Home | 
My only point is that they don't even have a leadership. At least not if they want a state comprising Gaza and the WB.Originally Posted by Reffo
And come on Reffo, are you saying that as of today Israeli politicians are leading Israelis towards a vision, even if it's an unpopular vision? Or they are instead just following whatever Israelis want because if they don't the governing coalition collapses?
You might be surprised with what I am about to say ...
I am saying that Israel's leaders have never had it so easy in making decisions. Simply put, they cannot agree to go back to the 1967 borders, they cannot agree to the 'Right of Return' demand and they MUST insist that the Palestinian Arabs should recognize Israel as the state of/for the Jewish people before Israel relinquishes ANY land or in turn recognizes yet another Arab state. Holding out for anything less than that IS profoundly stupid. It is a 'no brainer' for the Israeli leadership ...
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
I think Wat0n's point is still valid. Neither this government nor the Olmert government truly had any vision whatsoever. For them, the peace process was and is merely an irritant and something they have to deal with in order to make sure they can remain in power.
And my point is also valid. Right now, it's not about visions as far as Israel is concerned. It's about making correct decisions which happen to be a 'no' brainer'.
By the way, I don't agree with your statement that Olmert had 'no' vision. He offered yet another detailed and comprehensive peace deal to Abbas, which like his predecessor, Abbas ignored ...
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
Yes, they can't but everyone knows that, especially the Israeli public. But the Israeli public knows that changing the settlement policy would not harm Israel's security, it knows as well that there's plenty of space in the Galilee and the Negev for construction (and that the Israeli Arabs are a majority in the Galilee), and it knows a good chunk of Israelis living in the WB will eventually have to be relocated. At the very least, all the Israelis living east of the security barrier (and I'm being rather optimistic).
At the same time, Abbas knows he can't accept any deal that doesn't include the division of Jerusalem and, unfortunately, the right of return if he wants to remain in power (or be re-elected if and when there are Palestinian elections).
OK, let me spell it out ...I am saying that Israel's leaders have never had it so easy in making decisions. Simply put, they cannot agree to go back to the 1967 borders, they cannot agree to the 'Right of Return' demand and they MUST insist that the Palestinian Arabs should recognize Israel as the state of/for the Jewish people before Israel relinquishes ANY land or in turn recognizes yet another Arab state. Holding out for anything less than that IS profoundly stupid. It is a 'no brainer' for the Israeli leadership ...
The Israeli public knows, most of them anyway, know and accept that the major settlement blocs WILL be kept as part of Israel. That's part of the deal of NOT returning to the pre 1967 boundaries ...
But the Galilee is NOT where the settlements have been built and where nearly 300,000 settlers live who don't want to be uprooted. And they WON'T be uprooted, no matter what the Palestinian Arabs demand.
The Israeli public MIGHT accept that a small number of settlers from the smaller outlying settlements MIGHT be uprooted as part of a peace deal. But I repeat, definitely NOT the major settlement blocs where the majority of settlements are. Why? Because those settlements are built mostly on lands that Jews owned prior to 1948 and from which Jews were previously kicked out of by the Arab Legion and Palestinian Arab irregular forces in 1948. And after having re-conqured, the land following ANOTHER attack by the Arabs in 1967, Jews will not allow themselves to be kicked out of there again, no matter what. Especially since there are major security considerations involved in it as well ...
Like I said, the best that I can say about Abbas is that he is NOT a leader. He is a FOLLOWER. he allows the mob to dictate to him instead of leading them to peace and prosperity. The mob in turn are ruled by mindless tales of past Arab glories and Arab pride. A true leader would convince them of the error of their ways ...
On the other hand, at worst, Abbas too is part of that mob mentality and he too dreams of conquering the eeeeeviiiiiil Jooooooos and "sending them back where they came from" ....
And you know what? I for one (and many like me) don't even care anymore what drives Abbas. Either way, he is not on the right path for his people, for Israel or for the rest of the world.
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...-vote-1.325081Clash with U.S. over terms of settlement freeze stalls cabinet vote
Most of the disagreement concerns the American desire to remain vague over whether it will seek another freeze in three months' time. The Americans would like the text to say that progress over the next three months would render another freeze unnecessary
This changes things a bit, doesn't it? What a bunch of jokers ....
Like I said, Israel SHOULD say 'NO' unless the offer is clearly spelt out in black and white, no ifs, buts or maybes!
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
As time passes it becomes more and more obvious that it will only be a bloody war that will settle the arab Israeli conflict. All the political shinanigans and bargaining chips will have been for nought when the arabs feel they have the numbers and weapons to eradicate Israel completely and make another attempt. I just wish it would be sooner rather than later because I would really like to be around to witness Gaza, Jerusalem, Judeah and Samaria completely devoid of arabs. I pray that Israel finds a leader that will not stop untill Israel is truly free from the threats that have plagued its existence from even before it was declared a state.
It is obvious that Obama's stressed out and in my view will not find the way out of his dead end politics both domestic and foreign. Interesting remark from Sean Hannity.
This "incentive" so far appears to be just another stunt designed to make Obama look like the leader, it doesn't seem to have any substance. But let's see, apparently Bibi has requested all this confirmed in writing...
And this is the reason why Bibi must insist that everything must be clearly and un-ambiguously be put in writing. Because a precedent already exists whereby the Obama administration chose to deny commitments made to Israel by the previous administration in a letter that George W Bush wrote to Sharon ...
President Bush's 2004 letter to Sharon
As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. [That's the passage whose existence or binding effect Mrs. Clinton denies. CiJ]
Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem.
Author: John Galsworthy 1867-1933, British Novelist, Playwright
America won't stop Iran. You can put that to rest forever. The US is also refusing to allow an IDF presence in the Jordan Valley area, as part of this deal.
Look, when you make a deal with the devil this is what you get. There's no magical upside choice. Bibi should take the deal. Since PLO has already refused to go along, it's a free deal with no downside to Israel.
I would have wangled one concession from the US first though. I would have demanded no more US interference in Israeli arms deals that don't involve any US gear. The US already stepped in to a joint Israeli-Swedish-Indian deal to supply India with Saab Gripen JAS-39 fighters. The US told Israel to back off because an American contractor was bidding on it.
http://www.israpundit.com/archives/30444
I would have demanded an end to all of that.
And it appears that the 'deal' requires everything to be settled and down before any of it kicks in.
http://www.israpundit.com/archives/30450
And this - it expires after Obama creates a 'Palestinian' state next year.
http://fresnozionism.org/2010/11/threat-or-promise/
Still though take the deal. It doesn't matter what anyone says they expect the Pals to do. They won't and don't do anything. Force them to declare a 'state'. The earlier the better. It will look like Mogadishu
Yeah, take the deal...
I am not sure it's worth taking. First, I would lean towards declining it on emotional grounds, it's our land and our people after all (and then again, what would the goyim say about the greedy Jews selling anything for material enrichment). But is there really so vast enrichment looming? Apart from the fact that F35 is a pie not even in the sky as yet, is it a done deal or Israeli government will have to remind incessantly to - probably - the new administration which - probably - will find some smart Jewish advisers who will certainly find some technicalities to argue about and delay indefinitiely the actual delivery? What if the F35 project is going to be canned and replaced by more advanced F45 or something that the Americans will not be able to squeeze 20 of into $3b? (mind you, the whole idea of increasing the flagging order volume for JSF is something the administration would be considering anyway).
And what's with the UN SC voting? I thought voting against anti-Israeli resolutions is in the interests of the US without even touching the settlements issue. Now they are going to do what they do usually anyway but Israel will have somehow to account for that. Why?
But then again, give it a miss and we'll never know if there were $3b for the taking. No doubt the left in Israel will use this in their interest to topple Bibi's govenrnment.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Tough choice, Bibi, but that's PM's life I guess.
How will Israel extract value out of $3 billion worth of jets? They can't be used against the Iranian threat, they will have the nuke by the time the jets arrive if they'll ever get it at all. Israel is not militarily threatened by it's neighbors when you consider the qualitative edge it already has against Syria and the peace deal with Egypt and Jordan (assuming it lasts, even without it, there's a reasonable deterrent to war based still on the '73 results.) Not to mention what has been said already: we are perhaps on the tail end of the dominance of manned fighter aircraft and Israel could end up in a better position if it focuses on UAV research.
The worst is the precedent this sets. There's no actual useful result of a 3-month freeze, apart from the f35s. If the Knesset gets in the habit of basically doing what the president asks of them, as a result of a sort of bribe, well Israel has just abdicated a significant chunk of it's autonomy.
The $3b certainly isn't nothing, but I just don't know if it's worth it all things considered.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks