- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,443
- Reaction score
- 47,482
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
this exemplifies why there is no trust in dealings with the current israeli governmentMeeting 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.”
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
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.
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.
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." .
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.
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.
"You've got me"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.
Who's "got who"?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. .....
I'd like independent confirmation you were awake for your last post.{I am off to sleep now)
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
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.
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
yes yes yes we know every source is anti-semetic.
I suppose if we're going to dredge up dated and uncomplimentary materials...
Tashah said: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
Tashah said: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
Tashah said: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
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.
Indeed. Perhaps the crucible was too overt for some deep thinkers.I believe you misunderstood Tashah's point.
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.
If you didn't quite grasp the irony of my post on Mr. Abbas, then that disconnect is your own shortcoming.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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?