Fool me once…
shame on you. Fool me 1,354 times, I am complicit.
“WASHINGTON — For President Obama, the news on Friday that Israelis planning to construct Jewish settlements in a geographically sensitive area east of Jerusalem came as a rude shock.” NYTimes
“… A senior diplomatic source told Haaretz that Netanyahu ordered 3,000 new housing units in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. According to the source, Israel also plans to advance long-frozen plans for the E1 area, which covers an area that links the city of Jerusalem with the settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim. If built, the controversial plan would prevent territorial contiguity between the northern and southern West Bank, making it difficult for a future Palestinian state to function.” Haaretz
Just to clarify: “The Approval of 3,000 new housing units in Jerusalem and the West Bank was a slap in the face for US President Barack Obama, former prime minister Ehud Olmert said Saturday at the Saban Forum in Washington.
“During a conversation hosted by David Ignatius of The Washington Post, Olmert stated that the construction was the worst move Israel could make: ‘This is the worst slap in the face of a US president.’” Jerusalem Post
Retaliation. Against the UN, UK, Vatican, etc. A gift to Hamas. Groin kick to US. How does this help Israel? What is the long term vision? How does this play out, over the next 100 years?
Isn’t this the sort of thing casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson was hoping for when he used his money to help elect President Gingrich?
A rude shock? Rude, yes; but why shock? Who in Washington was really surprised?
Even casino owner Adelson should tell Israel that doubling down is a long term sucker play.
As always, Margaret can be counted upon to tally up things regarded as unfavorable to Israel. Perhaps I missed her entry slamming the UN for its recognition not only of the Palestinian observer status, but of boundaries for an eventual Two State solution. Israel’s action is about the only strong reaction open to it. There used to be lots of Jewish residences in Gaza, but all were destroyed by Israel when it decided to indulge those calling for land for peace. Until the Palestinians revoke irreversibly their call for the destruction of Israel there will be no solution.
Yes, quite an outrage that in a “two state solution” someone should recognize Palestine as a state.
Nice neat piece, Margaret.
But I think your number is rather modest.
The fooling has never stopped from Hour One on September 11, 2001,
And we dear American citizens have been the saps…mostly.
Because without D.C., Israel would be about as strong as Estonia.
The Plan against us is more audacious than Madoff’s.
And easy to remember. It is the LIE: Lamentation, Intimidation, Exploitation.
Cheers
Bravo Israel! Maybe someday the Palestinians will decide not to “wipe Israel off the map”, maybe someday the Palestinians will stop referring to Israel (and by extension, all Jews) as a “disease”, and maybe someday MOB’S will actually be a friend of Israel. Or not.
Mr. Schwartz: Real Friends of Israel know that the continuing colonization of the West Bank is not in Israel’s real interest, short-term or long-term. And as it happens, the Palestinian Authority recognizes the State of Israel.
MOS … you know, don’t you, that Olmert is not a real friend of Israel? He’s an Al Qaeda mole.
The West isn’t going to let Israel build in area E1, or is going to make it pay a heavy price in condemnation and isolation if it does.
As best I can tell, the West has, at least for the time being, arrived at a consensus. It will support within limits Israel’s right to defend itself when it is attacked, even if this results in disproportionate loss of life among the Palestinians.
It will oppose additional settlement building or expansion that would prejudice the outcome of negotiations between the belligerents on major issues. A large Israeli community in area E1 would make it very difficult for the Palestinians to make East Jerusalem their capital. This is a major area of dispute between the parties, so the West will oppose it. The United States will bring pressure to bear in private upon Israel, and Europe will do so publicly and privately.
That’s how it looks to me that things are shaking out.
Jeff @ 10:28. I hope you’re right right about drawing the line at E1. It seems to me Israeli politicians have to have push back from Europe and the U.S. to keep them from going over the “physical” cliff of absorbing the West Bank. Will Europe be tougher than the U.S?
I’d be curious what you make of Secretary Clinton’s address to the Saban Conference.http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/11/201343.htm
CNN is reporting that Israelis have taken over some Palestinian property in East Jerusalem, and more seizures there might be on the way. This is over-and-above the new movements into the West Bank. The Palestinians are said to be “furious”. Where will it all end. Will it ever end :-(
Margaret: Israel’s proposal on area E1 was to proceed with pre-building things like zoning. Still, there’s already push back. Great Britain and France are already threatening to recall their ambassadors, according to today’s news.
But there are many Palestinian obstacles to peace as well. Its not just a story of settlements. On the same occasion that you reference in your link to the Jerusalem Post under “just to clarify” above, Ehud Olmert, according to Haaretz, said that Abbas could have had peace but for his procrastination. He praised Abbas as the best partner Israel has had for peace, but also said “I gave a map to Abu Mazen [Abbas], and he said he needs to do fine tuning with map experts,” recalled Olmert. “The fact is that the Palestinians rejected the most far-reaching and daring plan ever proposed to them. They should have answered right away, but he failed to do it. In a matter of three months we could have concluded the deal.” Olmert added that the Palestinians had “failed every opportunity” for reaching a peace deal with Israel. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/olmert-settlement-construction-in-area-e-1-is-slap-in-the-face-of-obama.premium-1.481853
A brief recital of Palestinian rejection of two-state solutions would include the Peel Commission in 1937, the U.N. partition plan in 1947, Arafat’s incomprehensible conduct at Camp David in 2000, and now Abbas’ conduct with respect to Olmert. I think there is substantial evidence that when it comes time for the Palestinians to sign on the dotted line, they always balk.
And, of course, Gaza is forthright that it rejects a two-state solution and is committed to Israel’s destruction. Truces of convenience are the most that it will offer.
Would you comment on whether you agree that Palestinian rejectionism is also a big obstacle to peace? Meanwhile, I will have a look at the remarks of Secretary Clinton that you referenced.
Here is David Remick on the Secretary’s “speech.”
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/hillary-is-running-a-dispatch-from-the-saban-forum.html
For those who claim that American liberals automatically side with Israel, here is some counter-evidence, an article by that old poster boy of American liberals, Noam Chomsky. Not a pretty picture.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/289-134/14857-focus-what-the-american-media-wont-tell-you-about-israel
The NYT reports that some leaders of a New York synagogue who support Israel have published a statement supporting the U.N. Palestinian resolution. I find the statement very moving. God bless them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/nyregion/jewish-congregation-applauds-un-vote-on-palestine.html?ref=global-home
Amen, Ann. It was a touching story. Though in typical New York style, it has set off a back and forth among the congregation about the enthusiasm of the rabbis’ e-mail (some approve, some think it’s a little too enthusiastic). So it goes. Amen
Those liberal Jewish voices are not themselves facing the challenges of living in Israel.
Ann-
With respect, Noam Chomsky isn’t a liberal. He’s a radical, who believes the United States is one of the most evil countries in the world. And he is famous (or infamous) for his one-sided diatribes against Israel. Just to take the first thing he talks about, you would never know from his description of the 1947-48 war that it was a war of aggression waged against Israel by the Palestinians and invading armies from Arab countries. Or that many atrocities were committed by them against the Israelis. Or that those Palestinians who left the country did so for many reasons, including on occassion calls from their leaders to do so. Or that notwithstanidng the war being waged and the atrocities being committed against them, the Jews did not leave because they had no place to go to. Instead, they stood and fought and died because they had no choice, which may be why Israel survivied and fought the Palestinians and invading armies to a standstill. Close to 9,000 Jews were killed in that war. One-percent of the Jewish population of Israel, which is 3.5 times the percentage of Americans who were killed in all of WWII.
Sorry folks. There is a glitch at dotCommonweal in informing me of your comments and I will have to close these off until/unless it is remedied. Apologies.