Mideast baby steps
Half full, or half empty? Yes, Benjamin Netanyahu uttered the words "Palestinian state". But no, he didn't say anything about meeting the US demand to halt the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
The best way to understand the speech made by the Israeli prime minister last night is to read the full text. (You'll find it here.)
But if you don't have the time (or, perhaps, the inclination), here are what I regard as the two essential points:
First, the context: Netanyahu made clear at the outset that he regards dealing with the Palestinian issue as only the third most important challenge he faces. Top of the list comes Iran, and second comes the financial crisis.
Second, look at the exact words he used: "In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighbourly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbour's security and existence ...
"Any area in Palestinian hands has to be demilitarised, with solid security measures. Without this condition, there is a real fear that there will be an armed Palestinian state which will become a terrorist base against Israel, as happened in Gaza ... We cannot be expected to agree to a Palestinian state without ensuring that it is demilitarised. This is crucial to the existence of Israel -- we must provide for our security needs."
One commentator in the left-of-centre newspaper Ha'aretz described this passage as "like a rotten tooth pulled from its socket without anaesthesia".
President Shimon Peres, who won a Nobel Peace prize with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat for his role in negotating the Oslo peace accords in 1993, called the speech "brave and real".
The veteran Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said: "The peace process has been moving at the speed of a tortoise. Tonight, Netanyahu has flipped it over on its back."
In Washington, the White House repeated that President Obama believes that a two-state solution "can and must ensure both Israel's security and the fulfilment of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations for a viable state, and he welcomes Prime Minister Netanyahu's endorsement of that goal."
Diplomacy rarely moves in great leaps. As we saw in northern Ireland, progress is usually made in a series of small, carefully calibrated steps. There can be long pauses, and steps backwards, but sometimes, over a period of years, a dispute can be ended.
Was Mr Netanyahu's speech one of those small steps that can lead to something much bigger? In Washington, I suspect they'll be pleased to see that pressure from the White House can have an effect. Until now, the Israeli prime minister has refused to accept the notion of a Palestinian state, even a demilitarised one.
As for the next step: well, you probably didn't notice, but yesterday, a rocket fired from the Gaza Strip landed on the beach near the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon. No one was hurt, but it was a reminder that both Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza still feel themselves to be under attack.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~56~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Robin,
With the rest of the worlds foreign correspondents discussing Iran and how the Iranian leadership fixed the election, now would be a good time for you to discuss who the Palestinians would vote for in the upcoming elections.
According to all the polls that I have seen, Hamas will lose, does this not at least deserve some form of post by you?, or does this not fit the narrative that the BBC seems intent on ramming down our throats regarding the Palestinans desire for an Islamic state?.
Complain about this comment
Robin,
I would suggest a third essential point from the speech:
"For it is clear to all that the demand to settle the Palestinian refugees inside of Israel, contradicts the continued existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish People."
This carries a number of overtures: that Israel is/should be a jewish state; they have in mind a larger Israel; Palestinian refugees should go to other Arab states.
What is also noteworthy is these negoiations are going on between USA and Israel, and in public. The Palestinians are not involved this part of the process. USA is having maneuvere Israel into position as a pre-cursor to Israeli/Palestinian talks.
BTW I see you mentioned 'a rocket.' I believe that was the first in several weeks. Contrast that against the first half of last year when there were literally hundreds being fired. The occasional breach did not jeopardise Northern Ireland talks, neither should the occasional rocket from Gaza affect the process. There have been occasional cases of Israeli violence in the West Bank in recent weeks as well. That's why Obama sees the settler's issue as an important prelude to the direct talks.
Complain about this comment
I didn't read the text, instead I saw and heard the speech. It is not the way you characterize it. Your blog report is skewed, gives entirely the wrong impression, and typically for BBC does not put the news in historical context or persepective. It is an out and out lie.
Natanyahu made several points.
The Palestinians must recognize the state of Israel as the rightful homeland of the Jewish people. The historical context of this is 2000 years of persecution of Jews in other lands culminating in the holocaust but it is far from the only place or time Jews were unjustly beaten, robbed, murdered, in other lands including many Arab lands simply because they were Jews. Only in Israel can Jews feel secure that there is a government that will always place their interests in an unprejudiced court of justice, treat their interests and rights fairly. Israelis have an historic basis for claims on this land dating back over 3500 years.
Israel must have defendable borders it can live securely in. Therefore, a return to undefendable borders is out of the question. Nor can the Palestinians be allowed to have control over what they can import or export or their air space. Nor can they be allowed to be armed or make foreign treaties. This is because in the past, the Palestinians demonstrated when given such freedom, they used it to import arms and wage terrorist wars against Israelis including civilians. This is undisputable. It is also undisputable that the borders of Israel as drawn prior to 1967 left the country extremely vulnerable to military invasion by its neighbors being only 9 miles wide in its center at one point. Israel is about the size of the state of New Jersey, one of America's smallest states. (Nor should the sparsely populated Golan Heights be returned to Syria as its only real significance is military.)
Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel. The basis of this is that when East Jerusalem was in Arab hands, Jews were denied access to their holiest site, the so called "wailing wall" in the ruins of the temple. Now people of all religions can visit there.
Arab refugees will have to find permanent homes outside of Israel. The context of this is that it is both common, many Jewish refugees for example having been resettled in Israel and that the immigration of up to 5 million Arab refugees and their families would destroy Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.
Israel will continue to build homes and other structures on settlements that already exist. This will allow childern and other relatives of people who live in them to live near their friends and neighbors. The context of the settlements is that they extend the borders of Israel to make it militarily defendable. No new settlements will be built, no land not occupied by existing settlements will be added.
These provisions seem entirely reasonable to me, to the majority of Americans, and evidently to the majority of Israelis. If the rest of the world doesn't like it including President Obama, well that is just to bad, that is the way it is going to be. I don't see any room for negotiations. I think this is a take it or leave it offer. The land for peace strategy that formed the basis of the Oslo process did not work. Israel kept ceding land in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank but each time instead of getting closer to peace, there were more attacks on Israel. The Oslo process, the roadmap, and the Arab proposals are "non starters." They have demonstrated that they will not bring peace and security to Israel. The alternative to accepting Natanyahu's proposal is a perpetual state of low level warfare that occasionally flares up and each time it does, the quality of life for the Palistinians continues to decline.
In my opinion, there should not be a Palestinian state. When the Palestinian Mandate was divided, the UN created two states, one Jewish state, Israel, and one Arab state, Jordon. Jordon in the homeland of the so called Palestinians. Those territories on the West bank of the Jordon River occupied by Arabs should return to Jordon. Perhaps Gaza should be a separate nation with limited autonomy as Netanyahu explained it. It would be the eighth smallest nation in the world in area with a population of about 2 1/2 million. Once it demonstrates that it can act responsibly as a peaceful entity, then it could receive greater autonomy until it is finally independent.
The so called Palestinian people is a fiction the Arabs invented after the war in 1967. Nobody ever heard of such a thing when Gaza was administered by Egypt and the West Bank was part of Jordon. That is why there is no geographical connection between them. If it were to become a nation, that would create a problem comparable to creating a nation of East and West Pakistan. It won't work.
Complain about this comment
The Israeli-Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh has penned an article which may be of interest.
http://www.jpost.com/servelet/Satellite?cid=1244371107342&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Complain about this comment
Doesn't want to play.
Go to www.jpost.com and click on Middle East.
Title:- Analysis: Why was PA reaction to Netanyahu's speech so harsh?
Complain about this comment
The PA has rejected Netanyahu's offer outright because these so called "moderates" have never really accepted the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish State. All of their rhetoric in English is for the benefit of the Western press and public opinion, particularly in the US. It is designed to create false expectations and is a smokescreen of the real agenda. That it is a pure fabrication is proven by the rhetoric in Arabic and by the PA's actions. Nothing the Palestinians ever did as opposed to what they have said ever suggested that they really wanted to peacefully coexist with Israel. This is one more reason why Israelis should stop deluding themselves that a two state solution is even possible. If the Palestinians ever do get a bona fide state, it will be merely one more step in their relentless campaign to destroy Israel once and for all. It will be in effect a base for terrorism and future wars. This is why the US and Israel should never allow it to happen.
One other demand that Netanyahu made was for an end to the incitement of Moslems in general and Palestinians in particular by their governments. The anti Israeli rage has been systematically and deliberately created by them. BBC has been a willing instrument in spreading it too.
There is a time when the only conclusion any rational person can reach is that further talking will be fruitless. Israelis should make plans for other contingencies than a negotiated settlement, at least of the kind contemplated in the Oslo process, the roadmap, and the Saudi Proposal.
Complain about this comment
No settlement can last unless it recognises historic property rights.
To argue differently on the basis of either pre-existing people or biblical rights is doomed to failure.
Both sides need to recognise this and until they do no settlement shall be achieved.
Also, violence and force by either side will fail to reach a settlement.
I frankly do not care if the displaced peoples of either side are called by the name of one tribe or another and arguments based on tribal allegiances and rights will fail - if the individual property rights are accepted and either julstly compensated for or in some other way handled fairly then their might be a hope of a settlement. The entrenched racialism and religious fundamentalism on both sides is a huge barrier to any settlement. In the end people matter not the tribes of closely genetically related semitic peoples.
Respect the people and treat them in a fair way- in a way you would expect to be treated yourself then there are the conditions for a settlement.
Complain about this comment
JfH
"No settlement can last unless it recognises historic property rights."
Tell that to Hamas who is the elected government of the Palestinians. Not only do they deny property rights, they deny the right of Israel to even exist. By your explanation, no peace is possible and I agree.
A basic right of property is the right to sell it to whomever you want that can pay for it. Since there is a death threat to any Palestinian in Israel who sells his property to a Jew, the Palestinians have denied property rights to their own people as well.
Baby steps towards peace? I'd say giant steps backwards away from it. There is no peace process. It takes two sides to make peace. The Palestinian side has done everything possible to avoid taking even the first real step. Talk won't cut it any more. There has been lots of talk on their side but the only actions they've taken are acts of war, a war they still want to fight despite the fact that they are losing badly.
Complain about this comment
#8. MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"No settlement can last unless it recognises historic property rights."
I took no sides. Tell it to both Hamas and to the settlers. I too believe that the present peace process is a myth, Barbarius.
I believe this because neither side actually wants peace on any of the apparently available terms - no matter what their people individually crave (excluding the lunatics of both sides extremists to which both are enthral!)
Sorting out the land problem on a fair and equitable basis is I believe a prerequisite for peace not something that should follow on afterwards. Start with the establishing the competing land ownership claims of individuals and ignore the politicians! Get it all written down. Validate the claims and then seek resolution of the individual claims and counter-claims. In order to get somewhere first you have to take the first step but none of the sides actually wants to do so!
Complain about this comment
The window of opportunity for the Palestinians has closed. They shut it themselves. They've snuffed out the last spark of hope among Israelis that they could ever live in peace. They did it with rockets, suicide bombings, and countless other violent attacks against Israeli civilians for decades. They had a lot of help from the Moslem world. It is fianally dead. There is no other window in sight for them. They are not rational and the issue is no longer about land, it is about national survival for the Isrealis. Israel has the means to survive. But will it have the national political will to use those means. We'll see when the time comes. It may not be all that far in the future.
Complain about this comment
#10. MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"The window of opportunity for the Palestinians has closed"
Barbarious you are WRONG!
There are no closed windows ever in the real world except for war mongers such as yourself who believe that war and genocide is an answer in itself!
Complain about this comment
JFH, you don't get, but that's no surprise to me, you never do. I didn't close the window and it wasn't up to me. I'm just an observer of the facts. It seems to me that because of the history of the last 60 years and the experience of the Israeli population, the empathy among Israelis and their willingness to consider the aspiriations of the people who call themselves Palestinians is no longer sufficient to gain support for a government with those views that will negotiate further concessions to that end. I'm not the war monger. I'm not the one who sent suicide bombers and fired rockets at Israeli civilians. I never said I wanted to destroy Israel or voted for a government that did. That was the Palestinians.
As for President Obama trying to strong arm the Israelis into making further concessions about settlements so that the US can win back popularity in the Moslem world at the expense of Israeli security, the Israeli foreign minister told Obama's Secretary of State Clinton yesterday the same thing I would tell him..."go to hell."
Complain about this comment
Israel will have to make a choice. If it wishes to exist as a State and have commerce with other nations or be excluded.
Very probably the zionist lobbyists and those who finance Political Parties in the US & UK will have to come to terms with the fact that the acqusiition of land by force wasn't tenable after 1945 as is explained in UN Charter and Conventions.
Israel exists on militarily acquired land which was previously that of Balfour's Nation of Palestinians. It will have to cede significant tranches and relinquish taking so much water compared with its neighbours.
'The penny hasn't dropped' amongst Israelis and their non-resident supporters that Israel is now going to diminish in size and importance and Palestinians will be able to have a fully functioning State equivalent at least to Israel.
Israel has so misused its opportunity that it is only correct that its protected status is withdrawn and the UNSC allows all the Resolutions vetoed by the USA to be unblocked.
Moreover the Netanyahu rationale for a racist Jewish State- not religious- suggests that its Membership of the UN cease.
The whole picture of the desert blooming was a lie, a mirage to deceive and to hide a particularly nasty policy of land acquisition by force in which the Arab was always blamed whereas Israel was the aggressor save in 1973 when Egypt moved to recover territory Israel annexed after it attacked Egypt.
Basically the World has had enough and it is time Israel realised it.
Complain about this comment
Darrum,
I imagine that you must live a very sad life, your disgusting slur on Israel brings shame on you.
Complain about this comment
Darrum, after reading your post it is clear that you are racist, bigoted and mentally flawed. What a total waste of space your pathetic post was.
Complain about this comment
Post 13 seems to be living in the land of la la, every single one of his 'facts' is easily proven infactual.
His infantile attack on Israel makes him stand out as the extremist, I thank god that pro-Terrorist supporters like him are in the minority.
I have many Muslim friends, and although many would argue that Israel has caused much suffering to the Palestinians, the Palestinians themselves have caused equal suffering to their own people/cause.
At work today I showed Post 13's comment to my Muslim colleague, his comment was that the poster should crawl back under the rock he surfaced from, he also disagreed with the so called 'facts' as outlined by poster 13.
In finishing, I would strongly advise the BBC to enforce their own web guidelines and remove Post 13 as it is a Racist and objectionable post.
Complain about this comment
To flawedlogic
RE: Web Guidelines and judging what should be removed
Can you confirm that you can see nothing racist and objectionable in comments prior to post 13 in this thread?
Complain about this comment
I note the annoyance that comment on the Netanyahu stance on Israel's demographics has caused. I'd remind that policies supported by Avigdor Lieberman a possibly key member in the Netanyahu Government deal with the 'transfer' of Palestinian 'Arabs' supportive of a secular Jewish State. The reader might question whether that might be considered a 'racist' policy as the determinaing factor is ethnicity not religion.
Israel came about predominately because of the activities of the Irgun, Stern and similar terrorist gangs killing British Servicemen and bombing our facilities and the then Labour Government's reluctance, indeed ability after WW2, to finance a thorough campaign to remove these elements. The UK relinquishing the 1922 Mandate removed the protection of the indigenous peoples (Balfour) who subsequently were terrorised (see Ben Gurion) off land coveted by Israel. It is important to appreciate that Israel was born from a period of Zionist Terrorism and not from a UN managed partition. Indeed one of the Irgun murderers of the UN's Count Benadotte has just died and mentioned on BBC Radio 4 yesterday.
However much it may irk those that indulge in sanitisation and revisionism, the history of Israel is one of land accretion by dint of force which is continuing on the West Bank even today.
Complain about this comment
Darrum;
"Israel came about predominately because of the activities of......terrorist gangs killing British Servicemen and bombing our facilities..."
The same could be said about the American Revolution. Time to get over it. That was then, this is now. America will not become a British colony or give its land back to the indigenous natives anymore than Isreal will be ceding major portions of its land back to Palestinians, especially since it's been demonstrated to them that this does not get them any closer to peace.
Two facts remain. 1. Jews have a historic origin in the land now called Israel going back 3500 years or more. This land is hardly alien to them. 2. There never was a mention of a Palestinian people before 1967. Only loss of Arab land used to launch the first 3 of 4 Arab wars to destroy Israel led to that invention.
The Arabs who live on that land would do well to consider that if they forget about their jihad and the grievance they've been told they have against Israel's existance by their demagogues, they could focus their attention and energy on bettering their own lives and living at peace with each other and their neighbors. If they can prove they can do that for a generation or two and that they have given up their hostility and propensity for violence, then discussions about altering borders could be negotiated. But if they continue on their present course, the one they've pursued for 61 years and history is any guide, things will only continue to get worse for them. Everything else they or anyone else has tried has failed.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII
You seem to miss the point. Israel was created from terrorism by immigrants with no immediate familiarity with the territory and there is no reason why the Palestinian Arabs shouldn't copy this and regain territory that they occupied very recently and were deprived of by dint of terrorism. That is what they are about just like the Zionist terrorist gangs. The moral authority is on the side of the Palestinians not the Israelis who are in simple common parlance land theives just in the same way as bank robber steals money by force. The Palestinians like the bank want the their property back quite simple.
You seem to be saying that neither the bank nor the Palestinians should have their property back and I wonder if you are as altruistic to any who take by force from you. If not double standards seems an apt phrase.
You are incorrect to make the convenient Israeli propaganda claim that Palestinian people/nation/ etc was a post 1967 invention. It was used in the 1910s to describe the people living there who are about as 'Arab' as many Israelis.
You are also incorrect to state that there were more than one 'Arab War'. There was just the 1973 move by Egypt to recover its territory; all other wars were initiated by Israel 1948 on with the Arabs defending.
When the Palestinian refugees are allowed back on to their land and into their property then there may be a chance for some peace.
In the meantime Israel is determinedly irritanting the Palestinians to forment trouble and continually seeks to take more land and hold them subservient as stated by Netanyahu in his 'Palestinian State' description.
It is time that Israel was reduced in size and disarmed. That is probably on the cards now as the USA is no longer going to tolerate it and in the UK we should be looking hard at the financial support and the strings attached for major political parties.
Complain about this comment
Darrum, you are deluded.
Even if what you said was true and it isn't, it wouldn't matter. The American natives can say that the white settlers that began arriving on their land 400 years ago are terrorists who stole their land. They could make a better case for that than the Arabs could about the exclusivity of their claim to Israel. That does not matter either. That's in the long past. Their problem is here and now. Israel is a fact of life they'd better accept because it's real and it isn't going away. It is rich, it is strong, and it is fed up and angry. It's in no mood to be toyed with any longer. The Palestinians are flat on their back and practically on life support. they're in no position to make any demands of anyone.
Isreal's preoccupation is with Iran and the world financial crisis. Palestinians don't figure at the top of their list of priorities even if Israel is all the Palestinians think about. And that is also the point. They'd better forget about their leader's political ambitions and jihads and start worring about getting the necessities of life for their families or they won't be around to worry about a whole lot longer. Believe it or not, bad as things are, they could get a whole lot worse for them, quickly too, even if just by some natural calamity such as a pandemic.
BTW, just because a nation fires the first shots when it sees enemy armies amassing on its borders getting ready to strike doesn't mean it started the wars. One would be a fool seeing that a war is inevitable to absorb the first blow. Wars are not fought by the Marquis of Queensbury rules, that is if you want to win. The only rule of war is that there are no rules.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII
Far from deluded and personal attacks are often excluded on these threads.
It is easy to see that Iran is a top priority for the Zionists as was Iraq. Funding Political Parties has been a great success for Israel's western supporters and if a full Iraq inquiry in the UK is ever held it should look carefully at the funding of the Labour Party apart from awards of a big 'P'.
The World is gradually realising the duplicity of Israel and the full extent of the abuse of the Palestinians and it seems though you seem oblivious that Israel is no on the downward escalator. Should its funding by the USA dry up and defence and othe rbudgets be cut, Israel's economy will suffer more so if EU trade is curtailed.
"Believe it or not, bad as things are, they could get a whole lot worse for them, quickly too, even if just by some natural calamity such as a pandemic."
Perhaps you had IIBR & Ness Ziona in mind?
I seem to remember perhaps Ben Gurion placed some emphasis on science and biological research which led to some British troops suffering from Typhus (Int. Red Cross) and some Israel's being hung by Egypt for similar activities.
Should that occur Israel's occupation of the West Bank & Gaza would terminate and perhaps someone would repay the compliment.
Complain about this comment
Darrum, pandemics like bird flu and swine flu occur naturally. If I were a doctor and someone asked me to go to Gaza or the West bank to help sick people there by administering or even delivering anti viral drugs, I'd decline on the grounds that it is too dangerous.
Speaking of thefts, when will Britain return the Elgin marbles to Greece, their rightful owner. You want to talk about return of an entire country you claim was stolen but your government will not return some stupid statues that clearly don't belong to it.
The US will never abandon Israel, much as you wish it would. It's values and ties in many ways are closer to Israel's than to the UKs. If you don't believe it, find and listen carefully to Owen Bennet-Jones' interview with Sir Christopher Meyers, the UK's ambassador to the US for over 5 years. If the current US administration made any moves in the direction you suggest, many of Obama's supporters in his own party would join the overwhelming majority of Republicans in calling for his impeachment...and they'd win.
Complain about this comment
There are many doctors working in Gaza & the West Bank and many who for humanitarian reasons want to help the Palestinians dreadfully abused, mentally and physically, by the Israelis who practice all various psychologically disabling and disturbing techniques, whether flying warplanes low during the night or constant harrassment in the WB. The problem is whether they enter these areas through Israel or directly. A pandemic might persuade the USA for direct intervention.
The time is coming when the Palestinian Refugees and their descendants will have to return to their Palestinian Homeland and the Israelis will have to accommodate. Some Israelis will probably just kill them as that seems to be their modus operandi about taking and securing land but hopefully the ROR will be very fully exercised.
Complain about this comment
Seems to me Darrum that more Palestinians are "dreadfully abused" by other Palestinians than by Isrealis. I'd bet that on over 99% of all days, more Palestinians die at the hands of other Palestinians than at the hands of Isrealis. Come to think of it, on most days NO Palestinians die at the hands of Israelis while on many days Palestinians are busy killing each other especially with the civil war going on between Hamas and Fatah.
I don't know where the Palestinian refugees, their descendants, and families are going to go but it won't be to Israel.
A pandemic will not cause the USA to intervene directly in the disputed territories. Both the American government and most Americans know they are not wanted there. They might offer some humanitarian assistance through NGOs IF they can be persuaded that whatever help they give will not wind up in the hands of Hamas, an organization the US and EU have called "terrorist."
BTW, what about those Elgin Marbles? If you are from Britain, when will your government return them to Greece?
Complain about this comment
MA II - not sure if you will see this, but Razia Iqbal has posted on this very topic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/raziaiqbal/2009/06/acropolis_now.html
Complain about this comment
I had heard the report on BBC a few days ago and was aware of it. I brought the subject of property rights up because it is such a touchy subject and people seem to have very strong views one way or another whether it is land or artwork or anything else. I suppose it has to do with a basic instinct for survival where even animals protect the territory they hunt on from others of their own species and males jealously guard their mates from challengers.
I don't know who owns the Elgin marbles. In either Britain or Athens they are on display for the public to view. It is true that had the British not rescued these statues, they would have been destroyed by the Turks without the slightest doubt. Anyway the issue is complex and I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Frankly I don't think it matters which country they're in.
The land that comprises Israel is an entirely different subject. Return to it's 1967 pre war borders as many insist is not only a practical impossibility, it would reduce Israel to a geographic area so seemingly vulnerable that it would be an irresistable target for yet another war to destroy it. Such a war would surely result in the use of nuclear weapons. No assurances at this point could be sufficient to persuade the Israelis they would be secure behind such borders, there has been far too great a litany of lies not only from the Arabs but even guarantees from the United States have proven empty when the political winds in the US shift. Would the US defend Taiwan from Communist China? I wouldn't bet on it. Anyway, it won't happen. Israel will stay pretty much where it is and no amount of talk will change it.
Complain about this comment
"Israel will stay pretty much where it is and no amount of talk will change it. " MarcusAureliusII
That is the understatement.
Admitting that probably few if any countries would wish to accommodate Israelis given Israel's record after the Palestinians regain their property and residency rights (as per UN Charter/Conventions), and particularly some in the EU that caused the problem for the Palestinians mid 20th century, nevertheless the Israelis have behaved so reprehensibly that also few countries really wish to support this property accretive regime.
There is no reason why Israel should have any more protection than the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip at most c. 10 miles wide and surrounded on three sides by a gangsta state if there ever was one. The gratuitous destruction of infrastructure: electric power plant to make Gaza dependent on Israel; water & sewage systems; roads; farms and produce; all in 2005 and 2007 methodically attacked, as well as the misrepresentation of and then detention of the Hamas MPs gives lie to any sliver of belief that Israel is other than ever disingenuous. Some 90% of Hamas' expenditure is on Social Welfare [source was CFR].
Israel will have to accommodate all that have natural rights and filling it and illegally annexed land with Russian and other emigres of uncertain background suggests that Israel is more a militarily armed accretive property company and indeed it always has been.
Looking at the writings in the 1930s of the then leading Zionists they stated that the Palestinians needed to be cleared from their imagined area for Israel as a necessary pre-condition. However in 1945 & the UN, mass deportations and acquiring land by aggressive war were ruled out which is why Israel has to hand back all the territory it took and re-settle the Palestinians on their land.
The USA is remarkably pragmatic as is and moreso the UK. It is fairly obvious that Israel is no longer needed in the region, is an irritant (re Iran) and a process of disengagement will occur. Once the US political world limits the amount of money to be spent on elections and appreciates being referred to as 'anti-semitic' no longer has its 20th century conatation but refers instead to being 'anti-israel' (words change their meanings) then Israel is history.
Complain about this comment
Ref 13. Darrum
Good post.
Perhaps we should go back to 1947 and start again.
Israel's defining mistake was in June 1967 IMO. Prior to that, all mistakes were 'recoverable.'
As one jewish historian puts it: We won the Six Day War and have been fighting the seventh day ever since."
Complain about this comment
Darrum;
Given Europe's history of over a thousand years of genocide against the Jewish people from its inquisition and expulsions in Spain in 1492 to the pogroms of Russia and the extermination camps of Nazi Germany, in endless ways and with blood of Jewishh victims of crimes against humanity beyond counting on its hands, no European has the right to criticize Israel or the Jewish people for whatever steps they take that they see fit in the defense of their homeland. Europe's crimes against Jews in the last 1000+ years mark Europe as being by far the worst criminals that ever existed in the human race and that doesn't even include the countless crimes Europeans have committed all over the world against other peoples.
You might also give consideration to the fact that if most experts are even remotely right about the size and nature of Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal, they have the power to use that arsenal to wreck whatever havoc and destruction on all of us they choose to including an end to all human life on the surface of the earth in any number of ways scientists now understand. That means that your survival and mine are inextricably linked with theirs.
You'd better consider that fact as you advocate that they return to a state of affairs where they would likely be attacked in an effort to destroy them again. In fact you'd better be worried about Iran because that seems to be its intent even if nothing changes. If you think you will escape the consequences of a nuclear attack on Iran and who knows how many other of Israel's enemies once it decides it has no choice, you are only kidding yourself. There will be no escape no matter where on earth you live.
Complain about this comment
Darrum
You wrote to Marcus, "You seem to miss the point."
He generally does. It's because he has no argument to offer. Facts are inconvenient.
Here's another couple of inconvenient facts:
In post #18 Marcus wrote: "There never was a mention of a Palestinian people before 1967."
Anyone who has visited the Palace of Westminster in London will have seen the large wall hanging of a hand drawn map. It goes back to The Crusades, is dated around 1200 and is titled "PALESTINE."
Here's another from France
by Pierre Du Val (1618-1683), a 17th century mapmaker. He also compiled atlases, map games & town plans.
Complain about this comment
S&M;
Where are claims of an Arabic people called Palestinians before 1967? Why didn't they assert their rights to be free of Egypt and Jordan and demand their own government prior to 1967? Where is the evidence of their distinctive language or culture prior to 1967? Evidence for a Jewish Palestine abounds going back over 3500 years. More of your anti-Israeli anti-semitic lies S&M. It hardly matters anyway. As I posted above, the issues now are about today, not about 41 years ago or 4100 years ago, today. And today Israel is not going away and there is nothing you or those like you can do about it so learn to live with it. Unless you want to take up arms too. (if you did, your government would slap you in jail to rot so fast it would make your head spin.)
Complain about this comment
Let's play 'THE STATE OF "PALESTINE" QUIZ!
http://www.drybonesproject.com/blog/pages/D09524_1600.html
Complain about this comment
Ref 32. MarcusAureliusII
Before you move on, let's just get this one point established first:
You claimed"There never was a mention of a Palestinian people before 1967."
Do you now accept this was wrong, or do you wish to contest the facts I've provided?
Complain about this comment
S&M, I'm not playing word game with you. There were Arabs and there were Jews living in an area called Palestine. But there was no distinct Arab Palestinian culture with separate national aspirations. Had the 1967 war never happened, the West Bank of the Jordan River would still be part of Jordan and the Arabs living there would be Jordanians. The Arabs living in Gaza would in all likelihood still be under the government of Egypt, possibly as a semi autonomous territory. And there would be no administrative connection between the two, no special association, no claim that they are one people distinct from Jordan and Egypt because there never was before 1967. The UN created two nations from the Palestinian Mandate in 1948, one Jewish state Isreal and one Arab State Jordan. If there is an Arab Palestinian state it is Jordan...or what is left of it, Jordon having lost the war in 1967. Nothing will change that.
Right now the chances for a Palestinian state as a homeland for this fictitious Palestinian people is next to nil. They are at war with each other. They have behaved like crazed people whipped into a frenzy by their so called leaders. Those are their real enemies. Those are the people who have cost them every chance for a decent life they ever had. As recently as 2000 they had another chance and threw it away. After the crimes they've committed against Israelis for over 60 years, I don't see why they deserve any more chances. And it does not surprise me at all that Europe, every bit as criminal a society as the worst Palestinian terrorists when taken over its history would show its sympathies towards them and against Israel an its number one benefactor, the United States. I suppose Europe wishes the Arabs would finish off the job Hitler started. That is one reason why I for one detest Europe and would not care if the US fought a war against it. And it is in every sense except militarily whether it knows it or not. That is what the current economic depression is all about, the reduction of Europe to third world status. That is the role of China as an American economic weapon.
Complain about this comment
Ref 35. MarcusAureliusII
"There were Arabs and there were Jews living in an area called Palestine."
Thank you. You now need take time out to go and re-examine all your other mis-conceptions.
.
Complain about this comment
If I may, I think it's important to clear up a misconception. MAII said "The UN created two nations from the Palestinian Mandate in 1948, one Jewish state Israel and one Arab State Jordan."
In fact, the 1947 UN partition plan envisaged two states, one Jewish and one Arab, both on the West side of the River Jordan. The country then called Transjordan, now called Jordan, was an additional, third nation, which had been created under the British mandate in 1921. There's a useful map here: http://www.mideastweb.org/unpartition.htm
Complain about this comment
re: Transjordan & Palestine.
I suspect that the poster MAII has either a very limited knowledge of the history of Palestine between the Roman occupation and 1948 or is peddling a line that is ofetn found on English language threads.
The area to the East of the Jordan was only in the British single League of Nations Mandate as a construct, it was brought in and then exited. It was never ever part of Palestine and though many pro-Zionist posts contain the assertion that MAII makes it is a very sure sign that their knowledge is very limited. Moreover it may also be a sign of propaganda which Israel tries to use not only through the 'lazy' media but now on blogs to continue to assert their story of an Israel 'whiter than white'.
Israel likes to lead people to believe that the UN was the midwife at Israel's creation which (hopefully) MAII would apprecaite is entirely incorrect and that Israel was barred UN Membership until the USA was one to push for it in 1949.
The rationale for the Six Day War may well have included as a primary driver wresting the water from the Lake Galilee and Golan to feed the National Water Carrier.
MAII makes the point that Iran's Ahmadinejad makes that it was Europeans not the Palestinians that were central to the Jewish loss of life in the Nazi Holocaust so why should Palestinians suffer Israeli occupation and abuse of human rights. (And Ahmadinejad acknowledges the Nazi attrocities and it is pure propaganda to say that he doesn't which even RADIO 4 indulges...unbelieveable Mr Lustig - just says the Holocaust didn't happen in Palestine)
The key weapon that the West has is to deny Israel access to rest of world to address the inequity within 1947 Palestine which may or may not create military action. MAII may well be correct that the Israelis would rather kill everything on Earth including millions of other Jews but that maybe their rather warped mindset.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Lustig, your posting reflects a single snapshot in what is a gross oversimplification of a very long and complex process that spanned decades, one in which Britain's hands along with the rest of Europe's are drenched in Jewish blood. The map which was the basis of General Assembly Resolution 181 was rejected by the Security Council.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan
Britain's role in the holocaust was not merely restricted to passive observence of the Nazi massacre, it was an active participant in the genocide by obstructing the flight of hundreds of thousands of European Jews to Palestine who would later become vicitms of the Nazi concentration camps. Britain clearly opposed the creation of a Jewish homeland both before and after World War II.
"The British Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, together with the Italian and French governments rejected early drafts of the mandate because it had contained a passage which read:
'Recognizing, moreover, the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the claim which this gives them to reconstitute it their national home...'"
" the British changed their position and sought to eliminate Jewish immigration to Palestine. This was seen as a contradiction of the terms of the mandate, and an anti-humanitarian catastrophe, in light of the increasing persecution in Europe. In the prewar period it led to organization of illegal immigration. While the small Lehi group attacked the British, the Jewish Agency, which represented the mainstream Zionist leadership, still hoped to persuade the British to restore Jewish immigration rights and cooperated with the British in the war against Fascism.
When the British insisted on preventing immigration of Jewish Holocaust survivors to Palestine following World War II, the Jewish community began to wage an uprising and guerrilla war."
" The only unanimous recommendation was that Great Britain terminate their mandate for Palestine and grant it independence at the earliest possible date. A majority of nations (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay) recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration. A minority (India, Iran, Yugoslavia) plan supported the creation of a federal union based upon the US Constitutional model. It would have established both a Jewish State and an Arab state. Australia abstained"
Complain about this comment
"Meeting in Cairo in November and December 1947, the Arab League adopted a series of resolutions aimed at a military solution to the conflict.[93] They formed an Arab Liberation Army. The Arab League also planned punitive measures against Jews living in Arab countries, many of which were subsequently implemented by individual states.[94][95]
When Great Britain announced plans for Transjordan's independence, the Jewish Agency for Palestine had protested that in accordance with the terms of article 80 of the UN Charter, the terms of the mandate could not be altered without violating the rights of the Jewish people.[96] The representatives of the Jewish Agency had raised the issue of article 80, and the right of the Jewish people to settle in all of Palestine with the UNSCOP Commission"
"Meir Zamir, a Historian from Ben Gurion University, has published several articles based on unclassified documents from the French archives. He says "Whereas in London foreign minister Ernest Bevin was declaring Britain's intent to end its mandate in Palestine and maintain neutrality in the conflict between the Arabs and the Jews, in the Middle East, British officials openly supported the Arabs and sought to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state." and detailed the top secret British arms deal for the Arabs. The article reveals the British involvement in large weapon deals with the Arab countries, and this was countered to the UN resolution on partition and flouted the appeal by the UN Security Council for an embargo on arms sales to either Arabs or Jews.[105]
During the UNSCOP hearings, Ralph Bunche had recorded his suspicions that King Abdullah planned to enlarge his domain through the partition of Palestine.[106] The British grand strategy for stability was to have King Abdullah take over most of Arab Palestine. It was a delicate matter because Transjordan was a British client state, and Abdullah was seen as a British puppet"
Bottom line, there were so many partition plans you could hardly count them all. That was a very long time ago. That was then and it's ancient history, this is now.
The treatment of Jews by Britain was only one aspect of the vast monstrosity of the British Empire, a criminal enterprise unparalleled in all of human history and one upon which the sun never set....until World War II. Now it has set for good.
Complain about this comment
Posts 39 & 40.
Looks as if large chunks of Wikipedia (?? or similar )have been lifted and placed hardly in context by someone well out of their depth in these matters.
1) The UK wished to end the Mandate because it couldn't afford any conflict it was accepted by the UN.
2) Zionists were being armed from Czech sources and were considerably better armed than either Palestinians or the so-called 'Arab Armies'. Jordanian troops stopped at the UN Partition lines, there to protect Palestinians not attack Israel etc etc ....
Oranges were grown in Palestine well before Zionism ever appeared but according to usual Israeli propaganda only Israel 'made the desert flower'. etc etc
The Hussein-McMahon 1915-16 agreement gave the whole of the area arguably to the Caliphate.
Balfour's letter 1917 upon which much is predicated mapped out solely a Jewish homeland within an 'Arab' Palestine- not the Transjordan area- and not to injure the civil rights of the indigenous people.
In Israel's case its supporters tell a lie and then when it has been retold sufficiently it becomes the truth- relying on the laziness of others not to confront - this is propaganda.
Complain about this comment
MAII: "I'm not playing a word game with you" etc.
is not a substitute for acknowledging an answer that disproves your previously expressed point of view.
MAII: "a single snapshot in what is a gross oversimplification of a very long and complex process that spanned decades"
which many other people would call facts!
You have to admire MAII's altruism in repeatedly posting widely held misconceptions. People can keep disproving his points and everyone learns, moving away from opinions and closer to a more accurate description of the situation.
Complain about this comment
41,42;
All irrelevant. What happend fifty or a hundred years ago has nothing to do with today. The past is dead forever. Britain once had an empire that stretched around the world. Now it's no more than a little island where even its neighbor Scotland wants out of a union with it. Try to focus on the present and the future....that is if there is going to be a future. At the rate things have been going downhill for the Palestinians, that is not all that certain. Come to think of it at the rate they are going for Britain......
Complain about this comment
MA11 seems to be espousing an anarchists view of how we should behave.
When dismissing an agreement of " fifty or a hundred years ago" as " has nothing to do with today" it is possible to see agreements of '50 or 100 days ago' or even in our 24/7 world of '50 or 100 minutes ago' if the agreement suddenly didn't suit.
That is the reality of Israel and its Zionist supporters that of agreeing as in Oslo 1 and then failing to adher.
Indeed in 2008 an agreement with Hamas that they stop rockets being fired into Israeli colonised territory and the supplies to Gaza be returned to normal. Israel failed to adher to the agreement and then killed deliberately, it seems, 6 Palestinians on a pretext on 5 Nov 08 to goad a response to launch its 'Operation Lead' amid its protestations that "leetle poor Iswael" was being attacked by 'big bad Hamas'.
The nicest description of Israel is that it is duplicitous and disingenuous and that well covers its stance on Settlements, a Palestinian State as well as Peace with the Palestinians.
Should the USA stop paying Israel and guaranteeing its debt Israel will have to think carefully.
Complain about this comment
I'm pretty satisfied with the world as it is. It seems to me that ultimately with both people and nations they get pretty much what they deserve. Somehow at any given time the situation always seems to be the logical result of the forces that brought it to wherever it is.
Fate sometimes plays a hand in events but on the whole, people control their own destiny. If people don't like the place they're at, they should stop traveling in the same direction. If they don't, they have no justification for grumbling.
It's interesting that people find time and the energy to blame America or Israel for all of the world's problems. What they should really focus on is their own problems and the best way to start is by looking in the mirror. That's where the root of failure begins and ends.
Yes to me the world seems just about the way it ought to be.
Complain about this comment
#44
The nicest description of Hamas is that it is honest.
"...The time will come, by Allah's will, when their property will be destroyed and their children will be exterminated, and no Jew or Zionist will be left on the face of this Earth."
Imam Ziad Abu Alhaj speaking on Al-Aqsa (Hamas) TV. Broadcast on April 3rd, 2009
An honest genocidal psychopath is still a genocidal psychopath.
Complain about this comment
Scotch-git wrote: #44
"The nicest description of Hamas is that it is honest............. An honest genocidal psychopath is still a genocidal psychopath."
The latter phrase maybe a Palestinian view of one & all Zionists, and then they have over 61 years of proof.
Added to duplicitous & disingenuous and it is little wonder that Netanyahu and 'the Israelis' are let's say distrusted.
Now the USA will have to face the fact that they have a friend who isn't a friend and as MAII told us above, if Israel is gong 'down' it has enough nuclear munitions to take out Europe too in a nuclear holocaust [& MAII isn't alone in that type of threat], if you have an open mind it makes you wonder who the "genocidal psychopaths" really are ?
Complain about this comment
"It seems to me that ultimately with both people and nations they get pretty much what they deserve." MAII #45
In this comment MAII seems to be stating that the "indigenous people" of Palestine 'got what they deserve' Zionists.
The attitude is very revealing it suggests that 'Might is Right' and what the powerful want they should get because they deserve it regardless. It is the attitude very obviously prevalent in Zionist circles in their writing in 1920s & 1930s.
It also might touch a nerve as inherently he blames individuals and communities for their own misfortune which in the context of 1930s & 1940s Germany some might distance themselves from MAII.
MAII also agrees with the murderer who states the victim has only themselves to blame for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, not the murder's fault. Indeed in MAII's world it is solely the Palestinians fault that they are there to be oppressed, abused and killed by Israelis- so don't blame the murders.
Humm
Complain about this comment
"The attitude is very revealing it suggests that 'Might is Right'"
It may suggest that to you but it is not what it means. It means that when people do things, there are consequences. When you fight four genocidal wars and then two terrorist wars to wipe Israel off the map, you run the risk of losing every one of them and when you do, things get worse for you each time. After more than 60 years of these wars plus a continuous low level terrorist war to destroy it, the consequences for the Arab Palestinians have reduced them to their current miserable state of hopeless impovrishment. In a way they are lucky. Had someone chosen to fight six such wars against any other people on earth I can think of and lost, the consequences for them would have been far more dire. Under the circumstances the Israelis were very restrained. For example, all it took for Japan was to start one war to destroy the US and they were nuked twice with demands for unconditional surrender or they would have been wiped off the planet. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were among the consequences of Pearl Harbor. All it took was one war by Germany to try to destroy Britain and among other consequences there was Dresden.
Jews were also among the indigenous people of Palestine and deserved a nation. But the Arabs wanted it all for themselves and as a a just consequence have nothing and in all likelihood always will have nothing. There is no real prospect of an Arab Palestinian state now nor should there be. The Palestinians should consider that if they want a different outcome, they should try a different tactic, seeing that their prior tacticts have failed. How about accepting Israel's right to exist in peace and meaning it by real actions instead of false words. Iran seems to be preparing to make the same mistake the Arabs made. They will also pay with dire consequences. What do you call people who don't learn from mistakes?
The passivity and pacifist philosophy of the Jews prior to WWII made them the perfect victims for demagogues like Hitler to use as scapegoats for problems in Germany that had nothing to do with them. They've paid a terrible price for that mistake and learned from it, at least some of them have. They're not so passive or pacifist any longer. Now they're thriving in their own homeland. See, like I said, justice for all. The world is about where it ought to be, the consequences of the collective actions people have taken whether they anticipated those consequences or not. The Palestinians have made their own bed. Now they have to lie in it.
Complain about this comment
#46, #47
Darrum,
How revealing that you do not take the opportunity to condemn the words of Imam Ziad Abu Alhaj. He, at least, does not hide behind the words 'Israelis' and 'Zionists' when he means Jews.
In 1950 there were 750,000 Arab refugees in or from the Holy Land. Now there are 4,600,000. (UN figures).
If, as you suggest, the Israelis have adopted a policy of genocide against these people for the last 61 years, (God forbid), these numbers provide proof of quite spectacular ineptitude.
You forget, or decline to mention, the approximately 800,000 Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries since 1948,
586,000 of whom fled to Israel.
Why are these people not languishing in refugee camps? Because world Jewry ensured that every one of them was given money to begin a new life.
The response of the Arab states to the plight of their brethren in the Holy Land has been, with the notable exception of Jordan, unsympathetic at best.
Their implacable hatred of Israel overrides everything. Up to and including the best interests of their people.
Complain about this comment
"The response of the Arab states to the plight of their brethren in the Holy Land has been, with the notable exception of Jordan, unsympathetic at best."
As I recall, at one point the Jordanians threw the Palestinians out. I think that's when they went to Lebanon.
The Arabs reveal by their actionos that they don't really care what happens to the Palestinians. They just don't want the example of a free prosperous modern democratic state in their midst. It's a direct threat to their own cruel failed backwards impovrished dictatorships.
Complain about this comment
"When you fight four genocidal wars and then two terrorist wars to wipe Israel off the map,..." MAII
Tehehe:-
MAII showing ignorance of history again...which edition of the Israeli Government propaganda booklet do you work from ????
The only initiating genocidal activity has been zionist/israeli as promulgated in the various writing from prominant zionists in the 1930s and certainly detailed by Ben Gurion etc in the israeli Government's determination to drive all Palestinians out of areas occupied by the zionist terror gangs and then israeli military.
The Palestinians have been defending their lives and their property reacting to zionist terror. Defence is hardly compatible with your frankly disturbing revisionist rubbish about genocidal war.
Israel is conducting a genocidal war to drive out all Palestinians and it is hidden just wafer thin in MAII's posts.
MAII should re-read what they have written as it states loudly that the rights of Jews or certainly israelis are greater than those of the Palestinians. Only a bigot can accept that.
The zionists campaigned for Jews living in Arab/Moslem countries to go to israel the 'empty land' after it had been relatively ethnically cleansed by zionists of Palestinians and even of late to get those in Iran to leave. They also tried to attract Jews from Europe and America to emigrate.
The oppression continues today and may be viewed on YouTube and is a part of a genocidal process (check the UN website for genocide).
Netanyahu is one of a line of israeli politicians who hardly hides his ethnic cleansing intent and Sharon was part of the active genocidal programs against Palestinians certainly when he was in Unit 101 and thought responsible for the Qibya massacre all before Shatila & Sabra.
Of course if MAII supports genocidal action that well defines their position.
Complain about this comment
"How revealing that you do not take the opportunity to condemn the words of Imam Ziad Abu Alhaj." Scotch-git
I tend not to waste time on the obvious nor at puerile nit-picking.
"Scotch-git" needs to better understand the meaning of genocidal.
UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Art. 2.
Genocidal acts need not kill or cause the death.
No doubt the Arab States to which you refer had wrongly assumed that the 'Great & Good' in the world - USA etc preaching democracy etc would back up their UN Charter & Conventions. Sadly in the case of the USA etc they have been wrong.
Complain about this comment
#53
I feel a strong urge to waste no more time on your puerilism.
Human life is of far greater import than your silly attempts to alter the meaning of words.
You can call it whatever you like, but if someone tells me that they intend to murder me and mine, I tend to take them at their word.
In the immortal words of Kinky Friedman;
'They ain't making Jews like Jesus anymore, they don't turn the other cheek the way they done before...'
I leave you to wallow in your prejudice.
Complain about this comment
Darrum, it must frustrate you terribly that the US government and its people just don't see the world the way you do. Being true democracies, America's policies and Israeli's policies by and large reflect the will of their people. In fact in this regard, it's their overwhelming will, especially in America. They interpret the UN charter as supporting Israel. I for one have advocated that the US quit the UN, WTO, NATO, and other international treaties that tie its hands. Forced to choose between these organizations and its support for Isreal or even its relationship with the UK and its support for Israel, the US would stick by Israel. Expectations that President Obama will change that as speculated in the media are going to meet with severe disappointment.
BTW, if you don't believe what I say about the US relationship with Israel being stronger than with any other foreign nation including the UK I suggest you listen to Owen Bennet-Jones' interview with Sir Christopher Meyers who was the UK ambassador to the US for over 5 years on BBC's program "The Interview." He makes it quite clear. Personally I think that the UK's "special relationship" with the US is more wishful thinking on the UK's part than reality but then that's just my opinion.
Complain about this comment
#55. re 01:21am on 28 Jun 2009, MAII
The point is that life changes and much as Saddam was a US darling in the 1980s much as Israel had become over the last several decades that was founded on Israel's manipulation of the media less easy today and the huge amounts of money and effort that pro-Israel communities in the USA put into supporting elections of politicians, particularly the President.
Whether it will be the attitude of Israel to Obama's demand on cessation of settlement building or some other arrogant stance, Israel like a Madoff will suddenly be persona non grata.
That seems to be occuring and much as Chris Meyer's comment reflect his time in Washington that was several years ago. Things change.
Complain about this comment
Dream on Darrum. There is nothing to suggest that such a thing will happen. BTW, both McCain and Obama were strong supporters of Israel as were all of the other candidates of both major parties.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS