I will write in more detail on the divergent speeches of President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu when I return from South Asia, but I’ll just put down a few immediate thoughts here.
There was something tragic about Netanyahu’s speech to the U.S. Congress, and something bizarre about attempts to demonize Obama’s earlier speech as anti-Israel. Obama’s framework – a return to approximate 1967 borders with agreed land swaps – is the formula that U.S. and Israeli leaders have been talking about for the past two decades. It is the basis on which Israeli leaders from Yitzhak Rabin to Ehud Barak to Ehud Olmert negotiated with the Palestinians.
True, final agreement was not reached. But the reason those Israeli leaders attempted to talk on that basis was that they knew Israel could not forever rule over 3-4 million disenfranchised Palestinians. That is all the more true at a time when Mideast revolts are enabling many Arab publics, for the first time, to have a voice in political systems that were long run by autocrats or despots. In the coming era, Arab publics will be much more vociferous in pressing their leaders to obtain those rights for Palestinians.
Netanyahu has every right to put Israel’s security foremost. However, it is one thing to state Israel’s readiness to accept a Palestinian state, conditional on full recognition by Palestinians and Arabs and. It is another thing to put forward a proposal that is not and never could be a Palestinian state – a Palestinian entity cut off from its historic capital, Jerusalem, with Israeli troops in the Jordan Valley, and with settlement blocs chopping up the West Bank into fragments. This is a formula for a Bantustan, not a Palestinian state, and Netanyahu knows it.
Instead of putting the onus on the Palestinian side by offering a solid proposal and daring them to respond, daring them to drop the law of return in exchange for realistic borders and a shared capital, Netanyahu did the opposite. He made clear that he still, as he always has, believes that Israel can hold on to much or most of the West Bank forever.
Keeping the West Bank – and effective control of Gaza – will present an existential threat to Israel as the Arab population in Greater Israel eventually outnumbers Israeli Jews there. With the peace process now dead, that seems the direction in which Israel is headed. And, sadly, an unwitting Congress cheered an Israeli leader who seems determined to lead Israel down this destructive path.
Isreal occupies land inhabited by Palestinians and Palestinians attack Isreal. This was all staged in the Balfour Declaration dating back to the early 1900's between Jewish Bankers and Britan's politicians. Jewish Bankers used their financial "leverage" in London to compel Britian's officials to use its "Empire" to create a national homeland for Jews in Palestine. Britian resisted as outside a world governing body, Britian could not condone an illegal occupation they knew would lead to regional instability. Enter the failed League of Nations (predessessor to UN), WWI and ultimatly WWII and the UN. Citizenc92- I've been following this conflict since 1980. Before the initial intifadah and Arafat was still in exile. There will never be peace there. NEVER. Only solution. War. WWIII. Christians against Muslims. Communism against Democracies. Shiites against Sunnis. Druglords against warlords. Etc etc etc. Then we repeat the cycle because there will NEVER be peace. Not here and Not there.
ISRAEL is the correct spelling. It figures that someone who cannot spell would blame "Jewish bankers" for the conflagration in the Middle East! greenie
so isreal has has no choice but to roll over to the terrorist state that will be created? The sad thing is that isa ll the palestinian state will be. No industry, no commerce, just terrorism and welfare. Sadly you neglect to point out the consistent shelling as technology advances even low tech rockets are a threat. so Is your answer make isreal 8 miles wide and a shared capital? Did those who sacrificed and died in 1967 die for nothing? stevejones
@greenie - What's a matter, affraid to read history? You ARE a joke. Citizenc92
Citizen, no comment on your last post!!! greenie
@greenie - Hard to argue with fact isn't it? Citizenc92
I guess thats why you have NO argument! greenie
Trudy, Yes, the discussion of a "palestinian state" for a betrodden, downridden, nomadic horde of unwanted arabs has been on the table for some time; but using this as a way to bash Netanyahu is misleading. Forget the somnolent Jimmy Carter, who did more than any other American president to create a larger mid-east crisis than anyone before or after him. Reagan and Bush 41 were strong allies that didn't waver or eqiuvocate about our support of THE ONLY DEMOCRACY in the Midle East. Israelknew it had a partner. Then along came tandem team Clinton.. Hillary best expressed her husband Bill's sentiments about Israel with her pro-palestian rant. And Obama? Well, after Bin Ladengate, an adrenal rush must have caused Obama's endomorphins and endorphins to kick in and lead him to tongue lash the Israeli prime minister. For some time, Netanyahu has been aware of Obama's relativist sentiments. If there were any doubts by Israel, last summer's misguided anti-Gaza Strip boycott fiasco sealed the fate of Israel having to go it alone. lefty
- May
- March
- January
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- December 2010
- October 2010
- May 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- Read Trudy Rubin's recent columns
















How about "a fully witless Congress heeding the bidding of AIPAC"?
Definition of WITLESS
1: destitute of wit or understanding : foolish
2: mentally deranged
Definition of UNWITTING
1: not knowing : unaware
2: not intended : inadvertent