Israeli PM Netanyahu Agrees to Palestinian State
[Guest post by DRJ]
In a major foreign policy address, Israel’s Netanyahu has agreed to negotiate without preconditions but insists any agreement will have conditions:
“In an much-anticipated foreign policy address Sunday night Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu called for the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside Israel, but only if the Palestinians recognize Israel’s nature as a Jewish state.
Netanyahu said that he embraced President Barack Obama’s vision, adding, however, that the Holocaust was not the reason for the establishment of the Jewish state.
The prime minister said that the descendants of the Palestinian refugees must not be resettled within Israel borders and that Jerusalem must remain united. Israel, he said, would not build any new settlements or expropriate new land for existing settlements.”
Netanyahu’s speech also focused on Iran’s threat to Israel, and it may be no coincidence that his announcement came just one day after Ahmadinejad’s election victory. A Debkafile report speculates that the Obama Administration’s support for Ahmadinejad’s opponent, Mousavi, was designed to encourage the mullahs to change leaders but it failed:
“But the White House decided to seize on Mousavi’s build-up as a candidate capable of beating the hard-line Ahmadinjed and leading Iran to change in order to vindicate Obama’s hopes of a successful dialogue with Tehran.
By falling through, this scheme placed a big question mark over the US president’s essential strategy of diplomatically engaging rogue states to de-emphasize conflict.”
Every modern U.S. President has tried and failed to solve the Palestinian problem, and I doubt Barack Obama alone can do any better. Given Obama’s lackluster support for Israel to date, Netanyahu cannot bargain from strength but I wonder if this is his effort to ensure Israel has a say in whatever Obama tries next.
— DRJ
So this administration decided to back one hard – liner that was supported by the mullahs in favor of the other hard – liner, also backed by the mullahs.
Can you say the word idiots? Sure, ah new yew could.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/14/2009 @ 11:47 amEvery U.S. President has tried and failed to solve the Palestinian problem
What was Abraham Lincoln’s stance on the Israel/Palestine problem again?
[Excellent point! I’ve updated the post to read “Every modern U.S. President …” — DRJ]
poon (093c46) — 6/14/2009 @ 11:51 amThere is no state in the world which is not allowed to have weapons to defend itself.
Would Israel patrol and control Palestinian borders?
steve (9b430c) — 6/14/2009 @ 12:01 pmLies from a liberal commenter, what a shock.
Palestinians already have weapons to defend themselves. They have a militarized police force.
But you didn’t mention that, because you’re either ignorant or dishonest (but, since you’re a liberal, that’s a given).
Further, OF COURSE Israel will patrol the borders. It doesn’t want to let genocidal Palestinians smuggle in bomb components, rockets, terrorists, or other contraband.
And, since when did liberals become so concerned that a state would have a military? They want to dismantle our military, but they’re offended at the idea that a bunch of terrorist Arabs who have been carrying out a racist campaign of bomb attacks on civilian targets for decades won’t get to have tanks and fighter jets.
Liberals want one thing: to destroy the State of Israel and kill every last non-liberal Jew living in it. They do NOT want peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. They want to use the peace process as a device to kill Jews.
Daryl Herbert (a32d30) — 6/14/2009 @ 1:00 pmDaryl,
You seem a little confused about what the word “state” means.
poon (093c46) — 6/14/2009 @ 1:06 pmYou can’t ask the LATimes to be anything more than consistent. They are. Before this one, they soft-peddled the facts about the stolen election in our own country in 2000.
Larry Reilly (45e7a4) — 6/14/2009 @ 1:19 pmThe LATimes is at least being consistent. Back in 2000 they soft-peddled the facts about the stolen election in this country.
Larry Reilly (45e7a4) — 6/14/2009 @ 1:21 pmNow, now Larry… just because you got beat out for the “Class Clown” award doesn’t mean it was stolen. I’m pretty sure the LAT got that one right.
You’re a very sad person you know.
Stashiu3 (ed6467) — 6/14/2009 @ 1:24 pmYeah, typical leftie moron response: “Quick, look overt there, Bush [Derangement Syndrome]!”
nk (c67cf5) — 6/14/2009 @ 1:35 pmNetanyahu’s preconditions for a Palestinian state:
1. A demilatarized Palestinian state
2. Palestinians accept Israel as a Jewish state*
3. Descendents of Palestinian refugees must not be resettled within Israel
4. Jerusalem must remain united within Israel.
If I were Netanyahu, I would add:
aunursa (df5950) — 6/14/2009 @ 1:42 pm5. Palestinians must prevent or disrupt attacks on Israel, and must provide real punishments for violators.
6. Palestinians must end all anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish incitement. Palestinian leaders must teach the population to respect the rights of Israelis to live in peace and security.
* Netanyahu should insist that Palestinians accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
aunursa (df5950) — 6/14/2009 @ 1:44 pmthis was a smart move by netanyahu. he has forced obama’s hand. the only way there will be a ‘palestinian state’ is for them to disarm. obama doesn’t have the political clout or skill to make the arabs over there do anything.
so, while in theory, israel accepts a palestinian state, it will happen when hell freezes over. well done!
ktr (158eca) — 6/14/2009 @ 1:52 pmI’ve approved a comment from poon. It’s not directed at me [fortunately! I’ve already had to make one correction], but I’ll note that after WWII Japan was a state whose right to re-arm was limited.
DRJ (180b67) — 6/14/2009 @ 1:54 pmLike nobody who reads you in good faith did not know what you meant, DRJ. It’s ok. I smile and say good morning to the homeless person ranting at passersby at Harlem and Roosevelt, too.
nk (c67cf5) — 6/14/2009 @ 2:04 pmThe problem will solve itself in another 75-100 years once the israeli arabs outbreed the jewish israelis.
Soronel Haetir (a3f11b) — 6/14/2009 @ 2:34 pmDRJ, according to the Times of London account of Netanyahu’s speech, he did not promise that Israel “would not build any new settlements or expropriate new land for existing settlements,” as your excerpt from the Jerusalem Post says.
Instead, the Times quotes Netanyahu:
“I do not wish to build new settlements or to confiscate lands to that end, but we have to allow the residents of the settlements to live normal lives,” he said.
The Times headline is: Netanyahu defies Obama with harsh conditions for Palestinian ‘entity’
Official Internet Data Office (6a19d4) — 6/14/2009 @ 2:50 pmWell, that’s interesting.
DRJ (180b67) — 6/14/2009 @ 2:59 pmOIDO,
From this UK Times’ link, it sounds like Netanyahu’s position may be nuanced, i.e., no new settlements but he will not foreclose the possibility of expanding existing settlements:
DRJ (180b67) — 6/14/2009 @ 3:05 pmLiberals want one thing: to destroy the State of Israel and kill every last non-liberal Jew living in it. They do NOT want peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. They want to use the peace process as a device to kill Jews.
The end result will be the same but I believe the liberal position is best explained as a naive belief that if the Arab-Israeli problem is solved (by the elimination of Israel if necessary) that the Islamic attacks upon the west will cease.
The liberals are wrong about this, and pretty well everything else. The liberal position is more one of lack of principle and courage than outright evil. Liberals do not understand that all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Terry Gain (6b2a64) — 6/14/2009 @ 3:05 pmI have a different belief, that nations survive by their own strength, and the strength of whatever friends they can muster. What has never been explained to my satisfaction is why should the US invest anything in being Israel’s friend?
Soronel Haetir (a3f11b) — 6/14/2009 @ 3:17 pmI think that if the obliteration of a little island of civilization in a sea of barbarity is what is necessary for “some people” to understand that elections have consequences, it will be good for America in the long run.
nk (c67cf5) — 6/14/2009 @ 3:17 pmWhat has never been explained to my satisfaction is why should the US invest anything in being Israel’s friend?
1. It has never been explained to you because we can explain it but cannot make you understand it. I.e., you’re a ____ ____ moron!
2. The reason the U.S. is Israel’s friend is because it is a tiny island of civilization in a sea of barbarity. But you will never get the connection because you are a _____ _____ moron.
nk (c67cf5) — 6/14/2009 @ 3:22 pmInteresting, if you had said something like “They provide a target that isn’t us” I could accept that, to a point.
The line between barbarity/civilization much less so. I see little value in helping provide civiization to others. Much better to just bomb the barbarians when they get out of line.
Soronel Haetir (a3f11b) — 6/14/2009 @ 3:28 pmWe aren’t providing civilization, the Israeli’s are.
AD - RtR/OS! (914de9) — 6/14/2009 @ 3:38 pmWhether or not the Arabs are capable of responding in a positive manner to that gift is on them.
Of course, we could just give it back to the Turks?
How about just telling the juveniles, like Soronel Haetir, to go play with their Legos and leave grownup things to grownups?
nk (c67cf5) — 6/14/2009 @ 3:39 pmI think you just did.
AD - RtR/OS! (914de9) — 6/14/2009 @ 3:39 pmThank you, Dr. Strangelove.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/14/2009 @ 3:40 pmSoronel Haetir,
We need all the help we can get because we aren’t willing to bomb barbarians when they get out of line.
DRJ (180b67) — 6/14/2009 @ 3:45 pmWe aren’t providing civilization, the Israeli’s are.
Subjugating the Palestinians is causing the Israeli’s to lose their civilization, AD.
Reasonable (non-Apartheid) terms for a Palistinian state would help the Israelis regain their place among decent societies.
poon (093c46) — 6/14/2009 @ 3:55 pmDRJ,
Then perhaps we aren’t worthy of civilization either. Certainly Eurpoe appears headed on a path rejecting self-preservation.
Soronel Haetir (a3f11b) — 6/14/2009 @ 3:55 pmNetanyahu challenged Obama to take responsibility for the Palestinians’ behavior if Obama wants to see them benefit from a real resolution of the conflict.
That’s pretty hilarious – responsibility and the Empty Suit don’t mix.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/14/2009 @ 4:28 pmComment by DRJ — 6/14/2009 @ 3:45 pm
When the chips are down, a Jacksonian will lead us!
AD - RtR/OS! (914de9) — 6/14/2009 @ 4:30 pmAbandoning democratic allies when it’s convenient is uncivilized.
DRJ (180b67) — 6/14/2009 @ 4:48 pmBut we have done it before, DRJ. Shamefully.
Eric Blair (57b266) — 6/14/2009 @ 4:50 pm#4 – Liberals… do NOT want peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. They want to use the peace process as a device to kill Jews.
I couldn’t agree more.
rrpjr (48f3fe) — 6/14/2009 @ 5:22 pm