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