Israel Admits to Its True Path
. . .is to deny Palestinians the possibility
of a nation-state with territorial integrity
on the West Bank.
Israel's foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, rejects the idea of a freeze on Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
Lieberman admits that Israel does not have
of a nation-state with territorial integrity
on the West Bank.
Israel's foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, rejects the idea of a freeze on Jewish settlements in the West Bank.Lieberman admits that Israel does not have
any intention to change the demographic balance .... we think that as in any place, babies are born, people get married, some pass away and we cannot accept this vision about an absolutely complete freezing of settlements .... I think that we must keep the natural growth .... This approach is very clear and also we had some understandings with the previous administration [of George W. Bush] and we try to keep this direction.From the horse's mouth....
posted by GetaLife-ReadUrNews at 6/18/2009 07:35:00 AM
11 Moderated Comments:
Thanks for posting this, GaL-RUN. This was a news item a week or so, but it flew by without much public notice, digestion or discussion.
Of course, the other side of the story is that it further documents the secretive co-dependent relationship between expansionist Israel and the Neo-conservative Busheney administration.
Edmund J. Bourne defined Co-Dependency as
"the tendency to put others needs before your own. You accommodate to others to such a degree that you tend to discount or ignore your own feelings, desires and basic needs. Your self-esteem depends largely on how well you please, take care of and/or solve problems for someone else (or many others)."
For eight years, our foreign policy has been deflected from pursuing American national interest in the Middle East. We have been pursuing the interests of the settlers on the West Bank.
Israel will do everything in its power to keep the Palestinians from having a piece of their own land. We support Israel, but we should also stand up to them and advocate that they stop the settlements and deal fairly. If not, we should continue to provide the military support. Otherwise, we're just enabling an oppressive, right-wing state.
So, Israel has made a clear statement that it has no intention of giving back the West Bank land it took.
I simply don't see how Washington can ignore this declaration that Israel simply does not care about Palestinians and their rights and lives.
Israel tried to give back 97% of the territories (as well as control of eastern Jerusalem) back in 2000. Yasser Arafat told them to stuff it. The Palestinians have a true path, too. Ask former President Bill Clinton about it. He'll tell you.
*sigh*
Will, your interpretation - that the Palestinians are to blame for the breakdown of 2000 talks - is, to put it mildly, disputed.
Besides, I think it's reasonable to take the position that *all* of the stolen territory should be returned and not settle for Israel getting to keep some of it.
And that's not even getting into whether followers of a religion had any right to kick other people off land because a collection of ancient myths says it belongs to them.
Bill Clinton's interpretation must be wrong, too. As for the "stolen" land, prior to the terrorist attacks of 1967, the bellicose threats from the murderous Nasser, the Arabs lining up their troops on the border, etc., Jordan possessed that land and NEVER ONCE attempted to create a Palestinian state out of it. The Jews have a 3,000 year continuous association and attachment to that land (and, YES, were willing to share it back in 1948). And, while, yes, the "Palestinians" also lay claim to the land, a lot of them were Johnny come latelies. 100,000 migrated to Palestine during the British mandate alone. And many more flooded into western Palestine, only because the Jews made something out of it and the Arabs wanted jobs. Don't get me wrong here. I'm totally in favor of a 2 state solution. I also don't particularly care for Netanyaho. But for the left to so consistently vilify the Israelis (this, while giving the Palestinians a free pass) continues to dumbfound me.
Arafat had every right to reject Israel's 2000 plan. It would have effectively made Palestine a colony of Israel and things like water rights would have been given to Israel. Israel wanted control over the area.
Will Hart fairly touches base when he impugns Palestinian leadership. That, I have remarked on before.
I may heart Israel more than any of its neighbors. But that doesn't excuse her for being a singularly bad neighbor since 1967. We, the USA, need to defend Israel if and when she is attacked (but not when and wherever she attacks).
The last thing I want to say is that we are at the nexus of our Middle Eastern foreign policy: in the face of Israeli intransigence about its colonies in the West Bank, we should cease all aid to Israel. Not doing so will be tantamount to Americans "owning" the West Bank.
If not, we should continue to provide the military support. In that regard, I think MacDaddy maybe omitted a word when he wrote above,
If not, we should NOT continue to provide the military support
If I get his meaning correctly.
I did omit a word. I said "If not, we should continue to provide the military support." I meant to say, "If not, we should not continue to provide the military support." Thanks.
This conflict will never end. It is the Hatfields and McCoys, Middle Eastern Style. The hatred that exists between the two countries runs far too deep. The fact that the U.S. continues to pander to Israel on virtually every issue, does not help.
I think Vigil once said the Israelis and the Palestinians should be left alone like two scorpions trapped in a bottle. Until both sides change, or one is eliminated, nothing will change. The very best we could do is just contain them trying to prevent the spread of their conflict. But that is too damn late for so many reasons.
Post a Comment
<< Home