Netanyahu accepts Palestinian State!

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The Israeli PM announced that he would support an independent, Palestinian State, as long as it was demilitarized, accepted Israel as a Jewish State (i.e. No right of return), and the "families in the West Bank could live a normal life" (i.e. The settlements won't stop).

Linky.

Wow, almost sounds... exactly the same as the previous policy!

A Palestinian spokesperson said it would take 1000 years for him to find someone on their side who would agree to such terms.

Somehow, this is news? Also, for this thread refer to me as "Tinparky39".

 

[ddt]

The Israeli PM announced that he would support an independent, Palestinian State, as long as it was demilitarized, accepted Israel as a Jewish State (i.e. No right of return), and the "families in the West Bank could live a normal life" (i.e. The settlements won't stop).

Yes, the full text is on-line at Haaretz, and it was broadcast live by CNN earlier this evening. Before he said all of the above, he first said:

I appeal to you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Let us begin peace negotiations immediately without prior conditions.

and later on mentioned all of the conditions you mentioned above. But I guess it's a "win" that Likudnik Bibi mentioned a Palestinian State, and not just "entity" or some such. Well, at least that's what the White House reacted on:

"The President welcomes the important step forward in Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech. The President is committed to two states, a Jewish state of Israel and an independent Palestine, in the historic homeland of both peoples," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Wow, almost sounds... exactly the same as the previous policy!

A Palestinian spokesperson said it would take 1000 years for him to find someone on their side who would agree to such terms.

Somehow, this is news?

No. It's traditional Likud policy. He really doesn't want to compromise an inch, but after Obama's speech he had to do something. So he gives in on the word "state", but subsequently emasculates what he accepts as a Palestinian state that it becomes a joke. This comment from a PA spokesman says it all:

"The peace process has been moving at the speed of a tortoise," negotiator Saeb Erekat said. "Tonight, Netanyahu has flipped it over on its back."

(link)

And then Gideon Levi had such high hopes of this speech:

Rare are the moments when one person can change history. Tonight is the night. There will be no more Obamas or Arab peace initiatives. These opportunities come around once every few generations. It will be too late the next time such an opportunity presents itself, because Israel's situation will deteriorate immeasurably.

Also, for this thread refer to me as "Tinparky39".

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/world/netanyahu-endorses-palestinian-state-20090615-c7kp.html

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has formally endorsed a Palestinian state alongside Israel and called for the resumption of peace talks without precondition

Except for the following preconditions......

 

[Skeptic]

Abbas, in the meantime, reacted with outrage to the horrific Israeli demands: that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland and that they will be demilitarized so it will be harder for them to slaughter Jews.

No doubt it will "take 1000 years" to find a Palestinian leader who will agree to such impossible peace terms. Peace without killing Jews and while recognizing Israel actually has a right to exist? What is Netanyahu, some sort of extremist or something?

No, no, no. Peace for the PLO means "just peace" (destruction of Israel) or "establishment of the legitimate Palestinian rights" (destruction of Israel) or "according to the PLO convention" (destruction of Israel). See my signature.

Perhaps they'll succeed in this goal. But to call what the Palestinians want "peace" and a "just solution" is no more accurate than to call what North Korea wants "peaceful reunion" with South Korea.

 

[ddt]

Abbas, in the meantime, reacted with outrage to the horrific Israeli demands: that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland

What's the deal with this? The PLO has since long recognized Israel as a state. Why should they now recognize Israel as "the Jewish homeland" or as "the Jewish state" or as "the state of the Jewish people"? To quote Uri Avnery on the latter:

NETANYAHU’S DEMAND that the Palestinians recognize Israel as “the State of the Jewish People” is ridiculous, even as a tactic for preventing peace.

A state recognizes a state, not its ideology or political regime. Nobody recognizes Saudi Arabia, the homeland of the Hajj, as “the State of the Muslim Umma” (the community of believers.)

[...]

Even if Mahmoud Abbas were persuaded to accept this demand – and thereby indirectly put in doubt the citizenship of a million and a half Arabs in Israel – I would oppose this strenuously. More than that, I would consider it an unfriendly act.

That was before Netanyahu's speech yesterday. What did he say in his speech?

Even the moderates among the Palestinians are not ready to say the most simplest things: The State of Israel is the national homeland of the Jewish People and will remain so.
[...]
we need the Palestinian leadership to rise and say, simply "We have had enough of this conflict. We recognize the right of the Jewish People to a state its own in this Land.
[...]
The fundamental condition for ending the conflict is the public, binding and sincere Palestinian recognition of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish People.

So, which is it? Homeland of the Jewish People or Jewish state or something else? And why, for God's sake, does it matter one iota?

 

[mortimer]

Why should they now recognize Israel as "the Jewish homeland" or as "the Jewish state" or as "the state of the Jewish people"?

Because Israel wants them to, and the PA doesn't have much in the way of bargaining power right now.

 

[webfusion]

While this speech was being delivered in Israel, the President of the USA was golfing.

Between now and July, the Palestinians have choices to make. Do they wish to organize a Palestinian National Authority that encompasses both Gaza and the West Bank, or not?
I think the world would like to hear AbuMazen's vision of a Palestinian State.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu basically said that the Palestinians need to "get their $+1T together" and laid out the outline for what basic steps they could take ---

If they don't want to take the ball and run with it, that's their problem. Getting bogged down in the details of what the speech meant, is a waste of energy. It was not a speech directed to the Palestinians. It was for SURE NOT a speech given for the POTUS.

It was an speech for internal consumption. And in that, it apparently worked fine.
Netanyahu's coalition partners came forward with praise for the speech, and there wasn't much in the way of dissent from within Likud itself (See: Benny Begin).

 

[Cleon]

A "state" that has no right to self-defense, no right to control its airspace, and no right to its natural resources is not an independent state in any meaningful sense of the term.

The only thing Netanyahu did with his big speech is reiterate the Likud party line, only finally using the word "state" rather than "entity." Other than that, it's just SSDD.

 

[ddt]

Because Israel wants them to, and the PA doesn't have much in the way of bargaining power right now.

, that's the "might makes right" argument. But rational arguments?

If they don't want to take the ball and run with it, that's their problem. Getting bogged down in the details of what the speech meant, is a waste of energy. It was not a speech directed to the Palestinians. It was for SURE NOT a speech given for the POTUS.

It was an speech for internal consumption. And in that, it apparently worked fine.
Netanyahu's coalition partners came forward with praise for the speech, and there wasn't much in the way of dissent from within Likud itself (See: Benny Begin).

It was not directed at the POTUS? Strange, so short after Obama's speech, and mirroring speeching in a university hall. Why would it be only for internal consumption? Does Netanyahu says something else for internal consumption than to the POTUS?

Anyway, here's the first fall-out:

The EU and Israel have agreed in principle to upgrade an "association agreement" defining their ties, a move that would bring trade benefits for both sides.

But the 27-nation bloc has put the upgrade on ice and says it wants a firm commitment from Israel to seek a so-called two-state peace accord with the Palestinians.

 

[mortimer]

, that's the "might makes right" argument. But rational arguments?

Well, the rational argument is that, without making that largely symbolic demand, Netanyahu's coalition would likely collapse.

 

[The Fool]

A "state" that has no right to self-defense, no right to control its airspace, and no right to its natural resources is not an independent state in any meaningful sense of the term.

The only thing Netanyahu did with his big speech is reiterate the Likud party line, only finally using the word "state" rather than "entity." Other than that, it's just SSDD.

well I suppose dragging the "S word" out of his mouth is a step forward. One day The loonie right in Israel will wake up and realise the rest of the world is not keen on them keeping populations around them as Vassals.

 

[ponderingturtle]

A "state" that has no right to self-defense, no right to control its airspace, and no right to its natural resources is not an independent state in any meaningful sense of the term.

How about we apply it to both states in the two state solution, it would be only fair right?

 

[Cleon]

How about we apply it to both states in the two state solution, it would be only fair right?

Demilitarized? 'K. I'm down. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like it.

No control of airspace or natural resources? Uh, how would that work? Who would have control?

 

[webfusion]

{This speech} was not directed at the POTUS? Strange, so short after Obama's speech, and mirroring speeching in a university hall. Why would it be only for internal consumption? Does Netanyahu says something else for internal consumption than to the POTUS?

It would seem so, yes. Of course, the POTUS heard about it, when he returned to the clubhouse after his round of golf, but the Prime Minister of Israel had another audience in mind when he gave that speech.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1093234.html
Netanyahu's approval ratings soar in reaction to his comments at Bar Ilan about what Israel is prepared to do for peace.
Netanyahu hit a bull's-eye in the Israeli public consensus with his speech. This is reflected in the results of a Haaretz-Dialog survey conducted yesterday under the auspices of Prof. Camil Fuchs of Tel Aviv University.

And in the meantime, the POTUS has climbed down a bit from the high branches of the tree, and "is prepared to show flexibility" on the settlements.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1093219.html

 

[The Fool]

It would seem so, yes. Of course, the POTUS heard about it, when he returned to the clubhouse after his round of golf, but the Prime Minister of Israel had another audience in mind when he gave that speech.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1093234.html
Netanyahu's approval ratings soar in reaction to his comments at Bar Ilan about what Israel is prepared to do for peace.
Netanyahu hit a bull's-eye in the Israeli public consensus with his speech. This is reflected in the results of a Haaretz-Dialog survey conducted yesterday under the auspices of Prof. Camil Fuchs of Tel Aviv University.

And in the meantime, the POTUS has climbed down a bit from the high branches of the tree, and "is prepared to show flexibility" on the settlements.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1093219.html

prepared to show flexability....allowing existing constructions to be completed. Would this mean that further construction would not start? I doubt that very much. Israels policy so far has been to continue to build little bits of Israel outside of Israel and shows no sign of stopping. I believe this will simply continue until Israel has completed all the construction it wants to. Wouldn't it just be simpler for Israel to publish a full and final map showing all the parts it is going to take? At least then we could all clearly see that a palestinian state is not going to happen under any form of voluntary agreement from Israel and if it is going to happen will need to be imposed on Israel.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Demilitarized? 'K. I'm down. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like it.

No control of airspace or natural resources? Uh, how would that work? Who would have control?

I suggest Finland.

 

[Skeptic]

A "state" that has no right to self-defense slaughter Jews...

Fixed it for you.

The Palestinian authority, in the Oslo accords, DID get the right to self-defense -- getting its own soldiers, arms, training, etc. Needless to say, the sole use of this "self-defense" force was to (a) kill Jews, (b) terrorize dissenters who were against Arafat. Oh, and the same happened in Gaza. And... well, anywhere the Palestinians were given land or arms.

To demand the Palesinians be armed is simply to demand Jews be killed. For "peace", of course.

The Palestinians, naturally, are outraged at the denial of their "rights" (to destroy Israel) and are theathening "another intifada" (accoring to Abbas). In other words, "If you won't help us kill you, we'll kill you!".

 

[Cleon]

Fixed Lied about it for you.

You're welcome.

 

[The Fool]

You're welcome.

Be fair...some see lying for Israel as a duty.

 

[webfusion]

prepared to show flexibility....allowing existing constructions to be completed. Would this mean that further construction would not start? I doubt that very much. Israels policy so far has been to continue to build little bits of Israel outside of Israel and shows no sign of stopping. I believe this will simply continue until Israel has completed all the construction it wants to.

I have to ask -- where does Israel begin and end?

Wouldn't it just be simpler for Israel to publish a full and final map showing all the parts it is going to take? At least then we could all clearly see that a palestinian state is not going to happen under any form of voluntary agreement from Israel and if it is going to happen will need to be imposed on Israel.

This is a matter for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian national Authority ---- if such a thing can even be said to exist, under the current circumstances of their Diarchy (or Duumvirate.)
There is no need for defining predetermined outcomes.
Or "forcing" or "imposing" any outcome.