By Ted Belman
YNET reports on Clinton’s speech at AIPAC
- Anyone who has been monitoring the conflict, with the exception of the Israelis themselves, realizes that the solution will come in the form of a return to the 1967 borders with territorial tradeoffs, rejection of the Palestinian right of return, the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state, and the introduction of shared administration of the Holy Sites.
However, the Obama Administration chose to present the question of borders as the first core issue. Final-status borders will end the Israeli construction freeze nightmare, and the Netanyahu government would be able to build as it wishes in the territory determined to belong to Israel.
What this summary presupposes is that Israel must give up the equivalent of 100% of the occupied land facilitated by swaps. This is the land for peace formula. A little analysis is in order.
Res 242 required Israel to withdraw from territories occupied to secure and recognized borders. At the time of its passing, all people involved with the drafting confirmed that the adjective “all” before “territories” was specifically left out as they never intended that Israel withdraw from all territories. At the time the French version of the resolution put the article “the” in front of “territories” and argued that all territories must be evacuated. But the English version was the official version. Obviously the Arabs agreed with the French position. The US agreed with the English version for two years before changing her position.
Israel has already withdrawn from over 80% of these lands by vacating Sinai and Gaza. Many argue that Israel has fulfilled its obligation to withdraw from occupied territories. Unfortunately everyone else including the US is demanding Israel withdraw from 100%.
Over the years, “secure” borders became synonymous with “defensible” borders. The US is attempting to make the “Auschwitz” borders secure by saying they are committed to Israel’s security. But this was never the intention. The borders themselves had to be defensible.
When the armistice lines were drawn after the ‘48 war, certain areas in Jerusalem were set aside as “no-man’s land”. No one talks about such lands today.
It should be stressed that Israel has no obligation to withdraw from 100% of the land. Thus swaps should not even be considered. Thus if Israel were to retain 10% of the “territories” she would have withdrawn from 98%.
But the Arabs are demanding every inch and the US is supporting them.
I am not making an argument here that Israel should give up any more land. I am simply taking issue with the demands being made on Israel,
Comment by Ted Belman — March 23, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
Ted, Israel should not give an inch. I don’t get this idea of demands. Demands by whom? Israel is a sovereign Jewish Nation and does not have to give into demands of another nation. That’s war.
Israel should stand on her rights to the Holy Land including all of an undivided Jerusalem it’s capital and all of Judea and Samaria.
The Palestinians can go and settle in Jordan. They have no historical rights to the Holy Land.
Comment by rongrand — March 23, 2010 @ 2:43 pm
The Jew haters have refined their message.
After years of haplessly flailing, they think they have found the winning argument:
“Whenever Muslims kill Americans, it is the Jews’ fault.”
This works on so many levels.
First of all, anyone who supports Israel is a traitor lusting for the blood of American military heroes.
From the standpoint of political correctness, it exonerates Muslims of all responsibility for their depravity.
Finally, it carries with it that incomparable joy that for millennia has accompanied capriciously shitting on Jews.
This is the message the Jew haters will now be pushing full force: “Muslims only kill Americans when provoked by Jewish apartment dwellers.”
Maybe this is the public relations magic bullet that will finally turn American opinion against Israel.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 23, 2010 @ 3:04 pm
Ted you have many opinions about what and how much Israel should or shouldn’t give up to the Americans.
Basing this canard on realism only: describe to me what and where those secure and defensible borders should be?
Key words secure and defensible!!!
Comment by yamit82 — March 23, 2010 @ 4:15 pm
So you are balking at the price but not the principle? ( Maybe we can Jew them down some.) this is how we appear to them.
We are playing right into the hands of all the Jew haters Left, right and center. Confirming the old stereotypes of groveling
and supplicating Jews afraid of their own shadows. We have a sign tacked to our collective arses kick me here.
Comment by yamit82 — March 23, 2010 @ 4:36 pm
Secure borders will exist only after the Arabs have unconditionally surrendered and have been coerced to accept the victor’s terms.
You know…like the denouement of World War II.
And every other war in world history.
Seeking to establish “secure borders” in the midst of an existential fight is as irrational as the rest of the delusionalpatheticworthlessinsanestupiddeceitful peace process.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 23, 2010 @ 4:49 pm
My preference is to keep Area “B” and “C”. I exclude area “A” because it has about 800,000 Arabs. A programe should then be started to compensate Arabs to willingly leave. Assuming 200,000 families with four members each at $100,000 per family the cost would be $20 Billion. That’s far preferable to the %100 Billion that would be needed to force Israelis to leave Judea and Samaria. The bonus is that we get all the land and that’s worth a lot of money.
The problem is that the world has decided on two states with ‘67 borders and swaps. The world is committed to the ARABS and has been since ‘67. I would reject this deal no matter what.
We should hold out for what 242 promises us. In the meantime build.
We will get relief if a republican becomes President in less than three years.
Comment by Ted Belman — March 23, 2010 @ 4:54 pm
Israel does not have three years.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 23, 2010 @ 4:58 pm
Yamit
Wrong. I am putting forward a legal defense knowing that there is no chance it will be accepted. At least we have color of right to maintain that position. So I am not arguing the price I am arguing our rights inherent
in the agreements.
So that obviously allows the status quo to continue.
So long as Israel doesn’t say “yes” we will be OK for three years. Presidential elections will be in the third year so we are really looking at 2 years. Iran has to be dealt with in that time and the mid terms are coming up.
We are not dead yet.
Comment by Ted Belman — March 23, 2010 @ 5:07 pm
I am watching FOX News in the office and they showed several time, PM Netanyahu’s comments at the AIPAC (Anti-Israel Political Action Committee).
He said the Jews were building Jerusalem over 3000 years ago and are building it now. It is our capital.
Liberal American Jews, the president, his administration and the Palestinians need to understand it.
Comment by rongrand — March 23, 2010 @ 5:07 pm
ron,
But does he mean it?
Or was yamit’s recent post correct: Bibi publicly offers strong rhetoric to placate conservatives, but covertly capitulates to BO?
We’ll see if any construction proceeds.
I listened to the first hour of Hannity and did not hear him address the charity scandal, an omission which I interpret negatively.
He must address it eventually, and sooner better than later.
Unless his lawyer told him to remain quiet…
Comment by ayn reagan — March 23, 2010 @ 5:25 pm
It will be two years or more before construction starts as only approval of the plans were approved. Many stages of bureaucracy to get through before construction begins and ea can delay interminably.
The weasel was parsing words he didn’t say we were building in e. Jerusalem. Just Jerusalem; and we are the western part.
Comment by yamit82 — March 23, 2010 @ 6:02 pm
That is it. Of course that is it.
As Fistel said, Bibi is a transitional figure.
Where Fistel goes wrong is that the election of Netanyahu was a real victory, and what Yamit leaves out is the movement of the Israeli masses. Yamit is opposed to the masses, including the masses in israel.
Ted abhors that term as it smells of Marxism.
But that is nevertheless what happened.
The Israeli ordinary people learned lessons, maybe slowly but they did learn, that OSLO proved a disaster, and even before the exiles were right out of Gaza the tide was turning against Sharon. Do you not remember?
But we had low lifes on Israpundit like Omri Coren talking the gaza exile up as a good thing, maybe others as well if I go into it.
That is what it is all about. Will the Israeli people remain firm? will the American people remain firm?
This demands above all a revolutionary party in both countries. THE ISSUE IS LEADERSHIP.
In the absence of leadership and agreement onthis concept Reagan is liable to switch the subject to yamit´s poor little cat, or to how his bowels are working? What a dumb dumb woman reagan is?
but the anecdote tells a story about the bankruptcy of Jewish leadership.
Comment by Felix Quigley — March 23, 2010 @ 6:11 pm
Yamit is clearly right about netanyahu.
His approach is the same as ted´s really and it has to be because he does not set out on a revolutionary road to desttroy capitalism, which is the well spring of all of this antisemitism of Obama.
But if Ted could dig out that blog interview with Netanyahu in which Jerry Gordon and Coren took part you will see these things
1. Bibi is intelligent
2. Bibi has no illusions in US elite
3. Bibi knows the only salvation lies in the ordinary people.
it would be a real service to republish that.
I am saying the only way to save the Jews is the socialist revolution.
Is it possible or will the Jews all be eventually killed, simple as that?
Comment by Felix Quigley — March 23, 2010 @ 6:16 pm
Why is it always tormented latent homosexuals who turn out to be misogynists?
Accept yourself, Felix.
Only then will you be able to accept others.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 23, 2010 @ 6:21 pm
Yamit
Do you not think that we are reaching a vital and decisive point. But there is no party in existence. I am trying to create a trotskyist party based on principles that I have often talked about.
But in Israel what party is there that can fight for power with all the ruthlessness that such a fight entails.
The following is part of a longer document I am preparing
The implication of my thinking is that the conflict within Jews has to be intensified to a fierce pitch. Does Ted reject such a suggestion?
This is so far from Rongrand. But I am not Jewish but I am saying it anyway.
The people who will kill you in the end are Jews, those Jews who are opposed to Zionism.
There is a genius in the Jews, showed in the continuing to build that Ted refers to.
that is now what Obama must dismantle.
but that in itself is still not decisive. What is decisive is the jews united behind a revolutionary party and don´t give me this god crap Yamit, I am talking about the real material world that I feel with my 5 senses, and I do not nor will I ever need a sixth.
Comment by Felix Quigley — March 23, 2010 @ 6:26 pm
You have lost all legal argument because Israel has conceded the Arabs right. Since Oslo, The roadmap and all other agreements Israel has signed on to as well as we turning over some territory to the Arabs proves to one and all the justice of the Arab claim. Israel has never challenged theire claim but acceded to it.
Israel can’t turn the clock back and say hey we made a mistake it’s really ours. We have established the principle and the precedent that negates any Israeli claim. I think we would today lose any legal argument.
As Narvey has said often, “RIGHTS NOT ASSERTED ARE RIGHTS LOST”
Too iffy, too chancy and our experience in the past has not brought any more favorable policies towards Israel from expected friends than from our expected non supporters. 3 years can be for us an eternity and as an said who says we have 3 years> Who says Obama will lose? Who says that even if Obama loses we will get a more favorable president> Maybe yes maybe no
Best to tell Hussein to go to hell now and work with anybody who will support us or just accept we are on our own and act accordingly in everything. I don’t mind a bit if Obama pulls the plug on us. Time for our leaders and our people to grow up.
Comment by yamit82 — March 23, 2010 @ 6:32 pm
Narvey is going to be so proud that you have become his acolyte.
The more I think about the AIPAC “Jews” giving Hitlery all those standing ovations, the angrier I get.
They know what we know about Clinton.
They know she is a malicious anti-Semite, but it just makes them love her more.
Liberal Jews are uniquely pathetic.
Given parallel circumstances, no other group would respond so pitifully.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 23, 2010 @ 6:37 pm
I do not know how serious an answer I will get to the above but I have decided to place it on my blog. I am writing under another name for safety sake really, so do not be confused, it is me
http://4international.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/are-jews-who-are-anti-zionists-really-jews/
Comment by Felix Quigley — March 23, 2010 @ 6:41 pm
The comments come fast.
To the above by Ayn no 17 I do not call or think of them as “Liberal” jews, that brings in this republican democrat thing, which I reject
i call them antis Zionist Jews and I am questioning if they ARE jews?
I agree with Yamit and possible so does Ted deep down
The only thing in Israel´s favour are the settled areas, and the Israeli people. But the latter need clear leadership. It is the dismantling of the settlements that is the issue.
I question if AIPAC jews are really Jews.
What do you think?
Comment by Felix Quigley — March 23, 2010 @ 6:47 pm
Unfortunately, they are Jews.
I would trade them all for rongrand.
If the Catholics have any sense, that is a trade they will never accept.
You cannot distinguish between Dubya’s flawed Israeli policies and Obama’s evil Israeli policies?
Comment by ayn reagan — March 23, 2010 @ 6:52 pm
Flawed or Evil it is all bullshit.
You fry anyway!
Have you not got it! Are you even after your history of the Holocaust still not got it!
Good intentions mean zero in these powerful struggles. In these awful times. Bush obama all the same!
That is my answer to you even without pointing out that Bush Jnr was the President who first called for a Palestine State to be set up.
But the fact that you try this argument means that you cozy up to a wing of the great American imperialist dream world where you think Jews canbe safe, BEHIND A PALIN!! give us a break!
And I take great exception to this
Oh are they now! Who the hell says so!
tradition? priests sorry Rabbis?
Oh really. Well then Reagan these “Jews” of yours will fry you good and proper.
I may be alone but I say that any Jew who opposes building houses in Jerusalem or Yesha is NOT A JEW! Got it!
Plus Reagan I do not really believe in fortunate or unfortunate.
The Jews being marched into the ovens were “unfortunate”. it means nothing. another of your meaningless terms.
Comment by Felix Quigley — March 23, 2010 @ 7:10 pm
The great mass of the Jews of Israel are uncertain, because they do not have a clear lead coming to them.
You have this creep Feiglin who thinks that he will win over eventually Likud, and the people hardly hear from him anyway.
You have Yamit down on the Negev and you asking about his cats and bowels. Give us a break Reagan!
You have Lieberman prepared to trade away his settlement where he lives, he must inspire confidence in his neighbours!!!
Yet these wonderful people the Jews are still faithful and resilient to Zion.
I say the same about the American people. but they too are bereft of leadersnhkip.
But hey, Reagan is there calling for another Bush Jnr
The stuff you get away with Reagan!!! To say you are a political bankrupt would be too kind.
Comment by Felix Quigley — March 23, 2010 @ 7:15 pm
Anyway I will await more answers
I have posed the question in a true way I believe. So OKAY they are all Jews by jewish laws. But I pose what kind?
And the main point in this title
http://4international.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/lenin-was-right-we-need-revolutionaries/
Comment by Felix Quigley — March 23, 2010 @ 7:19 pm
Quigley,
Looks like you picked a bad week to go senile.
I do not get to designate who are Jews and who are not.
Only you can do that, and only because of those empty vials of crack cocaine strewn at your feet.
Insofar as Bush/Obama, there are gradations of evil.
For example, being greatly inconvenienced is worse than being tossed headfirst into molten lava.
At least Oat is amusing in his dementia.
You are not only wrong, but are also lacking the requisite entertainment value.
Totalitarian and humorless turns out to be a combination that is displeasing aesthetically.
Who knew?
Comment by ayn reagan — March 23, 2010 @ 7:21 pm
To say I am “a political bankrupt” would also be grammatically inept.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 23, 2010 @ 7:28 pm
Felix I resent your alluding to my cats in a disparaging manner. I love my cats and I don’t love you,
With re: to ayn inquiring after my health, a genuine concern for friends and people we care about may be beyond your commie
principles as they are human and not part of the dialect materialism handbook. I for one appreciate her concern.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You have in the past called me every vile name in your coomie lexicon but I have a thick skin and hardly take offense but until you drop your Marxist solutions and context to your arguments we can’t give them a proper hearing or rebuttal
To give you some context I still keep nylon sheeting to seal rooms when needed. I have special gas filters to protect my dogs and cats, I keep in the fridge potassium and iodine again radiation, if needed. I have been targeted by Sadam and one rocket landed on the roof next to the building that housed my office. It was a dud but bored its way through 3 floors/ I have been a hundred meters fro two bus and coffe shop suicide bombers that killed almost a hundred people between them.
I have been rear ended by Arabs trying to kill me by forcing me off the road at high speed. A couple of years ago a terrorist killed my neighbors in the exact spot I was heading for but I delayed myself by spending 10 min replying to an E Mail. I won’t even go into my military service and what happened then., So I am not easily shaken or frightened. Not by Obama, antisemites or Arabs. Not Bravado or machismo, it’s just that I have been through a lot as have many if not most Israelis. Watch how the nation comes together under duress and you will see the true Jewish spirit of giving and self-sacrifice. Our differences melt away at those times. It’s the American Jews who are in the most danger as they are not prepared to confront what might await them in the near future.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Felix in the end I trust in G-d and not Marx or BB and definitely not you.
Comment by yamit82 — March 23, 2010 @ 7:29 pm
OK let’s lower the temperature. There are too many ad homenim attacks when there shouldn’t be any. I will delete any such remarks.
Comment by Ted Belman — March 23, 2010 @ 9:37 pm
Ayn I hope he means it. Time has come to let the world know once and for all Jerusalem is an undivided capital of Israel.
The Palestinians need to find another place for their capital if they want, maybe Jordan would be a good place.
The Jews have G-d given rights and historical rights to the Holy Land and the whole of Jerusalem.
As far as the religious sites, I trust and I am confident the Israelis will oversee and provide safe passage for anyone visiting those various sites.
There cannot and should not be a Palestinian State within Israel and their capital situated in Jerusalem.
Quit trying to screw a square peg in a round hole.
Israel has to take complete control of Jerusalem and not worry about what others say.
Ayn, I only hope Hannity situation is not what is being stated.
I don’t know much about Debbie Schlussel and whether she is credible and or if she has an agenda against Sean.
You no doubt know more about her than I.
Comment by rongrand — March 23, 2010 @ 9:52 pm
ron,
A defense of Hannity.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 23, 2010 @ 10:17 pm
This is what hussein is counting on and why, NOT COINCIDENTALLY, that Pentagon report was leaked in the wake of biden’s trip to Israel. And the brilliant conclusion that Israel is responsible for muslims murdering Americans came from officials who spoke to ARAB LEADERS and this is what they told them. Imagine that, arabs blaming Jews for depraved islamic mass murderers. Certainly not on their own regimes funding terrorist groups and the saudis funding mosques and madrassas which incite to hate and kill Americans. And of course it would never occur to Defense Department officials that the infiltration of jihadists like malik hassan in our armed forces puts American soldiers in danger far more than Jewish apartments in Jerusalem. By blaming Israel it takes muslims and DOD itself off the hook. We can only hope that the American public is not manipulated.
Comment by Laura — March 23, 2010 @ 10:40 pm
Debbie Shlussel seems to spend more time attacking other conservatives; Hannity, Sarah Palin, Pam Geller, than she does leftists and muslims.
Comment by Laura — March 23, 2010 @ 10:52 pm
Felix, socialists are the ones aligning with muslims to destroy Israel.
Comment by Laura — March 23, 2010 @ 10:53 pm