenty behind closed doors and get angry at each other.

Hilary Clinton and Benjain Netanyahu are 2 pit bulls. Not exactly people who mince their words.

Mika-El said:

Yegads I think Mr. Big replaced me. Lol. I am with Mr. Big on this one. Everyone knows I make no secret of a Labour-Kadima bias so I echo Big Boy's comments. I respectfully disagree with Apoc on this one but appreciate his responses.

I do think Netanyahu is making a huge mistake not continuing the freeze. If for no other reason he is allowing what I believe is an issue of optics to give Abbas an excuse to avoid negotiating the substantial issues.

Click to expand...

I think it's clear no peace is coming lest Netanyahu get's off the dime.. and we/the USA have given him some large change.

btw, for you and most most who don't know (a few do), 'mbig' is not "Mr Big" or anything with "big" or Bigness"...
it's an acronym/nickname for murdered_by_islamic_gunmen, an early yahoo mb handle of mine.
others just called me 'mbig' for short.
The handle with "Big"/resembling "Mr Big" probably a poor choice as it puts a chip on other's shoulders.
So I may change it to may main mb ID, 'abu afak'.

Mika-El said:

Yegads I think Mr. Big replaced me. Lol. I am with Mr. Big on this one. Everyone knows I make no secret of a Labour-Kadima bias so I echo Big Boy's comments. I respectfully disagree with Apoc on this one but appreciate his responses.

Click to expand...

What exactly do you disagree with in my response, Mika?
Do you like mbig falsely believe that Netanyahu has rejected Obama's offering?
Because as I've shown above he has not, he has accepted it.

I do think Netanyahu is making a huge mistake not continuing the freeze. If for no other reason he is allowing what I believe is an issue of optics to give Abbas an excuse to avoid negotiating the substantial issues.

Click to expand...

I think Netanyahu deserves all the credibility he can get for starting the freeze to begin with.
I remind you Mika that it was a voluntarily move, and I remind you that during the 10 months of voluntarily freeze started by Netanyahu there was no agreement for talks by the Palestinians, so to drop it on Netanyahu and claim that other PMs such as Olmert and Barak (who have never made such a freeze and who have nevertheless enjoyed a Palestinian agreement to talk with them) have desired peace more is pretty much to strongly ignore the facts and to take as you say to mere bias, and that is done by weak people and not by rational ones Mika.

mbig said:

I think it's clear no peace is coming lest Netanyahu get's off the dime.. and we/the USA have given him some large change.

Click to expand...

Which you've yet to prove he has, as you falsely claim, rejected.
I have posted in the previous page an article where he is reported as agreeing with the offering, and you've yet to post a credible source that reports otherwise, thus I'm afraid that your argument is nothing more than a blow of air.

In response to you Apoc, the fact that I have a Kadima bias does not make me irrational. In fact it would be irrational to assume as much.

That said, yes Netanyahu initiated the 10 month freeze. It is Kadima's position he was mistaken in doing that and should not have.

They argue by creating this freeze he delivered to Abbas a device to use to pressure Israel and avoid negotiating.

Mr. Abbas has been able to avoid any negotiation by simpling using the freeze issue as his excuse. It also gives Obama a device from which to pressure Israel as well.

I do not agree with Kadima that Bentanyahu was wrong to offer a 10 month freeze. Where I disagree with Kadima is I believe as a gesture of good will during negotiations, Israel should agree to a freeze as long as negotiations continue as a sign of good faith.

Kadima argues since Netanyahu agreed to the 10 month freeze he should agere to extend the freeze another 90 days for continued negotiations.

What I argue is and I repeated it earlier, I believe the construction freeze is a red herring. Its a device Abbas uses to avoid negotiating and his bluff should be called.

Extending a freeze temporarily as long as negotiations continue allows Abbas to save face and negotiations to continue. It in no way prejudices Israel's legal rights.

To me it is a red herring.

I will continue my response in my next post as to the positions I take on settlement negotiations with the P.A.

I believe there are 5 crucial issues to negotiate. I am a realist about them.


1-Recognizing Israel as a Jewish State

I believe until the Palestinian people through their elected government officials agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, any or all peace talks remain a farse.

It believe it is inconsistent for the world, the UN, Arab nations and/or the Palestinian collective to assume there can be Christian and Muslim states but Jews can not have a Jewish state.

That for me is the pith and substance of the dispute and has never changed since Israel was created and I am not sure how to address the collective denial in the Arab world or for that matter the remaining nations or peoples of the world who would continue to refuse to recognize the inherent right and nature of Israel to be a Jewish state as an expression of universal sufferage.

As long as this collective denial continues through-out the Middle East nothing will be truly settled. (also see 2 below)

2-Palestinian right of return to Israel

Tied directly into the denial I mentioned in 1, is he Palestinian Authority's arguement it will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state because that would prejudice the right of Palestinians to return to Israel.

The PA continues to contend that any one who refers to themselves as a Palestinian should have the right to return to Israel and be given back land and exercise their option to become Israeli citizens.

To me this is part and parcel of the first issue and continued denial of Israel as a state.

The notion anyone who wishes to call themselves Palestinian should be able to walk into Israel and be given land and instant citizenship is absurd. It is as patently unfair as the UN having decided Palestinians should have a definition of refugee no other people in the world is allowed and assigning culpability to Israel for the decision of the Arab League of nations to deliberately imprison Palestinians in refugee camps as a political tool to pressure the dismantling of Israel after they lost a war they unilaterally declared to try rid the Middle East of Jews.

I argue it is the height of hypocracy to ignore the 900,000 Jews ethnically cleansed out of the Arab League nations in direct reaction to Israel’s creation which compelled 700,000 of those Jews to flee to Israel with nothing and has seen since that time Felashie Jews and other Jews have to flee continuing persecution in the Middle East as well as other nations of the world.

To m e it is hypocracy to state a state can be Muslim but if Jews create a state to protect themselves from extinction this is unacceptable.

More to the point the above position igores the reality that Israel has no physical room to take in anyone wanting to call themselves Palestinian and offer them citizenship which is precisely what the Palestinian Authority currently demands.

For me this demand is a disguised pretense to dismantle Israel as a Jewish state and hand it back to anyone wanting to call themselves Palestinian. The fact is anyone who lives on the West Bank for more than 2 years now is defined as a Palestinian as long as they are not a Jew. This is sheer nonsense.

The majority of Israeli Arabs have made it clear they will not lower their lifestyle which is the highest Arab lifestyle in the Middle East and move to a Palestinian state.

Israel as part of a comprehensive peace settlement process will have to take back hundreds of thousands of Jews from the West Bank. Enough is enough. This issue must be dropped because the Arab League has no intention of taking back 900,000 displaced Jes and their children and children's children and compensate them, as the P.A. demands Israel do no just with actual Palestinians, but those who assign themselves that designation simply because they have lived on the West Bank for two years.

3-Safe Borders

Israel has no obligation under international law to agree to borders it can not defend, i.e., borders that would enable continuing terror attacks. Even the Arab League has acknowledged as such.

I believe the negotiation of safe and defendable borders does not require Israel to assume all of the West Bank or Gaza and I believe Israel is moving unilaterally with security walls to establish defendable borders having reached a state where it does not believe Mr. Abbas or the Palestinian Authority or Hamas are serious about defining borders.

The alleged borders of 1967 that are referred to are only referred to by Hamas as a temporary interim border not a permanent one. Its fine for Saudi Arabia to say Israel should agree to the 1967 armistice line but Saudi Arabia is not on the border with Hamas or Hezbollah or over 300 other terrorist organizations who could easily infiltrate and attack Israel from the 1967 border lines and in particular, the Golan Heights, the border on Gaza and East Jerusalem and parts of Jordan and Lebanon.
Borders can be negotiated. That part is possible. In this regard I support Kadima’s initiatives and their planned withdrawal to the border lines they stipulated they thought were safe.

I also support the notion of a demilitarized Palestinian state as well as placement of the IDF in the Jordan Valley to safeguard against weapons smuggling to the West Bank.

4-Jerusalem

This is the most contentious of issues. The Palestinian Authority demands half of Jerusalem. At one point Rabin offered that to Arafat and Arafat after asking or that, then laughed in Rabin’s face and said he never had any intention of negotiating in good faith.

To expect Israel after that monumental insult to simply ignore what Arafat said, and believe suddenly Abbas will be any different is absurd particularly when Mr. Abbas has openly ridiculed the need of Israel having to be a Jewish state and has looked the other way as Muslim religious leaders in Jerusalem continue to exclude Jews and Christians from praying in an area sacred to all three but the Muslims refuse to share.

For me Jerusalem is the most explosive issue due to the intolerance inherent in Muslim religion for other religions that continues to be manifested. What also makes it explosive is the fact that most land title rights in old Jerusalem are held by Christian churches which the Palestinian authority won’t recognize but Israel does and in fact the Israeli government pays rent for as it has been government buildings on this Christian owned land including the Knesset building.

I have already stated my position past threads as to Jerusalem. I believe it is physically impossible to divide it down the middle. That is not physically possible. I argue the city of Jerusalem should remain under the control of the IDF but completely accessible to all 3 religious groups and the practical reality is the East side of Jerusalem is already autonomous Arab controlled and governed area so having it form part of the Palestinian state is possible.

Much negotiation needs to be done that will deal with federal and municipal Israeli laws, Jordanian laws, Palestinian authority to govern and their right to sovereignty and Christian church legal rights to land ownership through titles they hold. All must be recognized but in terms of security, I believe the only manageable solution is to police Jerusalem through the IDF while an inter-religious council should manage the religious sites .

5-Water

The real issue is water. It has been and always will be. The only way peace can come about is if Palestinians, Israelis, and Jordanians find a way to share scarce regional water resources and find a way to bring in fresh water for all three nations. Trilateral water pipeline and desalination projects are needed and if a peace settlement is to have any chance of success a common economic market between all three nations would need to be created which among other things would facilitate cross border travel and provide joint security against terrorism and drug and other smuggling.

SUMMARY

I believe it is possible to create a third state from Palestine in addition to Jordan and Israel. I just do not believe this can be obtained unless Israel withdraws from a lot of the West Bank.

The fact I believe this does not make me irrational Apoc. My views are shared by many Israelis and particularly the Kadima supporters.

I do not believe as long as Likud is in coalition with Shas it will ever be able to negotiate in good faith. I wish nothing to do with the politics of Lieberman, Shas or the current reincarnation of the Kache party.

I fully supported the views of Yitzhak Rabin. Always did. I was also a supporter of Moishe Dayan. When those two passed away the only logical successor I could find close to their vision was and remains Livni. That is why I support her...not every single position no one fully agrees with anyone...but certainly with the vast majority of her platform.

Mika-El said:

In response to you Apoc, the fact that I have a Kadima bias does not make me irrational. In fact it would be irrational to assume as much.

That said, yes Netanyahu initiated the 10 month freeze. It is Kadima's position he was mistaken in doing that and should not have.

They argue by creating this freeze he delivered to Abbas a device to use to pressure Israel and avoid negotiating.

Mr. Abbas has been able to avoid any negotiation by simpling using the freeze issue as his excuse. It also gives Obama a device from which to pressure Israel as well.

I do not agree with Kadima that Bentanyahu was wrong to offer a 10 month freeze. Where I disagree with Kadima is I believe as a gesture of good will during negotiations, Israel should agree to a freeze as long as negotiations continue as a sign of good faith.

Kadima argues since Netanyahu agreed to the 10 month freeze he should agere to extend the freeze another 90 days for continued negotiations.

What I argue is and I repeated it earlier, I believe the construction freeze is a red herring. Its a device Abbas uses to avoid negotiating and his bluff should be called.

Extending a freeze temporarily as long as negotiations continue allows Abbas to save face and negotiations to continue. It in no way prejudices Israel's legal rights.

To me it is a red herring.

I will continue my response in my next post as to the positions I take on settlement negotiations with the P.A.

Click to expand...

A few points to make here, Mika:

1) At no part did I claim that your bias towards Kadima makes you irrational, but rather that if you are taking towards this bias instead of taking towards facts and reality then you aren't being rational.

2) Kadima has no position, they are in the opposition and all their "positions" are really simply the opposite of the coalition positions, they don't invest too much thought in what they oppose and what they promote.

3) In my previous comment to you I was quoting your claim that you do not agree with my comment and have asked what part of my comment do you find yourself in disagreement with. You've referred in this current comment to Netanyahu's freeze of the settlements and said that you oppose its initiating, but at no part did I say that I hold a different opinion.
My comment was actually about mbig saying that Netanyahu has rejected the US package offered by Obama. I said that mbig's claim (and thus this entire thread) is delusional and is not relying on facts and the truth itself. Are you in disagreement with me over this? Do you believe Netanyahu has rejected the US offering as mbig falsely claims?

Here's a news article from today's Yediot:

PM: I agreed to freeze, US didn't - Israel News, Ynetnews

A final nail in the coffin of this thread, I hope.
You'd soon come to realize that I do not promote any political agenda with my comments, I'm not even a Likudnik and have not voted for the Likud in the recent elections, yet I see the truth as my only cause and whenever I see someone promoting a falsehood, mbig's claim that Netanyahu was the one to reject the US offer for example, I find it necessary to point out the wrongness of that position.

Apocalypse said:

A few points to make here, Mika:

Click to expand...

That you for the clarifications in your response Apoc.I defer to them.

Between you and me I have never once thought of you as anything other than Apoc in terms of where you stand. I would not try label you other than to say I think you are well spoken.

To be honest with you yes I must agree Kadima often simply reacts for the sake of reacting and we both know Netanyahu has coopted much of Kadima's platform deliberately to neutralize them.

To be even more candid Apoc, I am not even sure anymore if there is a real difference between Barak, Livini and Netanyahu on West Bank negotiation strategies. I think the only substantial difference is when we get into Shas politics.

Netanyahu is not so much my issue as certain parties in his coalition. He as an individual is not the issue for me. If it was just on personality, I like the man. He has never minced words with anyone.

Now yes I did see his most recent comments. They call the bluff yes a bit more but Abbas is of course going to continue to use that settlement freeze as a red herring to avoid going to the table for now.

Would it be a sort of Neville Chamberlain like appeasement if I may use that analogy to offer him a freeze during negotiations as well? I don't think so.

I think his full bluff needs to be called.

On another point, my question to all of you out there is this- how do we know Abbas is not just doing what Arafat did? There was a Peanuts comic strip where Charlie Brown would run to kick the ball held by Lucy and she would always pull the ball away at the last second and he would fall in a thud. He took the bait everytime. It sort of reminds me of that right now.

I think the peace network in Israel and people like me were slapped in the face by Arafat when he admitted to the world he was bargaining in bad faith all along and he felt we were all a joke for reaching out to him. To me it was a monumental slap in our faces and we have been left ever since looking for a genuine moderate to reach out to on the Palestinian side.

Unlike some peace advocates I consider Abbas a phony of the highest order and do not consider him a moderate but a poser-a player. The question is though, who else is there to negotiate with and does anyone really think he has any authority to bind Palestinians to anything?

With due respect to President Obama who I support, as I do US Foreign Policy in the Middle East and make no bones about it, I worry if Mr. Obama has any room to do anything with the Congress the way it is now and everyone looking to take him down for any reason.

Then again the lesson of Arafat humiliating Bill Clinton and the not so friendly treatment of Vice President Joe Biden by Netanyahu must also be on his mind as well as the fact that his arch enemies in congress will side with Netanyahu over him.

I just hope Israel can continue to have a good relationship with the US. I personally believe Israel could not exist without the genuine grass roots support of Americans.

Mika-El said:

To be even more candid Apoc, I am not even sure anymore if there is a real difference between Barak, Livini and Netanyahu on West Bank negotiation strategies.

Click to expand...

Indeed, when it comes to secruity-related issues, the differences between the right to the left, between Olmert, Netanyahu, Barak, Livni, Sharon, etc. tends to zero.
No matter what their previous opinions and claims are, once they enter the office they understand they cannot take actions that would put Israeli civilians in risk, and they all walk into one single path.

"....After such a tempting deal failed to pass in the cabinet, the Americans finally concluded that Netanyahu was merely leading them by the nose. But they're not certain whether Barak knowingly sold them a pig in a poke, or whether he too (like President Shimon Peres) believed the prime minister really had changed.

When Clinton recently invited Kadima leader Tzipi Livni to a private meeting, this signified an unofficial announcement that Netanyahu's account in Washington has been closed. Clinton's speech, in which she demanded that Netanyahu once and for all declare where he proposes the border should run between the two states about which he spoke at Bar-Ilan, was a public declaration of the revolution in the relations between the Obama and Netanyahu administrations. [.....]

Click to expand...

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-4056353,00.html

Tough days ahead for Bibi
After two years of futile talks, Netanyahu expected to face heavy international pressure
Op ed -- Shimon Shiffer -- 4/13/11

The report drafted by United Nations envoy to the Middle East Robert Serry provides the Palestinians with an “Iron Dome” that promises them UN assistance in establishing an independent state.
[.......]
However, even if the process does not culminate in the creation of a Palestinian state, one thing is clear: Throughout this process, the world will embitter the life of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and make him bleed.

On Tuesday, the International Quartet indeed caved in to American pressure and renounced the intention to declare its support for the establishment of a Palestinian state, yet Netanyahu cannot count on this American veto later on.
The opposite is true in fact: The US Administration has sanctioned an “all-out assault” on the Israeli prime minister.

The Americans are encouraging the Europeans and others to push Netanyahu against the wall. The prime minister is being presented as a rejectionist who is unwilling to work towards the finalization of an agreement with the Palestinians. We can assume that any proposal presented by the prime minister in the coming months in an effort to push back the international pressure will get the cold shoulder from the Europeans.

The explicit expectation to be voiced in Europe, with the encouragement of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, will focus on a demand for Netanyahu to make a public statement regarding Israeli willingness to withdraw to the 1967 borders, with minimal border adjustments.

After two years of futile talks, credible sources are saying that President Obama is no longer willing to buy a used car from Netanyahu.

Click to expand...

Maybe he should consider my and many other's suggestions (ie, Piers Morgan) and take the initiative.

mbig said:

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-4056353,00.html

Tough days ahead for Bibi
After two years of futile talks, Netanyahu expected to face heavy international pressure
Op ed -- Shimon Shiffer -- 4/13/11

Maybe he should consider my and many other's suggestions (ie, Piers Morgan) and take the initiative.

Click to expand...

With whom and about what. Is there one Palestinian leader who even wants to enter a negotiation. Oh, I see you want him to negotiate with himself, give up the West Bank and get the same benefits israel got by handing over Gaza.

No you can't mean that. You must mean take down the barriers between Israel and the people sworn to elinimate the Jewish state. That should at a minimum give Hamas better aim with their missles at school buses. How disappointed Palestinians and their supporters must be that most of the kids got off the bus a couple of menutes to soon. Bummer, got one kid,could have gotten 50. Now that would be a great way to open a negotiation. Hamas can promise to only try and kill 25 kids a week if only Israel would let more missles be sent to Gaza.

And to think that a person with the intellect of Netanyahu ( he probably did not get into MIT due to sffirmative action) can't see what is so obvious to superior thinkers such as yourself and the TV guy Piers something.

Why can't Israel let bugones be bygones like us Americans. Look only 10 years after a terror attack we are merely killing hundreds of Afghan civilians a year, down from thousands. And when we send drones into an ally of ours Pakistan, we only kill a few dozen with our drones. Mayve Piers could ask similar questions of Obama once he stops bowing to him.

washunut said:

With whom and about what. Is there one Palestinian leader who even wants to enter a negotiation. Oh, I see you want him to negotiate with himself, give up the West Bank and get the same benefits israel got by handing over Gaza.

Click to expand...

I fully understand the problem and have posted on it Many times.
Even calling for Pan-Palestinian elections http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/76877-pan-palestinian-election.html as a precondition/so Israel can negotiate with ONE entity.

And referred to the problem often.
Few here are as pro-Israel as I.
But I also appreciate the situation; stalemate.

washunut said:

No you can't mean that. You must mean take down the barriers between Israel and the people sworn to elinimate the Jewish state......

And to think that a person with the intellect of Netanyahu ( he probably did not get into MIT due to sffirmative action) can't see what is so obvious to superior thinkers such as yourself and the TV guy Piers something............

Click to expand...

The idea would be for Netanyahu to make a similar proposal as Ohlmert (me) "Israel returns 99%!" - Political Forum or Barrack did and reach agreement with Fatah/Abbas/Fayyed.
Then have war-weary Gazans have a referendum to agree and join the 'Peace side'/West bank govt. And eventually a pan-palestinian moderate govt; basically fatah.

As it stands now, Nothing will happen. Guaranteed.
That according to me well before Piers.
Palestine has two factions and Israel a PM whose desire for peace- in the form of a/an eventual Palestinian state (the only solution IMO) is questionable.

This is rather odd after thousands of pro-Israel posts. Being challenged as a Hamas condoner/Israel-eliminator... no less!

Your suggestion/s please?
Others are her including just one of my hundreds
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/72245-israel-palestine-solutions-poll.html
And the vast majority of Israel supporters/posters here are 'for' a Negotiated Two-state solution.
You see another way to achieve that?
I'm for the 'Big Guy' taking the initiative.

Otherwise there will be probably an imposed solution in the next year, at least in words, by the entire world community- including the USA.
I much prefer/would only accept a negotiated settlement. So lets start that now.

And please feel free to scrutinize and challenge any other of my 1400+ posts here as well. I have posted and thought this out for 10+ years on dozens of Message boards. Many (arab/muslim ones) where i have been chucked for being Pro-Israel.
ie, on Shiachat now/Again and the natives are swarming me. Love it.