Tuesday, June 16, 2009

When Lurker was proved right

Yesterday in the comments section Lurker said the entire Netanyahu speech was an unmitigated disaster for some very simple reasons.

Lurker said that Netanyahu can add whatever conditions and prefixes he wants, but (a) the world will ignore them, and (b) the PA is going to do what they want, and we won't be able to stop them, and no one else will care.

The world only heard the words "Palestinian State", and absolutely nothing else in the speech.

And Lurker continues, there is no possible way a "Palestinian State" can or will be demilitarized, and "on the other hand", pressure will continue to be placed on Israel to take additional permanent and irreversible steps, regardless of what the other side does or doesn't do first- and unfortunately, once again Lurker is turning out to be right.


Obama once again demanded the "a cessation of settlements" (that means their destruction for those who aren't sure). And Obama has placed Arab incitement to terror (and terror itself) at the same level as Jews living in their homes.

A very disturbing example of immoral equivalence.


Furthermore, Obama once again gave his tacit recognition of Hamas, "On the Palestinian side, whether it's the Palestinian Authority or other groups like Hamas that claim to speak for the Palestinians...".


And of course in parsing what is a "continuation of settlements", Obama says, "if you have a continuation of settlements that in past agreements have been categorized as illegal, that is going to be an impediment to progress".

Uh-huh, except that this is more double-speak and Historical Fiction from Obama as there are no past agreements that do that.


To begin with, Settlement activity was never categorized as a violation of the Oslo accords.

And neither the Wye River Memorandum, nor the Interim Agreements (Oslo II) categorized it as illegal either.

So what past agreements does he mean?

He can only be referring to the Mitchell Report and the "Road Map" which the US tried to impose on Israel - in which Israel openly rejected the parts it disagreed with.

Israel only agreed to discuss a settlement freeze and illegal outposts, not impose one or agree to destroy them.

"
Among issues not to be discussed: settlement in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (excluding a settlement freeze and illegal outposts);".


Certainly Obama is sending the message that any Israeli statements about points it doesn't accept (both in the past and future) are irrelevant and meaningless, and an "agreement" is whatever he chooses to impose on Israel.


So now we need to understand which settlements does Obama see as illegal as per "past agreements"? Because as we know, there really are no past agreements that say so.


On May 27,
Hillary Clinton explained Obama quite clearly "He wants to see a stop to settlements - not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions.".

That's rather unequivocal and doesn't leave much room for debate.

And after all, the EU and the Palestinians openly declare ALL settlements to be illegal.

Does Obama mean agree with what the PA and EU say? It would appear to be so.

Suddenly Obama's double-speak becomes abundantly clear.



But just as disturbing is the Jerusalem Post report on the latest dispute with the PA.

Russia donated 50 heavily armored APCs to the PA through Jordan.

The PA was apparently expecting to receive them with 50 heavy machine guns attached to them (or to be allowed to attach them).

Israel balked at that and said no. So now the PA is saying that they will only accept them if the mountings for the guns are already attached (they can hook up the guns later at the garage).

And so, the farce of a "demilitarized" Palestinian state continues, and it looks like Lurker's analysis of the fallout was 100% right.

I would also recommend reading this article by Dore Gold.

And this one by Elliot Abrams.

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

8 comments:

yitz said...

I thought you guys had it wrong yesterday, so I posted this.

Thanks for being menschen and correcting yourselves, unlike most Israeli politicos! Looking for REAL peace in Yerushalayim...

JoeSettler said...

We still think Netanyahu spoke incredibly well, but Lurker had it right regarding the consequences of his words.

yitz said...

Thanks, Joe. For more CONSEQUENCES of his "great speech" [since when is speaking well important, if the consequences contain potential disaster?] see Netanyahu Surrendered
.

Marcia Fremont said...

No, I don't think Lurker is right. Even tho Obama came back with garbly gook threatening the same stuff, it has totally lost it's punch...Bibi is the first PM to stand up to an american pres and politely without appearing to, putting the pres in a corner, since Begin and that's the important part...not just for us (Israelis) but the rest of the world. I think Bibi has the freedom now to do what he wants. He said "state" they said NO WAY JOSE so now he can tell them to take a hike...and no one can prove historical precedence like Bibi. Also, I didn't hear Bibi define where this demilitarized state would be...how do you know he wasn't talking about Jordan?.. You know, side by side. :) You wait...there may be turbulant waters ahead, but Bibi did the right thing...and we will see some startling changes down the road...good ones. My Op. (sorry it's too late at night to correct my misspelled words...next time):)

InternetFred said...

Netanyahu is resisting and Obama isn't as clear as Jameel fears he is. It may come to that. We have wiggle room.

Demilitarizing a Palestinian State will probably work as well as the Treaty of Versailles demilitarized Germany. Remember how that worked out?

Jewish Odysseus said...

If I may, it seems indisputable that Bibi has STAKED OUT A POSITION for his govt, and for the people of Israel, that is both CLEAR, STABLE, and UNASSAILABLE.

All of the critiques against it are based on speculation as to "what might happen if..." None are based on the relative weaknesses of the position, currently.

What does one do in a conflict when one holds a position that is both STABLE AND UNASSAILABLE? ONE HOLDS THAT POSITION!! EASY CHOICE!! What should Israel do if unhelpful country[ies] form a new proposal? EASY--repeat that CLEAR, STABLE, AND UNASSAILABLE position. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

The only things that could destabilize the position now are: [1] the "Pals" agree to demilitarize themselves, and accept his requirement for them [impossible], or [2] the US just gives up the Obamunist ruse, and "goes the full Monty" and starts shipping as much heavy weaponry as possible to the PA and cuts off all aid/cooperation with Israel [nearly impossible]. Of course, if Obama does that even now, it wd prove that a "purer right wing" position by Bibi would have done the same, so his "moderation" wd have cost him nothing.

For us, we have to learn an important word: PATIENCE. WAIT for the Hashemites to fall, wait for Assad to be blown up, wait for the Muslim Brothers to try a putsch in Egypt, and then have a plan in place to exploit the chaos that will ensue. Does anyone doubt that such events will come about soon?

And of course, Bibi will need to turn his attentions to militarily liquidating Iran's armaments industry, an objective that requires urgency, not patience. It needs to be assailed with every single weapon Israel has, including selective nuclear strikes. The operation needs to be redundantly targeted, to ensure success. Those mofos need to see that the 12th imam, if he exists, is NOT on their side, period.

Needless to say, once Persia is neutralized, both Syria and Lebanon will be much less troublesome.

I don't believe any of these objectives are outside of Bibi's military capacity today.

I am as ideological as anyone, but I just don't see Bibi's position as vulnerable in any way, absent a well-documented Israeli mania to fix engines that ain't broke. I'll never forget reading a string of stories not very long ago about how the PLO was running out of money, what with the USSR gone, how they were selling off big real estate holdings around the Arab world just to keep the lights on...THE PLO WAS LIQUIDATING ITSELF, PEOPLE!! So how did Israel's leadership [Rabin] react as their mortal enemy croaked out its last breaths? "Why, we need to RESUSCITATE THAT B!TCH, with fresh Oslo oxygen!!" And the rest is history.

PATIENCE. What a gift. We need it now more than ever.

Patience.

NormanF said...

The speech can be seen as an instance of why creating a Palestinian state would be a disaster for Israel. Assuming the Palestinians somehow agreed to all the conditions demanded by Israel, there would be no means to compel them to abide by them after they received statehood. What has saved Israel from disaster thus far is the fact of Palestinian obduracy: the maximum Israel can offer them will never be enough to satisfy them. Israelis should not be guinea pigs for an untested experiment. Its been demonstrated what going back to the 67' lines would be like with the Gaza Disengagement.

Anonymous said...

FROM CAROL HERMAN

To heck with all that. You know what's really missing? Livni's poll numbers.

If Bibi wasn't a hit you'd have seen Livni's numbers flying so sky high she'd pass Arik Sharon's poll numbers, before he fell into a coma.

And, while all of you are worried about what parts of Israel can get cut off; let me tell you where the real numbers are, are what parts of Kadima will get buried when the time comes, and Arik Sharon departs.

True. It seems you can keep something "living" on life supports. But that's not "living."

And, Livni, backing Obama, found herself seated on a horse with the saddle screwed on the wrong way.

In case you didn't notice. Livni got nowhere. How come? Kadima got 28 seats. And, she reminded everyone Bibi only got 27.

Not that upside-down isn't part of the political arena. You thought Alice-in-Wonderland was a total fabrication?

Bibi did fine.

While Obama has met his Katrina "moment."

So, go figa. You're supposed to be a foreign policy expert. And, you've seen what's happening in iran. That's where the action is.

Oh, yeah. That's the difference between "speeches" and reality.

Maybe, there will be a lesson ahead? Maybe, it will be said "that from some mistakes you cannot recover."

Let alone that God works in strange ways.

Search the Muqata

Loading...

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails