U.S. Officials: Resolution Endangers “Prospects of a Durable Peace”

By Ted Belman

The only way it can do so is to make the Palestinians even less flexible. But since the Palestinians have never exhibited flexibility or a willingness to compromise, the resolution will simply reinforce their past behavior.

Can anyone explain how the resolution “endangers prospects for peace”. Has PM Netanyahu ever indicated that he will accept “67 lines with swaps” or the division of Jerusalem. Did anyone ever expect that Netanyahu would cave on these red lines. Mind you he did say recently the UN resolutions can’t get Israel to compromise on security. I hate when he says things like that instead of saying that no UN resolution will get Israel to cross those red lines.

So what prospects for peace were there before the resolution which have been endangered. The only prospect lay in getting Israel to cross her red lines. I don’t see how the Resolution will steel Israel’s refusal to cross the red lines.

November 30, 2012 | 4 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

4 Comments / 4 Comments

  1. Donald freyman Said:

    The absolute absurdity of these mini non-entities ruling on whether Palestine should be regarded as a state or not is beyond rational consideration.

    Whereas the absurdity of us, Greeks, in ruling that Palestinians deserve a state (we voted in favor of the Palestinians) is within the boundaries of rationality. And that is why recent leaks from our Ministry of Foreign Affairs concluded that there is no problem whatsoever with our newly formed energy-alliance with Israel, despite our vote, since “we have a given position on Palestine, that cannot be changed”.

    Fear the Greeks etc. etc.

  2. Mind you he did say recently the UN resolutions can’t get Israel to compromise on security. I hate when he says things like that instead of saying that no UN resolution will get Israel to cross those red lines.

    I think Netanyahu does it because it is better in terms of PR and public diplomacy.

    Whenever i try to persuade Europeans that the two-state solution is dead, i always appeal to the disastrous Gaza disengagement and the justified Israeli worries that if they release the West bank they will be met again with rocket fire that will completely disrupt Tel Aviv and the airport, endangering thus the economic survival of Israel. This, coupled with the incitement that the PA promotes, guarantees that the Palestinians will always be a security threat, hence there can be no peace so long as the Palestinians stay in the West Bank, instead of being cajoled to relocate.

    It’s more often than not a successful argument, it silences all the open-minded European proponents of the two-state solution – we cannot expect to persuade the closed-minded ones, they just hate Israel.

    Can anyone post a link(s) about the possible security threats from the West Bank hilltops? It helps if the above argument is presented with more and more detail.

  3. Among the nine nations that voted against U.N. non –member state observer status for Palestine were

    Nauru- population, 10,000
    Palau – pop, 21,000
    Marshall Islands –pop, 55,000
    Micronesia- pop, 112,000

    The absolute absurdity of these mini non-entities ruling on whether Palestine should be regarded as a state or not is beyond rational consideration.

  4. If everyone sits down now to negotiations then the statement of “endangering prospects for peace” is shown to be ludicrous.

    Mind you he did say recently the UN resolutions can’t get Israel to compromise on security.

    Perhaps security means 100mil complexes, arms deals etc. I didn’t see anything about land, does that mean goodbye YS? Arrogant and temporal jewish leaders who believe that such major decisions are theirs to make without consultation of the citizens; back door deals in smoke filled rooms?