By Ted Belman
The NY Times continues to misrepresent reality in this article but the title The Mideast Peace Process: No Plan for Talks was OK.
-
This is the time for bold ideas to salvage Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel did not seize it. In his address to Congress, he showed — once again — that he has no serious appetite for the kind of compromises that are the only way to forge a two-state solution and guarantee both Palestinians their long-denied state and Israel’s long-term security.
Notice how they put the sole onus on Netanyahju and assume that capitulation will bring “long-term security.” No one has denied the palestinians their state save for their leaders.
-
President Obama showed more rhetorical initiative when he spoke, but he doesn’t appear to have a strategy for reviving negotiations. Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, is refusing to come back to the table and is apparently betting his people’s future on a misguided deal with Hamas and symbolic gestures.
I am glad he doesn’t have a clue how to bring Abbas back to the negotiating table. Why isn’t Abbas blamed for not negotiating or making bold moves. Oh, I forgot, he is an Arab.
-
This is more than just a wasted opportunity. Continued stalemate feeds extremism. And there is a deadline looming: Absent negotiations, Palestinians plan to ask the United Nations in September to recognize their state. The measure won’t get them what they want, and the United States will veto it when it gets to the Security Council. But the exercise will further isolate Israel and Washington.
Yes more extremism is coming but I would rather defend against it than capitulate.
-
President Obama vowed to revive the peace process but checked out when Mr. Netanyahu rejected his demand for a settlement freeze and Mr. Abbas refused to negotiate without it. Mr. Obama got back in the game last week. In a speech on the Arab Spring, he goaded allies, including Israel, to take political risks for peaceful change.
Obama was wrong on both accounts.
-
What drew the most attention was his call for negotiations on a Palestinian state based on Israel’s pre-1967 borders — with mutually agreed land swaps. The idea has been the basis of all negotiations for more than a decade, including those backed by President George W. Bush.
On the contrary. While many have accepted the option of swaps no President has said that the ’67 lines should be the starting point.
-
Mr. Netanyahu immediately insisted that Israel would never return to the “indefensible” pre-1967 boundaries. Playing to his conservative base at home, and on Capitol Hill, he ignored the second half of Mr. Obama’s statement about “mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
This is bullshit. The swaps are intended to save some settlements but not to make the ’67 lines defensible. It would take a lot more than swaps. There is no reason why Arabs should receive 100% of the land. Yet this formulation is based on such a concept. Why?
-
Pretty much everyone but the hardest liners — on both sides — assumes that in a peace deal Israel will retain many of its West Bank settlements and compensate Palestinians with other land. On Monday, Mr. Netanyahu acknowledged as much, saying that “in any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders.”
Thank G-d for “hardliners” on our side otherwise we would have long given up our patrimony for nothing. While this may be true, it doesn’t in any way support the reference point of the pre ’67 lines. I think Netanyahu hinted that the post ’67 lines are the reference point when he said israel is willing to give part of its lands for peace.
-
His aides had raised hopes that Mr. Netanyahu would offer new ideas to revive talks, but there was really nothing new there. He insisted that Jerusalem “will never again be divided” and Israel’s Army would remain along the Jordan River. And while he basked in Congress’s standing ovations, Ethan Bronner reported in The Times that in Israel the trip was judged a diplomatic failure. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz said Mr. Netanyahu’s “same old messages” proved the country “deserves a different leader.” Palestinians dismissed the visit and said they would focus on nonviolent protests leading to September.
Screw Bonner. What a misrepresentation of reality. The views of Haaretz represent a small minority in Israel. To the contrary, in Israel, the trip was very well received and Bibi’s popularity shot up in the polls. Also Likud was polling an addition 5 mandates even before the trip.
-
So what happens now? More drift and recriminations, unless Mr. Obama comes up with a plan to get the parties into serious talks. We see no hint that he is working toward one. We are told that he has no immediate plans to appoint a new envoy to replace George Mitchell, who resigned, or to send Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to the region. Negotiations will become even harder once the unity government with Hamas is formed and it gets closer to September. Time is running out.
“Time is running out” for what? Its never too late to surrender. In the meantime, I like the cards Israel is holding. She is in possession and is in the driver’s seat.
I’d love to see the above happen, but I’d extend it to include CNN.
Someday, the smoking gun will appear, and it will come out that the editorial staff and/or the owners of the NYT are taking money from the Saudis as payment for the endless stream of anti-Israel vomit.
The NYT is a financial basket case, their readership it way down, and so far as I’m concerned, this is the only rational explanation for their incessant Israel bashing in the face of a mountain of facts that point to, ah, another point of view.
Same can be said for many, many other media outlets.
Yes, some in the media are “true believers” for the Palestinian “cause”…but I can’t believe they are ALL that stupid!!!
By giving up Israeli citizenship The Israeli government would have no legal jurisdiction or rights to remove any Non Israeli from their homes. Setters could then apply to the UN for status of refugees and stateless residents. That in itself might embarrass the Israeli government to rethink any idea or plans for abandoning any part of Y & S. I also don’t think most Israelis would abandon Jews citizens or not to be killed by the Arabs. On the other hand our boyscout settlers who won’t raise a finger against the IDF have no similar moral impediments to killing Arabs.
Interesting set of scenarios and options. Everything should now be put on the table openly with as much publicity as possible. The most important thing is to convince BB and his may dwarfs that this is a real possibility and there will be enough support for Judea to make it possible.
The strength of past and present Israeli governments was the conviction that the boyscout settlers would not violently resist the IDF and the enforcement forces of the State which for those fools has become holy cow or if you like a Golden Calf. They were correct in their assessments. This must change.
I believe that the “israelitists” will do much before abandoning 400000 Jews.
Doing that could well mark the end of the state. One way or another.
If that is the action taken, I find it difficult to believe that a majority will risk their lives to serve in such army. The precedents are ample showing that the IDF has abandoned allies, prisoners, wounded soldiers and also attacked civilians. Not precisely a way to create trust amongst the ranks.
Consequently it may well serve said elements to accept a loose confederation for a while while plotting with their islamic partners… to destroy it. In the interim the million of so Jews settling in the Yesh Confederate State would be able to form some form of self defense force.
The risks are enourmous as no one can assure that the IDF will not attack in force.
Declaring a Second Jewish State
THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION:
ISRAEL AND JUDEA
By Ariel Natan Pasko
Back in 1989, the radical Rabbi and former Knesset member Meir Kahane, members of his – still then legal – Kach Party, and an assortment of other miscellaneous – what are euphemistically called today – right-wing extremists, met in Jerusalem, to found the State of Judea. Their program, based on the assumption that an – as yet unknown -Israeli-Palestinian peace process of the future, would call for the expulsion of Jews from parts of the historic Land of Israel, specifically the 1967 liberated territories called Yesha, i.e. Judea, Samaria (the West Bank), and Gaza. In case of this eventuality, they proposed that Jewish settlers declare independence from Israel and establish their own Jewish state, to be called the State of Judea. This idea, was to provide a political and defense alternative to the Jews of Yesha, since the Israeli government, it was believed, would be abandoning them, and turning over sovereignty of the land to an Arab entity.
In juxtaposition to the commonly heard phrase, “two states for two peoples,” i.e. Jews and Arabs or Israelis and Palestinians, one can summarize their idea in the phrase, “two states for one people,” i.e. Jews-Judeans and Israelis. Let me point out here, there is a historic precedent for it, just open the bible to the Book of Kings, and you can read about the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel.
Be that as it may, 15 years ago, this idea – of two Jewish states – was the purview of those exclusively on the right side of the political spectrum in Israel, but not anymore.
Referring to Sharon’s disengagement plan from Gaza and areas of Samaria, and the forced expulsion of Jews from their homes and communities, American academic, Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, suggested a different type of strategy to avoid a civil war in Israel, “Should the [Israeli] government go ahead with the forcible removal of Jewish residents of Gaza, intra-Israeli violence appears to be a distinct possibility. Which in turn makes me wonder why the Israeli authorities do not take quite a different track and merely stop providing security for them.”
This idea has also been proposed in an article in the left-leaning “intellectual” Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz entitled, “If they do not evacuate voluntarily”. Read more
The Jewish Agency is a long dicredited nest of majers that just as well plant trees for the enemy to hide behind or perform other such actions. We should not make much out of what that element “does” or not.
About four years ago a group of excellent people formed a NEW JEWISH AGENCY and had to back down as the old one menaced with all kinds of actions. In other words, they took the bait and got very concerned.
What is important is to be preparing, start planning the declaration of a confederate state in Yehudah and Shomron.
That would require an extensive amount of work some of which may be cause for the likes of Barak, Peres and Livni to organize attacks on those so planning. Those elements not just meet secretely with the enemy, or import Arafat or arm them. They will try much more than that…
In four months a determined people can do it and I am prepared to do anything within my sphere of knowledge to help.
If anyone is interested let me know and we can set up meetings in Jerusalem.
Time to begin seriously considering a 2nd Jewish State!!
Let my people go
Obadiah Shoher
Israeli rulers oppose the establishment of Judea because that would show their ideological bankruptcy. They don’t want to split with Judea their monopoly on representing the Jewish people. It would be clear that Judea stands for Jews and Judaism, while Israel is a Western beachhead in the Middle East. When Judea is established, the Israeli prime minister will be downgraded to American viceroy, the like of Iraqi’s al-Maliki.
To ease the split, Judea could accept a loose federal union with Israel. Confederation provides for religious diversity: Judea could be Orthodox, Samaria could be Conservative right, and some areas could be settled by secular Jewish nationalists. Even the Reformists could get a place near the Jordanian border. Religious and nationalist enclaves could relinquish foreign policy and monetary functions to Israel proper as long as she recognizes their rights to a religious environment free of Arabs.
Judea’s sovereignty offers Israel advantages over autonomy, foremost of which are the limits of liability. Many Israeli Jews detest giving our lands away to Arabs, but don’t want to suffer the consequences of keeping them. Now the religious Jews of Judea would shoulder the burden of foreign condemnation for taking over the core Jewish lands and cleansing them of Arabs. The condemnation will be irrelevant because religious Jews separate themselves from Gentiles, and insignificant because those Jews don’t significantly engage in foreign trade. read more
Perhaps a “Jewish Spring” is in order.
Netanyahu’s Israel clarified
As Netanyahu was speaking in the US about the need to leave some Jewish villages to the Palestinians, the Jewish Agency dropped Maaleh Adumim and Ariel from its aliyah advertising. That means the number of Jewish evictees will be closer to 100,000.
The Israeli government welcomes a worthless peace treaty with Palestinian Arabs at the cost of a war with its own Jewish citizens.
This surprises me.
The NY Times is so full of it already, I’m surprised there’s room for more!
I have good news for the NYT! My grandchildren prefer that newpspaper… as my childred did before.
It makes the best rodent cage floor cover ever. It absorbs refuse as only the NYT can.
As to the future. The moment the islamics do anything stupid, that being their standard procedure, here are some items that may interest you. I am a bit old for it but I have been asked to help 17 “settlement” teams being prepared to take over locations in Yehuda & Shomron and that is only from Galilee area residents.
I know the truck owners that will transport them to location.
There is far more as WIP.
This is the time for bold ideas to salvage Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts.
Ok. Here’s a bold plan for peace:
1) Annex Judea and Samaria.
2) Declare an end to the phony “peace” negotiations since the Arabs can’t sit like adults at a table and continue to make unreasonable demands while their people remain unprepared to keep any peace agreement as evidenced by the hate taught in their schools, preached in their mosques and presented in their media.
3) Build settlements whenever and wherever.
4) Arabs who won’t live peacefully among Jews in J&S have 22 Arab and 56 Muslim states where they can live in Islamic bliss, foam at the mouth with hatred, plan the destruction of the Jews and enjoy all the benefits of being ruled by their own people free of the “humiliation of occupation.”
Thank you. Have a nice day.
HAARETZ: So what happens now? More drift and recriminations, unless Mr. Obama comes up with a plan to get the parties into serious talks. We see no hint that he is working toward one. We are told that he has no immediate plans to appoint a new envoy to replace George Mitchell, who resigned, or to send Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to the region. Negotiations will become even harder once the unity government with Hamas is formed and it gets closer to September. Time is running out.
BELMAN: “Time is running out” for what? Its never too late to surrender. In the meantime, I like the cards Israel is holding. She is in possession and is in the driver’s seat.
A good explanation of President Obama’s focus on Middle East matters, is given in the following:
Here are some of the things that come to mind, when I think of the countries our leader is visiting:
Ireland: an incredible debt crisis, and an economic fiasco
The UK: a budget crisis, and an economy in not too much better shape than Ireland’s, coupled by a costly military intervention in Libya
France: recently pooled military resources with UK, to solve both their money crunches; severe problems with African minorities; pressure from the right to tighten immigration. Mired, along with the UK, in a foolish military adventure in Libya that they cannot win and cannot afford.
Poland: domestic problems completely unrelated to the Middle East. They were exporting workers to Ireland before the latter went bust; I assume they’re back home now, and not doing that hot.
All these countries, and the US as well, are faced with an exponentionally growing debt, budget and balance of trade problem that threatens their national existence, along with related immigration problems that threaten their social fabric and identity; but instead of focusing on these important issues, issues that could well bring down the ruling houses of most of the West over the next couple of years, the officially announced Presidential candidate, Barack Obama, is talking in cool Poland about a situation that he is working to heat up in the Middle East. As the article says, his remarkes were
The Middle East is not running out of time. Obama is — between now, and November, 2012.
The greatest problem of all is the assumption that Obama does not understand the danger to Israel coming from Hamas, Hitzbullah, The Muslim Brotherhood, the Juhadist, et all.
The real problem is that he does understand, and shares their goal with zeal.
The misrepresentations of the New York Times should signal the demise of the mainstream media and their subservience to the Obama Administration. They should be exposed and their authors should be publicly humiliated for their dereliction of duty.
The ongoing charade of the “1967 lines with swaps” means that, under any negotiation, Israel should abandon 22% of its territory (Gaza + “West Bank” = 6,000 sqkm, vs. 27,000 sqkm). While countries such as Russia, Canada, the U.S., Brazil and others could still survive after such an amputation of their land mass, this is not the case for Israel, regardless of where the amputation takes place, let alone in the strategically vital Judea&Samaria territory.
Therefore, the “two-state solution” concept, spawned some twenty years ago by inane dreamers with no connection to geographic or legal reality, should be a dead issue now. This original sin, coupled with surreal provisions such as “a viable, contiguous, democratic Palestinian state living peacefully side by side with Israel” was born the day people entered into negotiations without ascertaining the glaring incompatibility of the objectives pursued by the two parties.
Let it be clear that Israel owes no territory west of the Jordan River to any Arab entity. What is missing now is for the world to recognize this reality, rather than to dwell in the NYT’s intellectual masturbations detached from common sense.
“Two state solution” is an oxymoron. Having two states in Israel will SOLVE nothing, and lead to further conflict.
“Planet earth to New York Times. Come in, New York Times.”
The problem is not only about Obama’s position on what Abba Eban called the “Auschwitz borders”, but Obama’s inability to understand the danger to Israeli coming from Hamas, Hizbullah, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, jihadists in Turkey, apocalyptic return of the Mahdi seeking and nuclear war desiring Iranian regime and his absurd belief that Syrian Assad is a reformer. While Israel is confronted by enemies from seven different points Obama expects Israel to risk its security for what exactly? – a solution that is highly unlikely and runs counter to Israel’s enemies’ core beliefs.
Most of all the problem is the assumption that there is a solution. But how can Netanyahu come up with a solution when one does not exist? The solution does not exist because Islam is a religion/ideology that demands submission, does not accept compromises and the only real solution would be to apply sufficient force for their own theology to kick in and they accept the Islamic teaching that if the enemy is too strong they can proclaim hudna for 10 years and only after that period expires re-evaluate the possibility of continuing the jihad. Israel has painted itself in a corner because for years we have refused out of political correctness to clearly state where the problem was. Islam is intolerant and its ideology of jihad demands of its followers to wage it until the whole world succumbs to Muslim rule. The best we can hope for is a series of back to back hudnas .