Israel should not be making nice when they aren’t.

Israpundit.com

The point Lieberman makes below is one that many people have made to me but they go father. In general why are we helping them develop economically at all. Why don’t we keep the pressure on with roadblocks etc so they will continue to emigrate or show a willingness to live in peace with us and to make significant concessions.?

It is one thing when an individual attempts a terrorist act and the PA says we can’t guarantee that there won’t be such acts and it is another thing when the PA itself initiates policies that are anti-Israel. During the Arafat years we kept ignoring his violations of the Oslo Accords because we didn’t want to upset the process and we are doing the same thing now. And we continue to make “gestures” such as the temporary freeze to show them we are sincere.

At a minimum we should not be making nice when they aren’t.

Lieberman: PA Delegitimizes Us with Our Money

by Gil Ronen

(IsraelNN.com) Much of the international delegitimization against Israel is carried out by the Palestinian Authority (PA), Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Monday in a session of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, adding that some of it is paid for by cash that Israel supplies to the PA.

Most of the legal motions filed against IDF officers are financed by the PA and initiated by it, Lieberman said.

Lieberman said it was not clear if PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, known also as Abu Mazen, represents anyone but himself. “Abu Mazen does not represent the residents of Gaza because Hamas rules there. Seeing as elections in the PA have been postponed three times, one needs to ask whom does Abu Mazen represent. It is not clear that he can supply the goods in negotiations. It is unacceptable that while we cooperate on security, economics and financing, they continue to file lawsuits against us and incite.”

Lieberman said he could not bring himself to trust people who filed legal charges against senior Israeli officials. “In every conversation between Palestinians and senior figures in other countries, the former say they do not trust our sincerity - but I do not believe their sincerity, in view of the boycotts that they are initiating against Israeli goods and the lawsuits. We must examine, as a society, whether we consent to accept these rules of the game – that allow them to negotiate with us while turning many of their resources against us.”

Middle East is on Fire - Territorial Compromise Won’t Work
Lieberman said that in his personal view, an arrangement with the Arabs cannot be reached through territorial compromise. He cited the failure of offers made by former prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert. “It is no accident that for 16 years no arrangement has been reached, even when there were left-wing and centrist governments,” he explained. “There are no offers that go further than what Barak offered at Camp David. The conflict has become a religious one in recent years. As such, there is no possibility of reaching an arrangement through territorial compromise. Therefore we cannot achieve peace according to the offers made by Olmert.”

“We in the Israel Our Home party agree to swapping land and territory, as it says in our platform,” he said. “Today, when the entire Middle East is on fire, whoever says that an arrangement can be reached quickly is planting illusions.”

Samson Blinded reports

The Legal Forum for the Land of Israel issued yet another futile petition for the government to cease sending cash to Gaza. The government currently evaluates a tranche of half a billion shekels.

The transfer itself is not a problem: if not from Israel, Gazans would receive transaction cash from anywhere else. Israel, like any country, profits from exporting its paper currency. Rather, the issue lies in tax transfers: Israel indirectly taxes Jewish consumers to support our Arab enemies. The continuing transfers are especially odd when the PA takes an increasingly militant position in peace negotiations. The transfers make Israel the PA’s largest donor.

But how do Gazans spend shekels? Since Israel instituted the blockade, they cannot spend shekels, but cannot be hoarding that much cash, either. It is clear that despite the blockade Israeli-Gazan trade is in full swing.

You might like:

• Sultan Knish Lists Pro-Hamas, Pro-CAIR Members of Congress (this site)
• Indonesia considers removing Obama park statue (CNNGo)
• Pardon me while I barf (this site)
• Don't Let the Suit Fool You (JPost.com - BlogCentral)

(Selected for you by a sponsor )

2 more recommended posts »

Posted by Ted Belman @ 8:03 am |

How the Likud’s Agenda Alienates Americans (utter nonsense!)

[Utter nonsense]

By Jeffry Goldberg, The Atlantic

A very smart bit of analysis from Blake Hounshell:

Sullivan’s criticism of Israel ought to worry defenders of the Jewish state, then, because he is a bellwether for a broader shift in American media and society that has happened over the last few years. Israel is using up a lot of the goodwill it had built up in the 1990s, when eminent statesmen like Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres made good-faith efforts toward peace with the Palestinians. Since then, the country has been governed by a series of unimaginative right-wing leaders who have pandered constantly to their settler base and chosen to solve political problems through the use of force. Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud Party may have their fingers on the pulse of their public right now, but their agenda is not one that appeals to most Americans, who strongly support Israel’s right to exist but have little interest in underwriting the permanent occupation of the West Bank.

I don’t think Andrew is necessarily a bellwether on this — he’s a bit too mercurial — but as a general proposition I think Hounshell has it right. It seems as if many people in the American elite have decided that Israel is just as dysfunctional (and, sometimes, as brutal) as its Arab foes. Americans don’t like intractable crises, and the Israeli government needs to understand this (it needs to understand, as well, that young American Jews are less likely to be reflexive defenders of Israel than their parents are). At the risk of repeating myself (unavoidable on a blog, I guess), it will be risky for Israel to pull out its settlements from the West Bank, but it will be fatal for Israel to remain in the settlements, for moral and demographic reasons.

What Israel needs is a leader who will step forward and say, “Here is the way things should look,” and then present an outline for the creation of a viable Palestine. The settlers will go nuts, but that’s what they do. Hamas will go nuts, because that’s what it does. But Hounshell is right: What is needed is a Rabin. I tend to think that Netanyahu has the potential to be this leader. Maybe it’s more a hope than a reality at this point, but only someone from the right can bring the majority of Israelis to the painful compromises that are obviously necessary. And, to make the obvious point, one of the reasons this compromise is necessary is because American public opinion is one of Israel’s most important battlegrounds.

Note: The problem I see is that Israel does not get a true picture of the American public's opinion. They read what is in most of American newspapers - listen to America's media - and this gives Israel a false picture of how American patriots' feel about President Obama's agenda! Israel THINKS that the majority of Americans support Obama, and this is WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

Israel needs to stop listening to America's press/media coverage and begin listening to their own hearts and minds; do what is right for their country without seeking an American President's approval - because this President's approval rating is on the downward path within America, becuase we DO NOT agree with his policies for America!! And that goes for his foreign policies that undermine our allies!

Israel, please begin listening to your own citizens, first; and then, listen to the heart of America - a heart that Obama does not have - as a matter of fact, if a physician were to give Obama a checkup, they would find him a man without a heart! BeeSting

Obama, Netanyahu, Blair and Fayyad are in agreement

Israpundit.com

Essentially what Barry Rubin is pointing out is that the US position is in line with Israel’s position as I reported earlier when discussing Meridor’s speech. Obama, Netanyahu, Blair and Fayyad are all on the same page for now. Bottom up first.

Many people wrote to me to complain that they didn’t like Israel’s position because they didn’t want to build the Palestinians up. Perhaps they are right but they should keep in mind that Obama argued that negotiations should start without preconditions. That’s what Bibi wanted. Israel’s position is really “Autonomy only” for the Palestinians and no uprooting of the vast majority of settlers. She can still pull it off.

The Region: Quick, look busy!
By BARRY RUBIN

The Obama administration has signaled that it will go through the motions of Mideast involvement while awaiting some future opportunity for renewed talks.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a nominally routine communiqué last week after her meeting with Tony Blair, former prime minister of Great Britain and now messenger of the Quartet on Israeli-Palestinian matters. This two-paragraph document, dated February 11, 2010, indicates the new direction of US policy on Israel-Palestinian/Arab-Israeli conflict issues.

It, somewhat disingenuously, defines the Obama administration policy as seeking a two-state solution right from the start through three tactics:

“(1) To help build the economy and capacity to govern a Palestinian state;
(2) to renew political negotiations to enable the earliest possible establishment of that state; and
(3) to achieve these in a manner that ensures the security of Israel and of the Palestinians.”

Wait a minute! Up until now, item two has been in the top position. Last September, the president announced that intensive talks to reach a comprehensive peace agreement would start in early November! Three months later, not even the most minor direct talks are in sight. So now the administration has shifted gears and the main priority is a process of state-building and community organizing among Palestinians to get them ready for statehood.

Notice it doesn’t even say the “earliest possible” renewal of political negotiations but implies that economic and infrastructure change will achieve the “earliest possible establishment” of a Palestinian state. To further this goal, while Blair and Senator George Mitchell, the US envoy, will act as partners to support political negotiations, Blair’s task is: “(1) to build support for the institutional capacity and governance of a future Palestinian state, including on the rule of law; (2) to improve freedom of movement and access for Palestinians; (3) to encourage further private sector investment; and (4) to bring change in the living conditions of the people in Gaza.”

This mission is defined as being “consistent with Prime Minister Fayyad’s plan for a future Palestinian state.” That means the Palestinian Authority prime minister’s two-year plan to build the Palestinian state economically and institutionally can be launched in 2012.

But in the Fayyad approach, negotiations with Israel come only at the end of the process, when everything is already prepared. This gives the administration the rationale to get nothing done in the meantime on the diplomatic level. It is thus a complete reversal in practice of previous administration policy. The US government can “look busy” while doing precisely what its predecessor did: realize nothing much is possible at the present while awaiting some future opportunity.

The emphasis is on helping the Palestinians and not pressing them to give Israel anything. At the same time, however, there is not going to be a big effort to pressure Israel except on two points: One is the “freedom of movement” issue, asking Israel to dismantle more roadblocks, which will depend, of course, on the security situation; the other is the phrase, “To bring change in the living conditions of the people in Gaza.” Unfortunately, this doesn’t mean overthrowing Hamas and freeing Gazans from that dictatorship of genocidal-minded terrorists. Rather, it implies more pressure on Israel to reduce embargos on the Gaza Strip without removing Hamas, blocking arms-smuggling, or forcing any change in Hamas’s plan for future attacks on Israel. In other words, still another Israeli concession, though Israel will keep it to a minimum.

MEANWHILE, THE United States won’t push the PA to come to the negotiating table, or reduce incitement, or really convey to its people the need to give up hope of wiping out Israel and taking all the land, or punish terrorists. Such activities would make the PA unhappy; stir up Arab and Muslim complaints, and not work anyway. Of course, failing to do these things will also make any real progress on peace impossible as well.

The truth is, of course, that Fayyad’s two-year plan will fail completely. He is too weak to strengthen Palestinian institutions; the regime is too corrupt, incompetent, and ready to toy with violence to attract foreign investment. Even the welcome Palestinian economic boom is merely based on spending aid money and real estate speculation, not any solid foundation.

In this context, the administration has made a choice it would never admit: maximum popularity, minimum friction, no real change. That is a reasonable choice under the circumstances. It is also in real terms the same policy the Bush administration had and the Obama administration has ridiculed.

All this greater recognition of reality – whatever the rhetoric employed – should be accompanied with a corresponding shift in wider public understanding. Solving the Arab-Israeli conflict is not the key to the Middle East. There isn’t going to be a peace deal. The reason is internal Palestinian politics. The leadership is still radical, more eager to reconcile with Hamas than to make peace with Israel. The world view is extremist and geared toward total victory. PA media and clerics encourage violence and teach that Israel is temporary and illegitimate.

Nevertheless, the new US policy is not bad, especially given where the administration could have gone. It does seem as if the White House has realized the PA is not ready for peace and is thus reluctant to commit much effort to the issue.

Meanwhile, it will just go on saying how much it loves the Palestinians and look active while trying to keep things quiet as it deals with other issues.

Obama: U.S. backs Israel, but mindful of Palestinians’ plight

Israpundit.com
by Ted Belman

My biggest complaint with his position is his assumption that we only have security interests. This is in line with his embrace of the Saudi Plan. When he acknowledges our rights to Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem, then I’ll take notice.

By Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz

U.S. President Barack Obama said on Thursday he would never waver from support for Israel’s security but that Washington must also pay attention to the plight of the Palestinian people.

“We are working to try to strengthen the ability of both parties to have to sit down across the table,” Obama said at a townhall-style meeting in Tampa. His administration’s efforts to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have made little progress since he took office a year ago.

The president referred to Israel as “one of our strongest allies,” adding that “the Palestinians have to unequivocally renounce violence and recognize Israel. And Israel has to acknowledge legitimate grievances and interests of the Palestinians. We have to realize both the Palestinians and Israelis have legitimate aspirations.”

Obama cautioned both sides against “mutual demonization” that threatens to jeopardize the resumption of peace negotiations.

The president also cited the domestic political constraints that are hindering Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, circumstances which are limiting prospects for peacemaking.

Obama said the Israeli premier “is making some effort to move a little bit further than his coalition wants to go.”

Netanyahu’s right-leaning government includes pro-settler parties strongly opposed to ceding West Bank land to the Palestinians for a future state.

Obama said Abbas “genuinely wants peace” but has to deal with Hamas, a militant group that refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Abbas, a pro-U.S. moderate, is also weakened by Hamas’s control of the Gaza Strip while he governs only in the West Bank.

Saying Israelis and Palestinians both have “legitimate aspirations,” Obama sought to reassert his administration’s ability to act as an even-handed broker.

“Israel is one of our strongest allies,” Obama said. “It’s critical for us, and I will never waver from ensuring Israel’s security.”

But he quickly insisted, “The plight of the Palestinians is something that we have to pay attention to. It is not good for our security and for Israel’s security if you have millions of individuals who feel hopeless.”

Last week, Obama said his administration overestimated its ability to persuade the Israelis and Palestinians to resume meaningful peace talks.

In an interview with Time magazine, Obama said both parties have been unwilling to make the bold gestures needed to move the process forward. If the U.S. had anticipated that earlier, Obama says he might not have raised his expectations so high.

Obama said the U.S. will continue to work toward a two-state solution in which Israel is secure and the Palestinians have sovereignty. His remarks came in an interview with Time Magazine published Thursday.

Note: If ever anyone spoke "double-talk", this is a perfect example of such speech, from Obama! The two-state solution in Israel does NOT make Israel "secure"; his claims that "both parties have been unwilling to make bold gestures" is an outright lie! He fails to mention the refusal of the PA leader, Abbas to recognize Israel's right to exist, or the daily statements and demands made by Abbas, while refusing to acknowledge any of Israel's offer for peace; this article also does not mention Israel's "freeze" of settlements for 10 months as an offer to discuss peace - a freeze demanded by the United States, I might add! Obama has enabled the PA's to dig in their heals, refuse all offers for peace, while they continue to slice up Israel's land. No, Obama, the Palestinians do not want "sovereignty" or "peace" - they have demonstrated this for years, with each refusal to previous offers made by Israel - what they want is "Israel" - period! Not a piece of Israel, like cutting up a pie, they want the whole pie! President Obama continues to lie to the American people, as demonstrated in his State of the Union address, continues to lie to the world, and to Israel. His deception is unacceptable to anyone who honestly wishes "peace" and prosperity for Israel, America's ally. ...........

BeeSting