Conserving, celebrating, and contributing to the excellence that is Western Civilization.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Netanyahu Calmly Explains Reality To The American Prez
It's been quite some time since I've sat transfixed as a politician spoke. Bibi is a class act, a straight-shooter, and the kind of leader I wish WE had. Listen to his eloquent, brass tacks public response to Obama:
That was brilliant. A very diplomatic lesson on history. It is educational to listen to someone calmly give a much needed lecture to someone as ignorant as Obama while making it sound like a compliment.
I watched this with my mouth open. It was masterful and a huge departure from the normal mutual back-stroking at these things.
Plus, Bibi has a wonderful voice. Wonderful. It's like listening to Steven Page (from Bare Naked Ladies) perform and then watching Isaac Hayes perform.
Sure, BNL is awesome. I love them. But you don't *shiver*. Know what I mean?
Netanyahu has a great voice for truth to power.
I may be a little silly awaiting the Rapture today, though.
Thanks for this link to the speech Lady Red. Would you believe, we in Israel haven't heard the speech yet because it was Shababt ehre.
I thought Bibi spoke excellently, calmly and clearly stating the facts from the Israeli viewpoint. Yet there are reports here in the Israeli press that Bibi blew it, ruining our relationship with the US. Ynet are reporting NBC's report that Bibi acted like a spoilt child who'd been told off by the teacher.
Is that a prevalent view do you think? Even considering NBC's inherent anti-Israel bias?
I certainly think that the right and center-right (and probably the Zionist left) will appreciate Bibi's speech.
Yes, that was my thought too Matt. Having finally gotten around to reading more news and blog reports I feel more reassured. It's only extreme-left Haaretz criticizing Bibi, plus Ynet reporting on NBC's criticism. Otherwise he's been a huge success here.
I concur with all of the above. Likely the first time in his life that Obama has had a fact-laden, grounded lecture from anyone, one which there is no room for emotional intelligence or moral/cultural equivocation.
I'll add- also the first time in living memory when an ally told POTUS the clear and unvarnished truth. After a warm-up vivisection on Hils, Bibi then went for Obama's jugular. Any wonder why for years I've been referring to Obama as a "dangerous naif"? It took Bibi to call Obama out on his vapid platitudes.
Finally, following on a thread at annie's blog wherein an expert referred to the recent gas finds in IL as "game changers", I reckon this is a first Iz manifestation of the power that hydrocarbon ownership instils. Bibi knows that Israel's future is bright, whilst America is Dead Man Walking with Obama floundering about. Hence, Bibi's shellacking of Obama.
Earl, you did know that Gene simmons is Israeli? Yes, srsly. Né Chaim Witz :)
Which of course goes to explain his eminent sensibleness. (scroll down to his political views). I'm amazed he still has a job and his records get sold.
I know he's enjoyed taking down anti-Israel activists a peg or two when they don't realize his nationality. Very enjoyable.
Gene Simmons is a great supporter of Israel as well as an extremely successful businessman. He's also a good family man and loves his mother.
There's absolutely no reason to denigrate him because he's a founder of a glam rock group.
Why Earl would think "it's hit rock bottom" when Gene Simmons has a more coherent understanding of the mideast situation than an elitist community organizer is beyond me.
No disrespect intended or implied re. Simmons- I appreciate all of his considerable business acumen and successes. And do not doubt that he is materphiliac...
Whilst perhaps inelegant, my comment was directed to the fact that America, with all of its considerable attributes and the pick of (SWAG) 50 million people, has produced this callow, dangerously naive elitist community organizer as its "leader". Which is exactly why Simmons' comments illuminate the extent to which America has hit rock-bottom. An ageing rock star in face paint "gets it" unequivocally; the Ivy League doyenne in the elegant suit and the nine handicap is jeopardizing both American and Israeli (heck, world) security.
We'd all better hope that the GOP can conjure up a qualified candidate before Obama gets another term to further betray Western civilization.
I read a bit of the malarkey Obama foisted upon AIPAC today. He talks out of both sides of his mouth. I hope he loses a chunk of the Jewish vote in the next election.
OK, Earl, thanks and sorry for flying off the handle. I guess I'm still a bit hurt about the email brouhaha and was exacting a little revenge.
:-)
I'm just another one of those white, angry, gun-totin', bible-clinging people that BO disdains. I'm so angry about what he said in regards to his Israel "policy" that I can't even put it into words.
I've read and thought about his issue and have a slightly different take.
@Earl #14: from your link to Obama's AIPAC speech:
“What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately,” Mr. Obama said. “I’ve done so because we can’t afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades to achieve peace.”
I basically think Obama's correct to assert that the '67 lines have long been the (unacknowledged) starting point for negotiations.
The negotiations under Clinton had those lines as a starting point, and this was widely known - if not officially announced. When those negotiations fell apart, the Clinton team complained that the Palestinians got "99.X% of what they wanted" and Arafat said no anyway. Well, that "99.X%" was calculated based on something, and IIRC that something was the 67 lines (bearing in mind of course that there was no "Palestine" in '67, only parts of Jordan and Egypt, but whatever.)
The "roadmap" (to nowhere) negotiations which Bush proposed had the same basis, I believe.
I think Obama defended the plain text of his remarks in front of AIPAC, and actually I think the "Obama proposed Israel retreat to the '67 lines" narrative is a misrepresentation and something of a strawman.
The problem with Obama's position is subtler and it lies in the second part of the quote I excerpted.
I’ve done so because we can’t afford to wait another decade, or another two decades...
OFFS. This is mind numbingly naive at best.
The idea that stating - ritualistically reciting, in fact - a position sure to infuriate and enrage one party to a proposed negotiation when stated publicly is not a way to speed the negotiated peace, but rather to inhibit it spectacularly.
Obama started from a weak position in that the Israelis don't trust him, and he seems to be doing everything in his rhetorical power to further alienate them.
Is Obama so arrogant that he believes the Israelis can be commanded or cajoled into trusting him? That a repetitive, intentional snub is the road to respect? That he doesn't need the trust of the Israelis to lead the negotiations?
The Wye negotiations got as far as they did because the Israelis trusted Clinton (and Ross). What kind of trust does Obama have?
The insane kabuki aspect of the whole thing is that it was demonstrated to anyone with a clue as far back as 2000 and the second intafada that it wasn't about the land as far as the Palestinian "leadership" was concerned.
Palestinian society has a demonstrated incapacity to invest legitimacy in any leadership which can authoritatively compromise with, recognize, and make peace with Israel.
Full stop.
Nothing has changed there, the situation is only more starkly illuminated by the accord between Fatah and Hamas.
No American president can tell the world point blank the Palestinian leadership is dysfunctional, so they can just pound sand, m'k?. The American president simply has too many other policy imperatives to tell that much truth - no matter who he or she is.
Similarly, no Israeli prime minister can say anything like this either - witness Netanyahu's profession of wanting peace, and acknowledging Palestinian aspiration to their own state. I believe Netanyahu was sincere, but in a very abstract kind of way - as though he were talking about some hypothetical Palestinian society other than the one he's faced with. Everybody understands this, and nobody really has a problem if Bibi says he wants peace with the Palestinians, because everyone knows where he's coming from.
When Obama says he wants a peace process based on the '67 lines with mutually agreed swaps blah blah... nobody knows what the f**k he's really saying, nobody trusts him.
While Obama did defend himself textually in front of AIPAC, the fact that he was compelled to engage in this kind of "please listen to exactly what I said" stuff is evidence of his failure before he's even started. Frankly it's diplomatically incompetent and un-Presidential.
What is his strategy to date for the "peace process"? - except 1) piss of Israel and 2) goto 1.
Perhaps he justifiably recognizes the endeavor as futile and seeks to simply blame Israel at every turn.
That, or he's arrogant enough to think himself a master diplomat, not recognizing that mutual trust is a necessary precondition of the would be interlocutor.
(Come to think of it, I bet Begin trusted Sadat more than he trusted Carter...)
Finally, Dennis Ross is still in the game, and we'll see where he comes down on the current issues. Apparently he is in open conflict with those naifs in the administration who believe the Israelis can be delivered by dictating terms to them.
@florrie: Gene Simmons rocks. (KISS, however, is crap music. You will find me as uncompromising as Netanyahu on that one.)
I understand your analysis, however, it is founded totally on false constructs that others try to impose on Israel.
The "Green Line?" That is not now nor was it ever a "border" per se. It is an 'armistice" line where the Jordanian Army stopped invading across the Jordan River in 1948. Prior to that time the defined border of Jewish Palestine(ne: Israel)was the same borders Israel occupies today in accordance with the 1920 San Remo Accords, amended 1922, and even ratified by Turkey in 1923.
Those same accords today define the borders of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan (ne: Trans-Jordan)et al. Why is it that in world polity the borders of Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc. are inviolate ...but somehow Israel's original boundaries are not?
The entire Mandate portions of the Middle East are constructs by Europeans (plus one Japanese guy) following the end of the Ottoman Empire. The literally is NO ancient legacy defining any of those borders ... except, arguably, Israel's historic boundary that included Judea and Samaria.
The KISS principle should apply. All the rest of this drawn out reasoned and logic is nothing but an extended extortion and con game.
Arguing for an Arab "West Bank" state is similar to one I could make for establishing a sovereign American state of "Comancheria" with full right of return covering much of Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, etc. How would that fly? NIMBY right? So why for Israel.
If you look at the San Remo 1922 amended borders, there is clearly a "two state" solution already in place. It was implemented in 1922. The fact "Palestine" was not a national Arab / Islamic identity of any kind was rather clearly demonstrated by the British installing a coastal Saudi Hashemite as "King" of Trans-Jordan.
Quite frankly, the Israelis are capable of finally negotiating whatever agreement they want with the Palestinian tribes in the the 1922 borders of Jewish Palestine.
The west needs to butt the f**k out. Now. They are an actual democratic ally for God's sake, treat them like one.
Or maybe Netanyahu should begin advising and directing the United States to recognize La Raza and cede much of the southwestern and West coast "occupied territories." While he's at it, he could also resolve the old dispute about Toledo between Michigan and Ohio ... rights of return and all that.
Lewy, Aridog et al, thank you for your analyses. I'm pretty much in agreement with you, but one of the main points aggravating me, besides all the rest that you pointed out, is this business of the "urgency" of the situation, that Israel must make peace NOW, the status quo is unsustainable, etc. ad nauseum.
No one has ever fully explained WHY the status quo is unsustainable when it clearly has been sustained for 63 years (or 44 years since 1967). No one has explained why the urgency? What has changed? If he means the Arab "Spring" - seeing as the upheaval in the Arab world is so volatile, and not quite bringing the democratic results we all hoped for, there is all the more reason for Israel to tread very carefully and very slowly in coming to any agreement with any Arab entity at all.
Obama also doesn't get it re Israel's borders and security requirements. Yes, Clinton and Bush II said the same thing regarding the 67 lines as being a starting point, but Obama said on Thursday, and repeated yesterday, that Israel must gradually withdraw from all of the West Bank, and yet must have viable security arrangements.
Now in order for Israel to remain secure it MUST have a presence in the Jordan Valley. How does he square that with a withdrawal from the West Bank? Those are 2 mutually exclusive propositions.
He also condemns Hamas and says israel cannot be expected to negotiate with them and yet demands that israel negotitate for peace. Again, 2 mutually exclusive positions.
It's as if Obama is repeating mantras without really understanding the words coming out of his mouth.
If he does understand them, it makes matters even worse.
He is possibly on a learning curve, but he still has a way to go.
I don't want to keep promoting my blog (OK, I do :) ) but you can read more on my latest post. I give links to Elder of Ziyon and the JPost too for more analysis.
I forgot to add, Obama once again mentioned "contiguous" as in "Palestine" must be a contiguous state. If it is, it will cut Israel in 2. If contiguity is so important,why not for Israel? Again, it doesn't make sense.
Ari, annie, thanks for the responses - it's late even for me here (4am) so sorry if this is brief - I can expand later...
Ari, my only point about the '67 borders is that it is nothing new with respect to negotiations - the only new element is the public aspect of it. Why Obama thought this was a wise move if he's actually believing he can be an honest broker is beyond me.
annie, you state: It's as if Obama is repeating mantras without really understanding the words coming out of his mouth. Yeah, I get that from him too.
But about this part: but Obama said on Thursday, and repeated yesterday, that Israel must gradually withdraw from all of the West Bank, and yet must have viable security arrangements. I didn't get that sense; I heard the language about the mutually agreed upon swaps (i.e. the Israeli "facts on the ground" would remain just that - facts on the ground, and Israeli - and that Palestinians would be offered some other lands as compensation. If I'm wrong and you could point me to the passage where he effectively demands withdrawal from the entire west bank, then that would be a substantially different story.
@annie #33 - yeah, graph theory doesn't really permit both a contiguous Israel and a contiguous Palestine, does it? That's just... math...
(Except... if Israel and Egypt grant an easment along the Sinai / Negev border, bang a left at the Jordan river, then up into the West Bank... maybe Obama could pay the Chinese to build the Palestinians a high speed train... ;) )
Lewy #34, I'm at work so I can't expand much either. just take a look at my blog - I wrote it all there. He mentions "The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces" from the West Bank. It's the word "full" that is key.
#35, the Sinai/Negev is at the complete opposite side of the country to the Jordan, so not sure how the geography would work out...
"It's as if Obama is repeating mantras without really understanding the words coming out of his mouth."
Click.
The trouble is that his sycophants ni the press, and gov't treat those mantras as actual wisdom, and seem unable or unwilling to undeerstand just how illogical and foolish they are.
What most offends me about Obama raising the "1967 borders" issue without context is a) as Ari notes @ 31, and b) there is no quid pro quo expected from the "Palestinians"; viz., not even the basics expected from them in Bush2's "Roadmap" framework. On Obama's plan, the "Palestinians" merely have to wait as Obama attempts to pressure IL into an increasingly-unsupportable strategic and political positions.
Fortunately, as lewy notes and I paraphrase, "nobody in Israel trusts Obama". Bibi understands both that reality and his place in history.
Annie / Lewy .... Let me clarify my position. I think Carter, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, Bush43, and Obama were and are dead wrong.
There is NO border to negotiate for the reasons I have cited vis a vis San Remo Accords, which appear to apply to everyone included in them except Israel. That is a perversion of reason, let alone history.
Case in point vis a vis San Remo: Bush41 went to war with Iraq, in essence, to re-establish the San Remo mandate defined borders for Kuwait. Tell em where I'm wrong on that?
Yet we have the f'ing gall to tell Israel to give up even one square meter of the West Bank, clearly NOT called for in the San Remo mandated borders.
What actually happened in 1948 is that Israel declared independence and was invaded the very next day, by multiple Arab nations, and the invading Jordan established the "green line" by armistice when the cease fire occurred. There is not and never was a truce, surrender, or other internationally legal accord establishing the "green line" as anything but temporary...much like the 38th parallel between North and South Korea.
In June 1967 Israel restored the original San Remo Accord boundaries, by force. Period. Just like we and several European and Arab allies did for Kuwait in 1991. I see no difference.
Frankly I do not get it why Israel doesn't raise the issues I do officially. It is simple logic to arrive at the conclusion that if the San Remo mandated borders hold for everyone else, they must hold for Israel. The straw men analogies I've drawn (Comancheria, La Raza, etc.) are in essence unanswerable ... e.g, like who in the USA would ever agree to them?
All this palaver and "this for that" minutia that has been added to the Palestinian issue, especially but outside westerners, is nonsense ... and merely clouds the issues, extends its conflicts, and creates false hopes in the breasts of murderers. Leave Israel to deal with Palestinians lurking within the original borders of "Jewish Palestine" as they see fit.
I'm very sure the Israelis will not adopt the "only good one is a dead one" theory as we once did.
This is purely awesome. I'm heartened to see a man with a backbone; the world is in short supply.
ReplyDeleteThat was brilliant. A very diplomatic lesson on history. It is educational to listen to someone calmly give a much needed lecture to someone as ignorant as Obama while making it sound like a compliment.
ReplyDeleteAll I could see was a thoughtful adult trying to explain to a self-centered twelve year old just exactly why he was SO wrong in his beliefs.
ReplyDeleteYes, brilliant. No histrionics, no political chicanery. Just a very simple statement of facts as they are for Israel.
ReplyDeleteThough how the hell anyone can concentrate with all those shutter sounds is beyond me.
Comments are acting very funny tonight.
ReplyDeleteI watched this with my mouth open. It was masterful and a huge departure from the normal mutual back-stroking at these things.
ReplyDeletePlus, Bibi has a wonderful voice. Wonderful. It's like listening to Steven Page (from Bare Naked Ladies) perform and then watching Isaac Hayes perform.
Sure, BNL is awesome. I love them. But you don't *shiver*. Know what I mean?
Netanyahu has a great voice for truth to power.
I may be a little silly awaiting the Rapture today, though.
I'd have liked it even more if Netanyahu had reached across, grabbed the JEM by his skinny throat, and bitch slapped him silly.
ReplyDeleteAFW said ...
ReplyDelete"Sure, BNL is awesome. I love them. But you don't *shiver*. Know what I mean?"
Uh, yeah, you could say that =))
imgw:"http://cache.blippitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/barenaked-ladies.jpg"
Thanks for this link to the speech Lady Red. Would you believe, we in Israel haven't heard the speech yet because it was Shababt ehre.
ReplyDeleteI thought Bibi spoke excellently, calmly and clearly stating the facts from the Israeli viewpoint. Yet there are reports here in the Israeli press that Bibi blew it, ruining our relationship with the US. Ynet are reporting NBC's report that Bibi acted like a spoilt child who'd been told off by the teacher.
Is that a prevalent view do you think? Even considering NBC's inherent anti-Israel bias?
I certainly think that the right and center-right (and probably the Zionist left) will appreciate Bibi's speech.
And he said it all without a teleprompter. :)
I guess he blew it if calmly stating facts is blowing it.
ReplyDeleteYes, that was my thought too Matt. Having finally gotten around to reading more news and blog reports I feel more reassured. It's only extreme-left Haaretz criticizing Bibi, plus Ynet reporting on NBC's criticism. Otherwise he's been a huge success here.
ReplyDeleteI concur with all of the above. Likely the first time in his life that Obama has had a fact-laden, grounded lecture from anyone, one which there is no room for emotional intelligence or moral/cultural equivocation.
ReplyDeleteI'll add- also the first time in living memory when an ally told POTUS the clear and unvarnished truth. After a warm-up vivisection on Hils, Bibi then went for Obama's jugular. Any wonder why for years I've been referring to Obama as a "dangerous naif"? It took Bibi to call Obama out on his vapid platitudes.
Finally, following on a thread at annie's blog wherein an expert referred to the recent gas finds in IL as "game changers", I reckon this is a first Iz manifestation of the power that hydrocarbon ownership instils. Bibi knows that Israel's future is bright, whilst America is Dead Man Walking with Obama floundering about. Hence, Bibi's shellacking of Obama.
Dammit- the Grue ate:
ReplyDelete"...when an ally told POTUS publicly the..."
/I don't doubt that Margaret Thatcher laced into Bush 1 on occasion...
It never ends; will Obama never just STFU?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/obama-defends-use-of-1967-lines-for-israeli-palestinian-boundaries/article2031288/
Time for IL to start strengthening ties to other non-regional allies- Obama's America is just utterly clueless and feckless.
It's hit rock-bottom when an ageing rock star has a more profound and coherent view of ME politics than POTUS:
ReplyDeletehttp://realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/21/kiss_gene_simmons_obama_has_no_fing_idea_what_the_world_is_like.html
Jackie Mason, I can understand- he trained as a rebbe and is a bright guy under all the schtick. But Gene Simmons???? Gene Simmons??????
Earl, you did know that Gene simmons is Israeli? Yes, srsly. Né Chaim Witz :)
ReplyDeleteWhich of course goes to explain his eminent sensibleness. (scroll down to his political views). I'm amazed he still has a job and his records get sold.
I know he's enjoyed taking down anti-Israel activists a peg or two when they don't realize his nationality. Very enjoyable.
annie: True, he's a sabra. But that's no guarantee that he'd be an anti-idiotarian- Peace Now is also Israeli, non?
ReplyDelete#17, Earl - true dat.
ReplyDeletePeace Now is also Israeli, non?
Please don't remind me. It's too embarrassing and annoying. x(
@annie:
ReplyDeletehttp://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/24.gif, if it weren't all-too-true...
Gene Simmons is a great supporter of Israel as well as an extremely successful businessman. He's also a good family man and loves his mother.
ReplyDeleteThere's absolutely no reason to denigrate him because he's a founder of a glam rock group.
Why Earl would think "it's hit rock bottom" when Gene Simmons has a more coherent understanding of the mideast situation than an elitist community organizer is beyond me.
Thank you for posting this, lady red, I didn't watch the presser so I missed hearing Bibi's words.
ReplyDeleteI only wish he was leading us.
I wish someone was leading us.
ReplyDelete@20 flo
ReplyDeleteNo disrespect intended or implied re. Simmons- I appreciate all of his considerable business acumen and successes. And do not doubt that he is materphiliac...
Whilst perhaps inelegant, my comment was directed to the fact that America, with all of its considerable attributes and the pick of (SWAG) 50 million people, has produced this callow, dangerously naive elitist community organizer as its "leader". Which is exactly why Simmons' comments illuminate the extent to which America has hit rock-bottom. An ageing rock star in face paint "gets it" unequivocally; the Ivy League doyenne in the elegant suit and the nine handicap is jeopardizing both American and Israeli (heck, world) security.
We'd all better hope that the GOP can conjure up a qualified candidate before Obama gets another term to further betray Western civilization.
Amen to that, Earl.
ReplyDeleteI read a bit of the malarkey Obama foisted upon AIPAC today. He talks out of both sides of his mouth. I hope he loses a chunk of the Jewish vote in the next election.
ReplyDeleteOK, Earl, thanks and sorry for flying off the handle. I guess I'm still a bit hurt about the email brouhaha and was exacting a little revenge.
ReplyDelete:-)
I'm just another one of those white, angry, gun-totin', bible-clinging people that BO disdains. I'm so angry about what he said in regards to his Israel "policy" that I can't even put it into words.
flo:
ReplyDeleteNo harm, no foul. Hence, my belated slithering after the motley crew assembled here ;)
lol! I'm glad you're here; I, for one, missed the polite golf clap.
ReplyDeleteimg:"http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/dancingpurplebanana.gif"
I've read and thought about his issue and have a slightly different take.
ReplyDelete@Earl #14: from your link to Obama's AIPAC speech:
“What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately,” Mr. Obama said. “I’ve done so because we can’t afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades to achieve peace.”
I basically think Obama's correct to assert that the '67 lines have long been the (unacknowledged) starting point for negotiations.
The negotiations under Clinton had those lines as a starting point, and this was widely known - if not officially announced. When those negotiations fell apart, the Clinton team complained that the Palestinians got "99.X% of what they wanted" and Arafat said no anyway. Well, that "99.X%" was calculated based on something, and IIRC that something was the 67 lines (bearing in mind of course that there was no "Palestine" in '67, only parts of Jordan and Egypt, but whatever.)
The "roadmap" (to nowhere) negotiations which Bush proposed had the same basis, I believe.
I think Obama defended the plain text of his remarks in front of AIPAC, and actually I think the "Obama proposed Israel retreat to the '67 lines" narrative is a misrepresentation and something of a strawman.
:|
(Keep reading below) ;)
The problem with Obama's position is subtler and it lies in the second part of the quote I excerpted.
ReplyDeleteI’ve done so because we can’t afford to wait another decade, or another two decades...
OFFS. This is mind numbingly naive at best.
The idea that stating - ritualistically reciting, in fact - a position sure to infuriate and enrage one party to a proposed negotiation when stated publicly is not a way to speed the negotiated peace, but rather to inhibit it spectacularly.
Obama started from a weak position in that the Israelis don't trust him, and he seems to be doing everything in his rhetorical power to further alienate them.
Is Obama so arrogant that he believes the Israelis can be commanded or cajoled into trusting him? That a repetitive, intentional snub is the road to respect? That he doesn't need the trust of the Israelis to lead the negotiations?
The Wye negotiations got as far as they did because the Israelis trusted Clinton (and Ross). What kind of trust does Obama have?
The insane kabuki aspect of the whole thing is that it was demonstrated to anyone with a clue as far back as 2000 and the second intafada that it wasn't about the land as far as the Palestinian "leadership" was concerned.
Palestinian society has a demonstrated incapacity to invest legitimacy in any leadership which can authoritatively compromise with, recognize, and make peace with Israel.
Full stop.
Nothing has changed there, the situation is only more starkly illuminated by the accord between Fatah and Hamas.
No American president can tell the world point blank the Palestinian leadership is dysfunctional, so they can just pound sand, m'k?. The American president simply has too many other policy imperatives to tell that much truth - no matter who he or she is.
Similarly, no Israeli prime minister can say anything like this either - witness Netanyahu's profession of wanting peace, and acknowledging Palestinian aspiration to their own state. I believe Netanyahu was sincere, but in a very abstract kind of way - as though he were talking about some hypothetical Palestinian society other than the one he's faced with. Everybody understands this, and nobody really has a problem if Bibi says he wants peace with the Palestinians, because everyone knows where he's coming from.
When Obama says he wants a peace process based on the '67 lines with mutually agreed swaps blah blah... nobody knows what the f**k he's really saying, nobody trusts him.
While Obama did defend himself textually in front of AIPAC, the fact that he was compelled to engage in this kind of "please listen to exactly what I said" stuff is evidence of his failure before he's even started. Frankly it's diplomatically incompetent and un-Presidential.
What is his strategy to date for the "peace process"? - except 1) piss of Israel and 2) goto 1.
Perhaps he justifiably recognizes the endeavor as futile and seeks to simply blame Israel at every turn.
That, or he's arrogant enough to think himself a master diplomat, not recognizing that mutual trust is a necessary precondition of the would be interlocutor.
(Come to think of it, I bet Begin trusted Sadat more than he trusted Carter...)
Finally, Dennis Ross is still in the game, and we'll see where he comes down on the current issues. Apparently he is in open conflict with those naifs in the administration who believe the Israelis can be delivered by dictating terms to them.
@florrie: Gene Simmons rocks. (KISS, however, is crap music. You will find me as uncompromising as Netanyahu on that one.)
Lewy ....
ReplyDeleteI understand your analysis, however, it is founded totally on false constructs that others try to impose on Israel.
The "Green Line?" That is not now nor was it ever a "border" per se. It is an 'armistice" line where the Jordanian Army stopped invading across the Jordan River in 1948. Prior to that time the defined border of Jewish Palestine(ne: Israel)was the same borders Israel occupies today in accordance with the 1920 San Remo Accords, amended 1922, and even ratified by Turkey in 1923.
Those same accords today define the borders of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan (ne: Trans-Jordan)et al. Why is it that in world polity the borders of Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc. are inviolate ...but somehow Israel's original boundaries are not?
The entire Mandate portions of the Middle East are constructs by Europeans (plus one Japanese guy) following the end of the Ottoman Empire. The literally is NO ancient legacy defining any of those borders ... except, arguably, Israel's historic boundary that included Judea and Samaria.
The KISS principle should apply. All the rest of this drawn out reasoned and logic is nothing but an extended extortion and con game.
Arguing for an Arab "West Bank" state is similar to one I could make for establishing a sovereign American state of "Comancheria" with full right of return covering much of Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, etc. How would that fly? NIMBY right? So why for Israel.
If you look at the San Remo 1922 amended borders, there is clearly a "two state" solution already in place. It was implemented in 1922. The fact "Palestine" was not a national Arab / Islamic identity of any kind was rather clearly demonstrated by the British installing a coastal Saudi Hashemite as "King" of Trans-Jordan.
Quite frankly, the Israelis are capable of finally negotiating whatever agreement they want with the Palestinian tribes in the the 1922 borders of Jewish Palestine.
imgw:"http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y128/aridog/1922-mandate_for_palestine-1-1.jpg"
The west needs to butt the f**k out. Now. They are an actual democratic ally for God's sake, treat them like one.
Or maybe Netanyahu should begin advising and directing the United States to recognize La Raza and cede much of the southwestern and West coast "occupied territories." While he's at it, he could also resolve the old dispute about Toledo between Michigan and Ohio ... rights of return and all that.
Lewy, Aridog et al, thank you for your analyses. I'm pretty much in agreement with you, but one of the main points aggravating me, besides all the rest that you pointed out, is this business of the "urgency" of the situation, that Israel must make peace NOW, the status quo is unsustainable, etc. ad nauseum.
ReplyDeleteNo one has ever fully explained WHY the status quo is unsustainable when it clearly has been sustained for 63 years (or 44 years since 1967). No one has explained why the urgency? What has changed? If he means the Arab "Spring" - seeing as the upheaval in the Arab world is so volatile, and not quite bringing the democratic results we all hoped for, there is all the more reason for Israel to tread very carefully and very slowly in coming to any agreement with any Arab entity at all.
Obama also doesn't get it re Israel's borders and security requirements. Yes, Clinton and Bush II said the same thing regarding the 67 lines as being a starting point, but Obama said on Thursday, and repeated yesterday, that Israel must gradually withdraw from all of the West Bank, and yet must have viable security arrangements.
Now in order for Israel to remain secure it MUST have a presence in the Jordan Valley. How does he square that with a withdrawal from the West Bank? Those are 2 mutually exclusive propositions.
He also condemns Hamas and says israel cannot be expected to negotiate with them and yet demands that israel negotitate for peace. Again, 2 mutually exclusive positions.
It's as if Obama is repeating mantras without really understanding the words coming out of his mouth.
If he does understand them, it makes matters even worse.
He is possibly on a learning curve, but he still has a way to go.
I don't want to keep promoting my blog (OK, I do :) ) but you can read more on my latest post.
I give links to Elder of Ziyon and the JPost too for more analysis.
I forgot to add, Obama once again mentioned "contiguous" as in "Palestine" must be a contiguous state. If it is, it will cut Israel in 2. If contiguity is so important,why not for Israel? Again, it doesn't make sense.
ReplyDeleteAri, annie, thanks for the responses - it's late even for me here (4am) so sorry if this is brief - I can expand later...
ReplyDeleteAri, my only point about the '67 borders is that it is nothing new with respect to negotiations - the only new element is the public aspect of it. Why Obama thought this was a wise move if he's actually believing he can be an honest broker is beyond me.
annie, you state: It's as if Obama is repeating mantras without really understanding the words coming out of his mouth. Yeah, I get that from him too.
But about this part: but Obama said on Thursday, and repeated yesterday, that Israel must gradually withdraw from all of the West Bank, and yet must have viable security arrangements. I didn't get that sense; I heard the language about the mutually agreed upon swaps (i.e. the Israeli "facts on the ground" would remain just that - facts on the ground, and Israeli - and that Palestinians would be offered some other lands as compensation. If I'm wrong and you could point me to the passage where he effectively demands withdrawal from the entire west bank, then that would be a substantially different story.
@annie #33 - yeah, graph theory doesn't really permit both a contiguous Israel and a contiguous Palestine, does it? That's just... math...
ReplyDelete(Except... if Israel and Egypt grant an easment along the Sinai / Negev border, bang a left at the Jordan river, then up into the West Bank... maybe Obama could pay the Chinese to build the Palestinians a high speed train... ;) )
Lewy #34, I'm at work so I can't expand much either. just take a look at my blog - I wrote it all there. He mentions "The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces" from the West Bank. It's the word "full" that is key.
ReplyDelete#35, the Sinai/Negev is at the complete opposite side of the country to the Jordan, so not sure how the geography would work out...
Annie says:
ReplyDelete"It's as if Obama is repeating mantras without really understanding the words coming out of his mouth."
Click.
The trouble is that his sycophants ni the press, and gov't treat those mantras as actual wisdom, and seem unable or unwilling to undeerstand just how illogical and foolish they are.
What most offends me about Obama raising the "1967 borders" issue without context is a) as Ari notes @ 31, and b) there is no quid pro quo expected from the "Palestinians"; viz., not even the basics expected from them in Bush2's "Roadmap" framework. On Obama's plan, the "Palestinians" merely have to wait as Obama attempts to pressure IL into an increasingly-unsupportable strategic and political positions.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, as lewy notes and I paraphrase, "nobody in Israel trusts Obama". Bibi understands both that reality and his place in history.
/off to peruse the tiresome annie's blog ;)
Annie / Lewy .... Let me clarify my position. I think Carter, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, Bush43, and Obama were and are dead wrong.
ReplyDeleteThere is NO border to negotiate for the reasons I have cited vis a vis San Remo Accords, which appear to apply to everyone included in them except Israel. That is a perversion of reason, let alone history.
Case in point vis a vis San Remo: Bush41 went to war with Iraq, in essence, to re-establish the San Remo mandate defined borders for Kuwait. Tell em where I'm wrong on that?
Yet we have the f'ing gall to tell Israel to give up even one square meter of the West Bank, clearly NOT called for in the San Remo mandated borders.
What actually happened in 1948 is that Israel declared independence and was invaded the very next day, by multiple Arab nations, and the invading Jordan established the "green line" by armistice when the cease fire occurred. There is not and never was a truce, surrender, or other internationally legal accord establishing the "green line" as anything but temporary...much like the 38th parallel between North and South Korea.
In June 1967 Israel restored the original San Remo Accord boundaries, by force. Period. Just like we and several European and Arab allies did for Kuwait in 1991. I see no difference.
Frankly I do not get it why Israel doesn't raise the issues I do officially. It is simple logic to arrive at the conclusion that if the San Remo mandated borders hold for everyone else, they must hold for Israel. The straw men analogies I've drawn (Comancheria, La Raza, etc.) are in essence unanswerable ... e.g, like who in the USA would ever agree to them?
All this palaver and "this for that" minutia that has been added to the Palestinian issue, especially but outside westerners, is nonsense ... and merely clouds the issues, extends its conflicts, and creates false hopes in the breasts of murderers. Leave Israel to deal with Palestinians lurking within the original borders of "Jewish Palestine" as they see fit.
I'm very sure the Israelis will not adopt the "only good one is a dead one" theory as we once did.
Sigh.
Top-notch analysis, folks. Excellent points.
ReplyDeleteKnocked it out of the park today in front of congress!
ReplyDelete