Meryl writes The unnoticed intransigence vs. the supposed intransigence, which analyzes a recent AP report about the Middle East. Meryl observes:
If you read only the mainstream media reports on Israel, you come away thinking that it is the Israelis who are the obstacles to peace, and that it is the Palestinians who are the ones who are willing to make concessions to create a Palestinian state.That is, until you actually read what the leaders of the two nations are actually saying.
It's a point that's discussed in today's Wall Street Journal, A Palestinian choice, which concludes:
Responding to Mr. Netanyahu's speech, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs called it an "important step forward," but offered little more than that. The Administration could help matters more by providing the Israelis with greater assurances that they won't simultaneously demand further Israeli concessions while doing nothing serious to stop Iran -- a leading patron of Hamas -- from getting nuclear weapons. A Palestinian state poses enough challenges to Israeli security without it being an atomic spearpoint.As for the Palestinians, for too long they have practiced a kind of fantasy politics, in which all right was on their side, concession was dishonor, and mistakes never had consequences. It hasn't earned them much. Mr. Netanyahu's speech now offers them the choice between fantasy and statehood. Judging from early reactions, they're choosing wrongly again.
Crossposted on Yourish.
Posted by SoccerDad at June 18, 2009 6:00 AMIs that a joke? The Israeli gov't has been using the same technique which Netanyahu is trying through his speech for quite some time. They offer the Palestinians a supposed peace offer while ensuring that the fine print is totally unacceptable. Netanyahu added the following conditions:
1. Palestine cannot have a military.
2. Palestine cannot form a military alliance with other nations.
3. No right of return for refugees who were driven from their homeland in Israel, leaving them poor refugees.
4. Jerusalem, occupied by Israeli forces cannot be returned to its intended division into East and West Jerusalem.
5. Palestine cannot control its own airspace.
I personally request that, if these conditions seem so just to Netanyahu, then Israel should have to meet them as well. Israel should be forced to completely disband its military, give up control of Jerusalem to a neutral third party, and rely on the U.N. for its defense and control of its airspace in the event that Iranian bombers want to launch airstrikes as they see fit for the benefit of Iranian interests.
The Palestinians want and deserve an independent, sovereign nation, not occupation by another name. These games are not fooling anyone anymore, which is what is really upsetting the Israeli interest groups. It's time to pursue peace and justice for both Jews and Arabs.
Posted by: Reality at June 18, 2009 10:37 AMThe Americans are continuing to pressure Israel to make further unilateral concessions on a range of issues - none of which makes sense if the objective is to bring about a resumption of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. But it makes complete sense if the real objective of the US pressure is to rehabilitate America's image in the Arab/Muslim World.
Posted by: NormanF at June 18, 2009 11:49 AMThe palestinians are the ones who rejected a two-state solution and have done so repeatedly. They "deserve" nothing so long as they do not recognize Israel and end terrorism and incitement. Yet they refuse to comply with these minimalist demands. Why do you expect Israel to just hand them statehood on a silver platter without Israel's own security needs being guaranteed? Let them earn statehood.
There will not be peace until western liberals like yourself stop indulging the palestinians in their victimhood and consistently making excuses for their intrasigence and start applying as much pressure on them as they do Israel and demanding the palestinians take responsibility for themselves and comply with agreements, end terrorism and incitement.
NormanF - So you agree that the U.S. image in the Arab/Muslim world has been critically damaged by our failure to be the honest broker we claim to be and providing unconditional support to Israel regardless of their actions?
Posted by: Reality at June 19, 2009 1:25 PMWe should be supporting Israel, not be an "honest broker" between a free, democratic nation and a terrorist entity. The two simply do not have the same moral standing, therefore they should not be treated equally. This liberal idea that we ought to be evenhanded between Israel and her enemies is morally repugnant. These are the same people who believe that since Israel has nukes Iran should be able to as well. They just don't get it because liberals truly are unable to make moral distinctions because they have no moral compass.
Posted by: Laura at June 19, 2009 4:11 PMhow can you call a legality of international law a concession. according to internation law all land conquered by war is illegal thus according to international law israel should have its borders as those in pre 1967. but since, the palestinians have ceded 78% of a land that was 100% their. israel is negotiating with something which the palestinians already own and netanyahu's speech offers them a choice be 'legally occupied' or 'illegally occupied'. what netanyahu is really demanding is that the palestinians rubber stamp 60 years of oppression ,theft and ethnic cleansing.
Posted by: sass at June 23, 2009 2:18 PM