Bibi Netanyhu

[justabubba]

Meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu last week, President Obama could not have been more effusive. “I believe Prime Minister Netanyahu wants peace,” Obama said. “I believe he is ready to take risks for peace.”
A newly revealed tape of Netanyahu in 2001, being interviewed while he thinks the cameras are off, shows him in a radically different light. In it, Netanyahu dismisses American foreign policy as easy to maneuver, boasts of having derailed the Oslo accords with political trickery, and suggests that the only way to deal with the Palestinians is to “beat them up, not once but repeatedly, beat them up so it hurts so badly, until it’s unbearable” ...
“I know what America is,” Netanyahu replied. “America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in their way.” He then called former president Bill Clinton “radically pro-Palestinian,” and went on to belittle the Oslo peace accords as vulnerable to manipulation. Since the accords state that Israel would be allowed to hang on to pre-defined military zones in the West Bank, Netanyahu told his hosts that he could torpedo the accords by defining vast swaths of land as just that.
“They asked me before the election if I’d honor [the Oslo accords],” Netanyahu said. “I said I would, but … I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ’67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I’m concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue.”
... Because from that moment on, I de facto put an end to the Oslo accords.”

this exemplifies why there is no trust in dealings with the current israeli government

Fibi Netanyahu - by Liel Leibovitz > Tablet Magazine - A New Read on Jewish Life

 

[mbig]

How is showing what Netanyahu said 9 years ago contradicting his current stated position or Obama's impression of it?
He may indeed be more ready than he was a decade ago for peace.
I'm not Bullish on his attitude/chances but I don't think you can contradict someone's current position with old statements.

Much has changed over the time period in question.
ie, Iran (whose nukes you support) is now perceived by Israel and it's leader as it's main enemy, not Yassir Arafat's PLO/palestine.

 

[Winston Smith]

When asked if the US will object, he responds: “America is something that can be easily moved. Moved to the right direction … They won’t get in our way … Eighty per cent of the Americans support us. It’s absurd.”

Netanyahu admits on video he deceived US to destroy Oslo accord - The National Newspaper

Nice.

Or I should say, to meet the ten letter rule, "Niiiiiiice."

 

[ido_]

Ariel Sharon was one of the politician who were mostly identified with the settlements of the Gaza strip yet he is the one who suggested and implemented an unilateral withdrawl from the strip and took out the same people he put there out of their homes.

Rabin said he'll never talk to Arafat and will not give up on the Golan, if he wasn't murdered the Golan was probably Syrian today.

The bottom line is that 9 years is a long time and though I really believe that Netanyahu is not enthusiastic about seeing a Palestinian state next to Israel, I also believe him to be a pragmatic person who understands that there is no other way.

 

[Tashah]

I suppose if we're going to dredge up dated and uncomplimentary materials, we can also include the Doctorate dissertation of Mahmoud Abbas, composed and submitted while he was a History graduate student at the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow in the early 1980's. The dissertation, which contained Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, was accepted by the Russian thesis review team (no surprise there). A book on this highly flawed thesis - The Other Side: The Secret Relations Between Nazism and the Leadership of the Zionist Movement - was later published in Arabic and widely disseminated in the Middle East.

Mr Abbas also provided funding for Black September, the Palestinian terrorist group which murdered 11 Israeli athletes/coaches and a West German policeman at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games. It is asserted that Mr. Abbas did not know how these funds would be used (which is exactly what the German branch of the IHH asserts today).

 

[jujuman13]

justabubba

Your turn.
Time to put up or shut up.

 

[Degreez]

I suppose if we're going to dredge up dated and uncomplimentary materials, we can also include the Doctorate dissertation of Mahmoud Abbas, composed and submitted while he was a History graduate student at the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow in the early 1980's. The dissertation, which contained Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, was accepted by the Russian thesis review team (no surprise there). A book on this highly flawed thesis - The Other Side: The Secret Relations Between Nazism and the Leadership of the Zionist Movement - was later published in Arabic and widely disseminated in the Middle East.

Mr Abbas also provided funding for Black September, the Palestinian terrorist group which murdered 11 Israeli athletes/coaches and a West German policeman at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games. It is asserted that Mr. Abbas did not know how these funds would be used (which is exactly what the German branch of the IHH asserts today).

A perfect example of deflection.

I suggest reading the thread title again.

 

[24107]

A perfect example of deflection.

I suggest reading the thread title again.

I agree 100% with you.

 

[alexa]

Ariel Sharon was one of the politician who were mostly identified with the settlements of the Gaza strip yet he is the one who suggested and implemented an unilateral withdrawl from the strip and took out the same people he put there out of their homes.


Rabin said he'll never talk to Arafat and will not give up on the Golan, if he wasn't murdered the Golan was probably Syrian today.

The bottom line is that 9 years is a long time and though I really believe that Netanyahu is not enthusiastic about seeing a Palestinian state next to Israel, I also believe him to be a pragmatic person who understands that there is no other way.

and it may well have been the 'cleverest' thing he has ever done.

From MBig's most hated article

Shavit traces the development of the Sharon policies which, as he puts it, "led to the transformation of a relatively modest and ascetic state [Israel] into an occupying bully".

He provides conclusive evidence that Sharon never wanted a settlement with the Palestinians. What he did was to take unilateral actions to reinforce Israel's dominance of the old British Palestinian mandated territory. When, not out of generosity or as part of a staged settlement, Sharon withdrew settlers from the Gaza strip and Shavit asked if the next step would be a major Israeli withdrawal on the West Bank, Sharon responded: "There isn't any possibility of doing this... There is only one unilateral move. There will not be another unilateral move."

Western politicians were gullible enough to believe that the Gaza withdrawal was a stage in the road map that would bring about a two-state solution. Palestinian voters, living in their hopeless predicament, knew better. Their vote for Hamas tells the world: "If we can't have our state, we will opt for armed resistance." When Yitzhak Rabin was defence minister and refused to negotiate with Yasser Arafat, I warned him: "If you don't talk to the PLO you'll be left with Hamas." Rabin learned. Sharon did not want to learn.

-snip-

The American neocons who surround President Bush swooped with grim glee at the Hamas victory. It suits their plans for the next stage for the region. Binyamin Netanyahu, extremist leader of Likud, stated his and the neocons' position with glib clarity: "Today Hamastan has been formed, a proxy of Iran in the image of the Taliban." .

Gerald Kaufman: A triumph for Sharon | Politics | The Guardian

 

[mbig]

Certainly not my least favorite article.. not even from anti-Israel/Jew-baiting Guardian.

But don't you feel even a little self-conscious not only posting and reposting the same article.. but the same Anti-Israel source so regularly.
Obviously you do if you have to mention that you're posting it yet again.. even tho the quoted portion only has ONE sentence on Netanyahu/The topic at hand.
Can't you find anything else that everyone on the other side here will feel has a little more objectvity/isn't a laugher.

 

[24107]

Certainly not my least favorite article.. not even from anti-Israel/Jew-baiting Guardian.

But don't you feel even a little self-conscious not only posting and reposting the same article.. but the same Anti-Israel source so regularly.
Obviously you do if you have to mention that you're posting it yet again.. even tho the quoted portion only has ONE sentence on Netanyahu/The topic at hand.
Can't you find anything else that everyone on the other side here will feel has a little more objectvity/isn't a laugher.

yes yes yes we know every source is anti-semetic.

 

[alexa]

Certainly not my least favorite article.. not even from anti-Israel/Jew-baiting Guardian.

But don't you feel even a little self-conscious not only posting and reposting the same article.. but the same Anti-Israel source so regularly.
Obviously you do if you have to mention that you're posting it yet again.. even tho the quoted portion only has ONE sentence on Netanyahu/The topic at hand.
Can't you find anything else that everyone on the other side here will feel has a little more objectvity/isn't a laugher.

It is your furore after every time I post which lets me know he has got to you. I have posted it three maximum four including this one but from the very first you went bannanas.

Of course I have no problem putting in an article from a respected British paper which is extremely relevent and written by a Jew who if he is not still for most of his life was a zionist. Given that Wiki has him wearing a 'Free Palestine' shirt is what makes me question whether he is still a zionist.

I have also told you that I can remember Gerald Kaufman when he really felt a friend of Israel and worked for it to get settled. It cannot be easy for him that the way Israel has gone has necessitated him withdrawing support. If Israel even allowed free speech to Jewish people without calling them antisemetic, perhaps it would have gone down a different road and not be having so much criticism which it wrongly believes is antisemitism.

When I lived in a Buddhist community I learnt it was not enough to tell people what they wanted to hear. If you really cared you had to be prepared to say what people didn't want to hear if necessary.

You should try different replies - and that wasn't. Your probably next one is known and the reply should also be so possibly we can just ignore them and spare us both repetition.

Maybe for the first time you could look into what he says. With time it seems more right to me.

{I am off to sleep now)

 

[mbig]

It is your furore after every time I post which lets me know he has got to you. I have posted it three maximum four including this one but from the very first you went bannanas.

"You've got me"
You can't even post on the topic at hand.
You're still discussing Kaufman while I discuss THIS string topic.

Of course I have no problem putting in an article from a respected British paper which is extremely relevent and written by a Jew who if he is not still for most of his life was a zionist. Given that Wiki has him wearing a 'Free Palestine' shirt is what makes me question whether he is still a zionist.

I have also told you that I can remember Gerald Kaufman when he really felt a friend of Israel and worked for it to get settled. .....

Who's "got who"?
You're still talking about Gerald Kaufman. (for all who are still hung up Discussed/Ended here: http://www.politicalforum.com/middl...-sacked-publishing-article-3.html#post1120462 )

{I am off to sleep now)

I'd like independent confirmation you were awake for your last post.

 

[ido_]

and it may well have been the 'cleverest' thing he has ever done.

From MBig's most hated article


Gerald Kaufman: A triumph for Sharon | Politics | The Guardian

Thats just loads of crap.
Sharon formed Kadima so he could lead another move of withdrawal from the west bank and start peace talks with the PA, the move turned to be irrelevant after he got a stroke, the war with Lebanon and the increase of rocket fire from the strip.

And still he is an example of a leader who changes his way when he has to lead the country and not just sit in the opposition and win the hearts of the voters. Same thing was with Rabin, and ofcourse Begin which I neglected before who said he will never give up Sinai.

 

[donsutherland1]

And still he is an example of a leader who changes his way when he has to lead the country and not just sit in the opposition and win the hearts of the voters. Same thing was with Rabin, and ofcourse Begin which I neglected before who said he will never give up Sinai.

Often, leaders govern more pragmatically than they campaign. Their thinking can also evolve to fit the circumstances, challenges, and opportunities at hand. Leaders do so, because it is one thing to campaign on ideology alone when no decisions need to be made, but quite another when decisions and choices need to be made and doing so requires sufficient support to make them possible. One has seen such shifts toward pragmatism from many leaders on the world stage including but not limited to Prime Ministers Begin, Rabin, and Sharon, President Clinton, and President Lula.

 

[CJ 2.0]

this exemplifies why there is no trust in dealings with the current israeli government

Fibi Netanyahu - by Liel Leibovitz > Tablet Magazine - A New Read on Jewish Life

I have to say, I don't disagree with him in terms of dealing with the Palestinains, at least back in 2001. The Palestinians pre-planned and launched a terror war to extract more territory and concessions, and had never even remotely given up their goal of destropying Israel.

The only way to end the conflict was to utterly and completely defeat the Palestinians' "resistance" (i.e., terrorist) movement, forcing the Palestinians to recognize that their goal of destroyign Israel was a pipe dream that would bring them nothing but pain.

I think Israel largely succeeded in that goal, which is why the Palestinians (at least in the West Bank) are working to build themselves a better state, a better society, rather than dedicating all of their resources to maintaining their society on a terrorist footing.

As far as my overall thinking, while the first prong was to defeat the Palestinians utterly, causing them to abandon their destructionist goal has partially succeeded (not yet in gaza, and the "international support" for the Palestinaisn only impedes on achieving that goal, as the Palestinians cling to such support to remain intransigent), the seocnd prong would be to provide the Palestinians with a genuine offer of peace and territory, along with cultural ties that will help the Palestinians to remain jihad-free. That seems to be advancing decently as well (I saw that Israel was considering allowing Jews back into certain Palestinian towns, which would be very good for Palestinian economic life and will help develop relationships between peoples).

As for territorial offers, the Palestinians have had some really good ones in the past. They should be able to get one of these today, though understandably Israel may be reluctant given the pre-planned brutal terrorist warfare directed against its civilian population.

Palestinians need to make "gestures" to Israel to mollify its concerns in that regard. Perhaps a good "gesture" would be to stop teaching maximalist demands and recognize/ready their population for the fact the "right of return" is not going to happen. That is why recognizing Israel as "Jewish State" is so important - it is an admission that territory once claimed is claimed no longer and that the Palestinains acknowledge that the Jews in Israel have a right to exist securely within their borders.

Now, do I think Netanyahu is the guy to get us there - probably not. But I would note that right wingers seem to be the ones with enough "street cred" to make these sorts of military concessions, so he may be a better choice than we may think, as much as he may not really want to do it.

 

[Gardener]

yes yes yes we know every source is anti-semetic.

Not every source, certainly, as Donald has taken the time to compile a good list of reputable sources.

That Alexa only references extremely biased sources does not mean that there aren't legitimate sources out there.

 

[Winston Smith]

I suppose if we're going to dredge up dated and uncomplimentary materials...

That's an interesting view in light of your statements below. It appears that negotiations from decades past are very relevant, indeed...until it turns out that Israel sabotaged them.

Under a United Nations mandate, the Levant was partitioned in 1946. Rather than seek a peaceful coexistence with Israel, the neighboring Muslim nations immediately invaded. Time and time again you have attempted to drive Israel into the sea, and time and time again you have tasted defeat and lost precious territory. You have spurned the original UN mandate, the Camp David overtures, and the Oslo Accords. In essence, your historical governance and greed is the genesis of your current predicament and destitution.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/8170-now-11.html#post260304

Hamas is a terrorist organization that kills civilians. It engages in kidnappings, carjackings, assassinations, rocket and mortar attacks, and suicide bombings. Palestinians have historically had the luxury of choices but have spurned them all... invading Israel in 1947, not participating in the peace agreements between Israel and Egypt/Jordan, rejecting Camp David and Oslo, rejecting the opportunity of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. You made your bed with Abu Arafat, and now you continue to fornicate with his legacy. Sleep with dogs and you get fleas PeacefulMuslim.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/8170-now-39.html#post267913

History debunks your assertion. If empire was the goal, Israel would never have signed comprehensive peace treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), would never have withdrawn from Lebanon (1982/2006), nor would she currently be involved in bi-lateral negotiations with Syria and Palestine to settle all outstanding territorial disputes.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archi...bomb-nuclear-sites-iran-3.html#post1057746673

 

[donsutherland1]

That's an interesting view in light of your statements below. It appears that negotiations from decades past are very relevant, indeed...until it turns out that Israel sabotaged them.

I believe you misunderstood Tashah's point. Her point is that past remarks by Prime Minister Netanyahu do not necessarily reflect his positions today nor do they preclude his making a contribution to the peace process. The example of President Abbas' past hardline rhetoric was used to demonstrate that his past commentary did not prevent him from playing a role in the peace process.

 

[Tashah]

I believe you misunderstood Tashah's point.

Indeed. Perhaps the crucible was too overt for some deep thinkers.

 

[Winston Smith]

I believe you misunderstood Tashah's point. Her point is that past remarks by Prime Minister Netanyahu do not necessarily reflect his positions today nor do they preclude his making a contribution to the peace process. The example of President Abbas' past hardline rhetoric was used to demonstrate that his past commentary did not prevent him from playing a role in the peace process.

It's a misleading comparison if that is the case. The issue isn't whether Netanyahu is a hardliner. It's whether he can be trusted and whether the Oslo negotiations, which are so much ballyhooed as an example of Israeli good will in the face of Palestinian perfidy, ever represented a serious effort on Israel's part. Tashah's accusations don't speak to those points at all.

 

[donsutherland1]

It's a misleading comparison if that is the case. The issue isn't whether Netanyahu is a hardliner. It's whether he can be trusted and whether the Oslo negotiations, which are so much ballyhooed as an example of Israeli good will in the face of Palestinian perfidy, ever represented a serious effort on Israel's part. Tashah's accusations don't speak to those points at all.

It should be noted that the initial message in this thread argues that PM Netanyahu's past positions is the reason there is a lack of trust with the current Israeli government. Tashah pointed out President Abbas' past positions, which should argue for a similar lack of trust with his government. Yet events demonstrate that one can get past that experience e.g., Abbas has a role in the peacemaking process. The same should hold true with the Netanyahu government.

Clearly, there is a significant lack of trust on both sides, but that lack of trust is far more than a matter of who occupies which senior position. Such lack of trust is a function of past events/experiences, perceptions, and narratives.

IMO, the extent of mistrust makes a step-by-step process preferable to a rush to a final settlement, but it should not rule out direct negotiations between the two parties. Over time, as progress is made in a step-by-step process and the parties develop a new coexistence experience, trust can be rebuilt. Once there is sufficient trust, then the two sides will be in a much better position to make the compromises and take the risks necessary to conclude a final settlement.

 

[Tashah]

It's a misleading comparison if that is the case. The issue isn't whether Netanyahu is a hardliner. It's whether he can be trusted and whether the Oslo negotiations, which are so much ballyhooed as an example of Israeli good will in the face of Palestinian perfidy, ever represented a serious effort on Israel's part. Tashah's accusations don't speak to those points at all.

If you didn't quite grasp the irony of my post on Mr. Abbas, then that disconnect is your own shortcoming.

 

[Winston Smith]

It should be noted that the initial message in this thread argues that PM Netanyahu's past positions is the reason there is a lack of trust with the current Israeli government. Tashah pointed out President Abbas' past positions, which should argue for a similar lack of trust with his government. Yet events demonstrate that one can get past that experience e.g., Abbas has a role in the peacemaking process. The same should hold true with the Netanyahu government.

The problem isn't just Netanyahu's past positions. It's the fact that he misrepresented those positions and bragged about subverting the peace process.

 

[Shayah]

It should be noted that the initial message in this thread argues that PM Netanyahu's past positions is the reason there is a lack of trust with the current Israeli government. Tashah pointed out President Abbas' past positions, which should argue for a similar lack of trust with his government. Yet events demonstrate that one can get past that experience e.g., Abbas has a role in the peacemaking process. The same should hold true with the Netanyahu government.

If the equivalence principle is valid for Mr. Netanyahu as the OP claims, then it should also be just as valid for Mr. Abbas. But it isn't valid which has been amply pointed out by Tashah and Don.

Such a simplistic equivalence principle is inherently flawed due to the fact that it presumes and relies on a status-quo stasis of personal and political stagnation. If such a disingenuous principle were indeed valid, Richard Nixon would have never visited communist China and Ronald Reagan would have never rubbed shoulders with Mikhail Gorbachev.