- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
And just so I'll be clear on my previous comment, it's not that I find his opinions to be extreme, his opinions are moderate and they do promote a legitimate and peaceful solution to the conflict, but the government has a different solution and he should stick to the government's solution instead of promoting his own, especially when the speech is in the UN general assembly and he's supposed to be talking about Israel's view.
I agree with some of the statements made about the need for all Politicians to be speaking from the same page, yet find it interesting that people tend to criticize FM Leiberman for his comments while ignoring the comments of DM Barak.
Today, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman addressed the UN General Assembly. He called for a two-stage process toward final peace:
1) A long-term interim arrangement to allow for the building of mutual trust over perhaps a period of "a few decades"
2) A final settlement afterward
Was DM Baraks speech coordinated with the Prime Minister?The criticism likely stems from a number of factors. First, the speech was not coordinated with the Prime Minister.
Again, did DM Barak's speech conflict with Israel's negotiating position/strategy? It is the position of the Left Parties, Labor (Barak), Kadima (Livni) and Meretz (Nobody) that Israel must give in to all demands of not only the Palestinians, but also the International Community. When elections were held, these positions were rejected by the citizens of Israel, and Bibi was given the mandate to form a government. Likud (Netanyaho), Israel Beitanu(?sp) (Leiberman), and Shas, the governing coalition ran on a platform opposite of the Left Parties ran on. They were tired of giving land, prisoners, control, etc... to the Palestinians, and getting nothing in return. This the will of the citizens of Israel. But, one position that was equal to all was the rejection of dividing Jerusalem.Second, the speech's content may conflict with Israel's negotiating positions/strategy. Consistency is important.
Does Bibi really believe that a deal could be concluded in a year? Just because he said so does not mean that he actually believes it. Do you believe a peace deal could emerge within a year? Does anyone who has followed this conflict for any length of time believe a peace deal could be concluded within a year?Third, the speech could undermine Prime Minister Netanyahu's credibility. The PM has publicly suggested that a deal could be concluded in a year.
There is that realism again. Maybe he is overexagerating the length of time necessary to come to an accord, but he knows as well as everyone else that Peace is not possible within a year. He is the only person with enough courage to say so publicly though.Lieberman expects it to take several decades.
As for friction between the US and Israel, it already exists, and has existed since the day Barack Obama went to Cairo to make a speech to appease the Arab World. Barack Obama hates Israel, although he could never say so publicly.That disparity in positions could raise concerns about the PM's credibility (whether he really believes a deal can be concluded within a year, whether Israel's government may not have the desire to push toward a rapid final settlement--something that could raise new frictions between Israel and the U.S./international community, whether the PM's government is capable of reaching/implementing an agreement if key players are not on board, etc.
temporary truce...wasn't that the unacceptable idea proposed by the Hamas?
As for the rest of the speech, yes, if the settler's population wasn't growing so fast it could be a good idea.
Was DM Baraks speech coordinated with the Prime Minister?
But, one position that was equal to all was the rejection of dividing Jerusalem.
Does Bibi really believe that a deal could be concluded in a year? Just because he said so does not mean that he actually believes it. Do you believe a peace deal could emerge within a year? Does anyone who has followed this conflict for any length of time believe a peace deal could be concluded within a year?
This goes back to what I said earlier about Leiberman speaking the truth even when it is not popular. Realism verses placating the International Community. The International Community wants this conflict resolved yesterday, so they want to hear that not only can it be done, but it can be done within X time. Do any of them really believe the statements being made?
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?