Netanyahu is not being honest with us.
By Ted Belman
The Roadmap clearly provides for a settlement freeze “consistent with the Mitchell Report.” Beyond what the Mitchell Report lays out requiring steps by the Arabs also, it is important to keep in mind that this whole process was imposed by the US with the view of furthering the creation of a 23rd Arab state. Israel had no choice in the matter.
It also provides that the Quartet is to be the arbiter of progress. In reality, this role has been assumed by the US alone.
It carries with it a great diminution of Israel sovereignty and independence.
Israel agreed to it with 14 reservations. Even so the Roadmap has been frustrated for many years now and in law, a frustrated agreement can be set aside if desired.
So it disturbs me to hear that Israel still agrees to it without amendment, even when the US is putting great pressure on Israel to stop settlements everywhere over the greenline. This pressure is unaccompanied by equal pressure, or any pressure, for the Arabs to live up to their obligations.
Rather than tell the US to get lost, Israel is negotiating for a change in the US demands. Nowhere in the reports of negotiations do I read about a demand on the Arabs.
This is wrong. Israel should insist on her right to settle the land regardless of the Roadmap and Mitchell, then or now. The mere fact that Israel comes to the US, cap in hand, bothers me. Israel does not have to make the case for building. It just has to take Nike’s advice and just do it.
But there is another matter that bothers me. Netanyahu in his speech laid out a number of requirements in any agreement any one of which the Arabs would choke on. In fact the Arabs have categorically refused because of them to even continue negotiations. Yet negotiations with the US for a freeze or even a limited freeze continue.
What is assumed by US and Israel is that the peace process is still on because Netanyahu will ultimately yield on his conditions and therefore there is a purpose to negotiating the settlement freeze. Thus I am disturbed by the inherent assumption that the gap between the Israelis and Arabs can be closed with sufficient compromises. Since the Arabs refuse and will continue to refuse to compromise, it is left for Israel to close the gap itself.
On the other hand, as I have written before, no one expects the peace process to result in an agreement. Therefore the settlement freeze, in itself, is victory enough for Obama. But it should be utterly rejected by Netanyahu. At a minimum he should put an expiry date on any freeze agreed to like the end of 2010.
When Sharon wanted to disengage from Gaza, he negotiated with Bush for some quid pro quos. Obama has made short shrift of them. So I ask, is Israel demanding any assurances from Obama that its conditions will be met or at a minimum that the promises made by Bush will be honoured. If not we are doomed. If yes, we are paying doubly for the same commitment and thus doomed.
Netanyahu is not being honest with us. He made a great speech, notwithstanding the recognition of a Palestinian state, in which he made us believe in his conditions were red lines. The current negotiations tell a different story.
Ted, agreed. Why is Israel even negotiating with the US? It should be telling it to get lost. That is what a sovereign country does. And it should inform it that it will negotiate directly only with the Palestinians, not through intermediaries. George Mitchell should be sent packing. The Palestinians know where to find Israel when they’re ready to talk. Until then Israel should build, build and build. Yes, build new settlements. If that’s a problem for the Arabs, they can take it up with Israel. In short, Israel owes neither the US nor the PA nothing. If Israel cedes on its own red lines, it can’t expect to be surprised when pressure is renewed on it for more concessions.
Comment by NormanF — June 24, 2009 @ 5:30 am
That, Ted, is because Israel has leaders wise enough not to tell their few remaining friends to get lost. Sometimes, I wonder whether any Jews anywhere have ever learned any manners. No, I’m actually met some Jews with good manners. They’re polite to your face, but plot against you behind your back; but they have good manners. Maybe it’s just Israpundit Jews who’ve popped all their corks.
Here’s an example: I just read that Israel is ironing out differences with Lockheed Martin over the F-35. Granted, the F-35 is an overpriced aircraft of marginal value; and Israeli engineers could probably make a better plane themselves if they were let loose to pursue the matter. But it will probably be useful for Israel to have one or two in its arsenal; so it’s good that those Israelis are trying to find an acceptable solution. If some of the commentors here would have had their say in the matter, they would have just told the Americans to jump in the lake — to nobody’s benefit.
Netanyahu is NEGOTIATING with the Americans. Nothing has been surrendered or compromised. There’s nothing wrong with that. Meanwhile, Jewish children are being born in YeSh, and Jewish youth there are continually rebuilding outposts. Until I see another abomination like Amona happening, I won’t get awfully ruffled about the matter.
Comment by BlandOatmeal — June 24, 2009 @ 9:52 am
BlandOatmeal, are you a f%^&ing Nazi? Does the survival of Israel and Jewish people offend you? GO TO HELL!
Comment by Gary — June 24, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
Gary, nothing Blandoatmeal said warrants your reaction.
The statement Bland made that you quoted is meaningless babble which he did not link to any particular point. Bland likely meant to make some kind of a point with that statement, but he failed to make it and I have no idea what he is talking about.
The essence of what can be deduced from Bland’s total comment is that he disagrees with Ted to the extent that Israeli leaders would be wise to not piss off America and that in spite of any criticisms Ted may have of Netanyahu’s speech, Netanyahu has not really given anything away. By laying down some red lines that the Palestinians/Arabs reject out of hand, Netanyahu has cast himself as willing to negotiate and the Palestinian/Arab response is that there is nothing to negotiate.
If I have Bland’s point correctly, it is fair comment.
Comment by Bill Narvey — June 24, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
What is not fair is that he characterizes us Jews in a negative way i.e., No, I’m actually met some Jews with good manners. They’re polite to your face, but plot against you behind your back; but they have good manners.
What should we make of that?
Besides what do manners have to do with it. America has us by the balls and is squeezing and Bland insists we show good manners and not be crass Jews.
Comment by Ted Belman — June 24, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
Of course CFR puppet Netanyahu isn’t being honest. And Obama’s failure to prove he is a natural born citizen, as required by our Constitution, is calculated and deliberate deception. The dark powers that be want to destroy the United States and Israel and are succeeding due to our national sins and lack of repentance.
Comment by David BenAriel — June 24, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
Since CFR Netanyahu has repeatedly failed to stand up for the holy Temple Mount, the heart of Israel, is it realistic to think he would defend Judea and Samaria? Prepare for EU occupation.
Benjamin Netanyahu on the Temple Mount
Comment by David BenAriel — June 24, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
Bill, I strongly disagree with your statement. If we cannot focus on real dangers and then we insult, criticize and demean each other in a very general and prejudicial way, then what do we expect others to say about Israel and about Jews? Language does matter and the way Blandoatmeal has worded this posting shows him to be someone who is willing to publicly condemn all Jews as conniving people who seem polite on the surface but “plot against you behind your back.” To say this of a specific person is acceptable if true, but to use this accusation against an entire people deserves my harsh comment.
Comment by Gary — June 24, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
Bland Oatmeal:
Please do not judge all Jews by what you read on Israpundit. This site has become infamous for the preponderence of:
I D E O L O G I C A L H O O L I G A N S who vent their venom 24/7.
Comment by h peskin — June 24, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
Peskin (a guy who rips into Jews/Israel non-stop 24/7 but gives terrorists a free pass) also thinks Blandoatmeal’s general expression of hate for Jews is appropriate. This site seems to be rife with self-haters.
Comment by Gary — June 24, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
Ted, Gary & Peskin - enough:
Ted, some Jews are two faced, just as there are some in every other ethnic group. I simply pointed out that I did not know what to make of Bland mentioning it because he did not carry the thought through to any particular point. Manners have everything to do with Israel’s relationship with America. Its the Western game of diplomatic engagement that calls for smiles to hide true intent. Nowhere is that more evident then at the UN.
Gary, you are overreacting to what I characterized as meaningless babble by Bland. I really do not understand where he intended to go with his statement. The fact is he went nowhere with it. You are wrong Gary to say that:
Bland’s comment referenced some Jews only. He stated:
The only statement I find really objectionable is Bland’s Peskin like ad hominem general attack on the integrity of every Jew who has ever posted on Israpundit:
Why damn all Jewish contributors to Israpundit? What does Bland mean when he says the Israpundit Jews popped all their corks? Is Bland incapable of making his case against even a single one of us? It sure looks that way.
While I disagree with that statement by Bland, it is so foolish that I did not bother to react to it until now.
Peskin, by your supporting dimwitted Bland in damning all Jews who post at Israpundit, you declare yourself to be the same as him which makes the two of you two dimwitted peas in a dimwitted pod.
Enough with this childish banter.
Lets get back to the higher level of meaningful engagement on the issues that matter which characterizes the large majority of posters to Israpundit.
Comment by Bill Narvey — June 24, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
Bill, as a lawyer you should know that we go by the evidence and the words, not by how we want the statements to read in our own minds. Let us not defend the indefensible by paraphrasing some very straightforward statements. I have now said all I want to say about Bland’s statements.
Comment by Gary — June 24, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
BlandOatmeal can be excused as he comes from a long line of mostly British Antisemites with a whole bunch of slavs mixed in. Good combination. It must be in the Genes. Claims a great grandmother who was Jewish but she married an antisemitic Goy. The only one in his family tree that I can honestly verify who was not a Jew hater was one Seneca Indian and he probably never saw or heard of a Jew. As much as I keep telling him that a single Jewish grandmother, if she were really Jewish does not confer him any membership in the tribe, he refuses to listen. He was kicked out of every Jewish forum he sought to join based on his claim of Jewish genes but was booted out by all even the reform and reconstructionists. He is a bitter Jewish wanabe who has been rejected. Nothing worse than a scorned lover.
Comment by yamit82 — June 24, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
Ideological hooligans? Even if I were to accept that description, You keep coming back for more of the reputed venom, and for the most part as the object of our spouting. What then would that make you? An Ideological Masochist?
Comment by yamit82 — June 24, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
Narvey you have not now or ever been appointed as the advocate of any Jew hating, baiting antisemite commenting here on Israpundit. I think we all know with whom we are dealing with and his latest post is only one of many. No one need parse or explain what he means except Bland and he can when he wants to speak lucidly for himself. You do not do yourself honor as a Jew and as a man in seeking to defend and explain what is clear to anyone with a min. familiarity with the English language. If you feel a need to defend the indefensible scum of the earth pro bono publico I am sure there are many and even less worthy than Oat. At least he isn’t or doesn’t seem the violent and dangerous type.
Comment by yamit82 — June 24, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
Gary: I should define my terms.
Ideological hooligan is one who attacks another’s views not by countering arguments but rather through character assassination. Example denigrating another by using such terms as self hating- Jew, “liberal” (when and how did that become a pejorative?) and on and on- ad neausum. It is a verbal kick in the groin. The perpretrator simply attempts to attribute ill motives to his debating opponent, avoiding a frank discussion of the issues.
This is particularly disgusting when it becomes a group practice, a kind of piling on or more graphically, “gang rape”.
Gary I hope you have seen the error of your ways and debate me with courage rather than cop-out as you have in your post 10.
Narvey too was guilty of this practice, however with some educating on my part has become a worthy debating partner.
Comment by h peskin — June 24, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
Narvey: There is a gentleman (sic) who persists in using the term “Black Shit” in describing his President. I think we all know with whom we are dealing with. Is it not time to react to this blatant example of raw racism?
Comment by h peskin — June 24, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
Okay, peskin, I will make you a deal. I will not use terms like “self-hating Jew” and “liberal” in a general way (note that I described you as such, not Jews in general) to describe a group but now I expect you to specifically condemn Blandoatmeal’s language of contempt against Jews in the above post. If you do not, then I will assume that you also think that Jews are generally people who “plot against you behind your back” and we both know very well what we call people who hold dearly to that kind of hateful terminology.
Comment by Gary — June 24, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
Peskin, your bias is laughable.
You cite an article by an obscure no name inconsequential blogging Christian Bible Prof. Jim West to convince anyone of what?
So West has seized upon one Israeli, Baruch Marzel who allegedly has committed some violence, how much and what kind is unknown against some Palestinians and again how much is unknown.
West cites an instance of where Marzel led a band of some Jews carrying Israeli flags to the outskirts of an Israeli Arab town, known for its being disloyal to Israel, the very state they are citizens of, who give their support to Israel’s Arab/Palestinian enemies and is a known stronghold for the radical Islamic movement.
West notes that Marzel and his group came to deliver a message that Israel is a Jewish state and Israeli citizens including Arabs should show their loyalty to Israel over their well known loyalty for Israel’s enemies.
West glosses over that as regards the incident he cites, Marzel and his group were not violent. Rather, West, calling Marzel and his group of unknown size hardline and extremists, he blames them for setting off an Israeli-Arab violent reaction against Marzel’s group.
From all this, West concludes that Marzel and his group are the same as the racist KKK.
I expect this Prof. teaches at a school for people of diminished intellectual capacity. By his idiotic missive, he certainly earns such a derisive description.
It doesn’t seem to register with West that:
1. the Arab Israelis are disloyal to their own nation from which they take so much and give nothing in return. What does West think about Americans who take from America, but give nothing back but their contempt, having thrown their support to America’s enemies?
2. It is not racist for Marzel’s group to advocate that citizens of Israel not only owe their allegience and support first to Israel, but that they give that allegience. It is plain common sense, something West seems to lack.
3. The only racists in this story are the Jew hating Israeli Arabs and members of the radical Islamic movement centred in the town.
West is far west of objectivity and deep into the sewer of anti-Jewish bias.
Come on Peskin, the specious articles by Jew haters and anti-Israel left wing or just plain old fashioned nutbars is appalling.
As I said to you before Peskin. You are a complete unquestioning slave to your own leftist biases.
You seem to think that by providing the writings of someone who is equally a slave to the same biases as you, somehow gives you some credibility.
News flash for you Peskin. It doesn’t. It just makes the case that you have foresaken fact, logic and reason for biases you are a slave to. You render yourself irrelevant, but obnoxious.
Comment by Bill Narvey — June 24, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
Peskin why do you never speak the truth! The demonstration was a protest against the government and the high court of Israel to allow fagot Parade through Jerusalem:
ANTI-GAY PRIDE DEMONSTRATIONS SET BY ISRAELI RIGHT-WINGERS
22 June 2009
Right-wing activists headed by MK Michael Ben-Ari (National Union), Baruch Marzel and Itamar Ben-Gvir are planning to stage “Jewish pride parades” in 15 Arab towns across the country as a response to the gay pride parade that is scheduled to take place in Jerusalem this week.
“There has to be one rule for everyone,” said the organizers. “Freedom of expression and the right to march are not only for the people of the [gay community's] Open House and the far Left. We have the right to march and review the illegal construction in the cities and the towns and, of course, to hold marches with Israeli flags.”
The activists cited a previous decision by the High Court of Justice allowing them to hold a demonstration with Israeli flags in Umm el-Fahm, saying, “The right of the people of the abomination parade to march through the streets of Jerusalem is our very same right to march in Sakhnin and Lakiya.”
If the marches would be forbidden by police, the activists warned, they would appeal the decision to the High Court of Justice.
The activists said they would also hold a small demonstration outside Jerusalem’s Open House for Pride and Tolerance on the day of the parade.
Comment by yamit82 — June 24, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
Peskin: some thoughts for you to consider:
http://www.stateofjudea.com/wp-content/themes/gespaa_v2/images/kahane21.jpg
Don’t you think that it’s a little weird that an Israeli needs 700 cops to visit a town in his country, I wonder if an Arab Israeli visiting Tel-Aviv would need as many cops, or any at all.
How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? No one knows, no Frenchmen have ever tried to do that.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urlimage&blobheader=image%2Fjpeg&blobheadername1=Cache-Control&blobheadervalue1=max-age%3D420&blobkey=id&blobtable=JPImage&blobwhere=1143498774597&cachecontrol=5%3A0%3A0+*%2F*%2F*&ssbinary=true
The main Jerusalem road during the time of the Second Temple which led to the Temple Mount recently uncovered by Israeli archaeologists in the City of David.
Double standards two different sets of law ,one which appeases the Arab’s bent on Israel’s destruction the other to threaten Jews with courage and fortitude like Baruch Marzal.
How is is that the trash rises to the top in Israeli politics, and diaspora fake Jews like Peskin?
How come a Jew is not allowed to enter a town in Israel?
I know that Jews are not allowed to go to the Temple Mount; but why are Jews also prevented to live or travel anyplace they want within Israel? Racist leftist Israeli governments is the answer. Arabs have more rights than Jews in Israel.
The ethnic cleansing of 10,000 Jews violated Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, broke Israel’s Basic Human Rights Law and Clause 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Loyal Jews, including children, are brutally beaten and jailed.
Jewish taxpayers pay Muslim MK Bishara’s salary are FORCED TO FINANCE TREASON!
Who is controlling Israel? The U.S. EU, UN, Russia and Islam?
Arab Muslim Israelis who are openly genocidal to Jews and support
the violent overthrow of Israel are members of Israel’s government!
No other nation on earth allows such treason.
Will Jews revolt against their forced financing of treason and MK Muslim incitement to a second holocaust of Jews?
Comment by yamit82 — June 24, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
Gary>Okay, peskin, I will make you a deal. I will not use terms like “self-hating Jew” and “liberal” in a general way (note that I described you as such, not Jews in general) to describe a group but now I expect you to specifically condemn Blandoatmeal’s language of contempt against Jews in the above post. If you do not, then I will assume that you also think that Jews are generally people who “plot against you behind your back” and we both know very well what we call people who hold dearly to that kind of hateful terminology.
——————————————————–
Deal accepted.
Bland, I condemn your blanket stereotyping of all Jews negatively as you have in post 2.
Comment by h peskin — June 24, 2009 @ 11:39 pm