Hat Tip: Nancy Jacques
Well, it’s New Year’s Day. Knowing both how busy I am (it’s a “regular” day here), and how likely it is that many will be away from the computer for New Year’s Day, I was not going to write. But my prime minister’s recent statement motivated (compelled?) me to do so.
First, let me wish everyone a happy secular new year. It is never the wrong time for wishes for blessing and good things.
And to the subject at hand:
There has been a good deal of political discussion here of late regarding a Palestinian state — whether there is a commitment to one, whether it would good, whether we should support one, etc.
Minister of Education Gideon Sa’ar (Likud) said recently that a Palestinian state has never been part of the Likud platform. Sa’ar is a big vote-getter and a good guy in Likud.
Then the political newcomer who is fourth on the Likud list and sure to be in the next government, Yair Shamir — son of former prime minster Yitzhak Shamir, wrote an op-ed about “Why I oppose a Palestinian state”:
“…we must remove the idea of a Palestinian state in our area from the Israeli agenda immediately, if not sooner.”
I regret that he spoke only in security terms, about what damage such a state would bring in its wake, and not about our rights to Judea and Samaria, but OK. He is opposed.
And it was important that Shamir referred back to Yitzhak Rabin, who signed on to the Oslo Accords. Many people imagine — this myth has been refined over time — that Rabin was solidly for a Palestinian state. But he was not. Shortly before his death, Rabin spoke of what he envisioned with Oslo, which was an autonomy short of a full state. In his article, Shamir presented evidence of Rabin’s opinion on the matter.
MK Tzipi Hotovely (Likud) ventured the opinion at Hebrew University yesterday that when Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke about a Palestinian state in his 2009 Bar Ilan talk, it was “a tactical speech for the world…Netanyahu made the speech in response to accusations from the Arab world and to expose Mahmoud Abbas, who refuses to recognize the Jewish state.”
Going good. Her implication is that he wasn’t really devoted to that concept.
Of course, we also saw that President Shimon Peres made a statement about “peace” being a top priority, and referred to Abbas as a “partner for peace.”
But this is Peres, who, at 89, is not about to change. He’s one of those “head in an alternate reality” people and I sense that he really believes what he is saying.
Anyway, there were a number of responses to him.
Because I always enjoy a laugh, I rather liked the irritated reaction of PA negotiator Saeb Erekat, who observed that, “He’s meddling in Palestinian politics and deciding who can and who can’t be a party to talks.” Peres should take a hint from this, but he won’t.
The most solid response to the president came from Habayit Hayehudi head Naftali Bennett, who declared, “enough already” with “peace process” talk. The Oslo Accords, he reminded Peres, “brought us more than 1,600 murdered Israelis [via terrorist attacks].”
“Enough, already. The President of the country is supposed to represent all of the country, not just a part of it.
“Mr. President, it is clear that your intentions were good, but that does not make any difference. The time has come for some soul searching. Perhaps giving land to our enemies does not work?”
All of this said and done, a spokesman for the Likud-Beitenu joint list declared, in response to what has been going on, that Prime Minister Netanyahu stands by his support for a Palestinian state under the conditions described in his 2009 Bar Ilan talk.
Of course, then there were all the qualifiers: a Palestinian state will be possible when the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, will agree to the end of conflict, and will make appropriate arrangements regarding Israel’s security requirements (which includes demilitarization).
But it is with regard to this that I ask if the prime minister really really needed to do it.
Qualifiers aside, I see it as a huge mistake.
There are those now claiming that Hotovely was wrong — that he is really supportive in principle of the idea of a Palestinian state and that his Bar Ilan speech was not simply tactical.
I am not sure that is correct. Much that Netanyahu does is “tactical.” He “plays” various situations for various purposes. And I suspect the statement about his standing by his support is also tactical. He has taken a tougher stance of late, saying that we will build in Jerusalem no matter what the world says, and so on and so on.
But he’s not ready to take that additional step. He has, I would guess, sufficiently incurred the wrath of the world with the announcements about planning to build in E1 or establishing new neighborhoods in Jerusalem past the Green Line, so that he does not wish to push it further.
Netanyahu knows full well that there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that Abbas will come to the table and seriously negotiate that two state solution. Thus, there is absolutely no risk to him on that score. It’s a throw-away offer, meant, I believe, to show the world, still, that the PLO is at fault and he is willing.
If hell froze over and Abbas did come to the table, would Netanyahu negotiate a Palestinian state? I cannot see into his heart. But I believe if everything were equal he would rather do without it. He’s not Livni, nor Olmert — he’s not pining to rectify the terrible “wrong” we have done in “occupying” “Palestinian land.”
But even if this is just tactical. It’s a terrible tactic. To me it smacks of groveling: See, see, how I am willing?
He might have said something like:
“I meant it when, over three years ago, I offered a Palestinian state, with appropriate conditions. And I was the one — the only Israeli prime minister ever — who froze building in communities in Judea and Samaria for 10 months, because this is what Mr. Abbas wanted.
“And what have we gotten for it? The PA still teaches its children that jihad is good and that Israel belongs to them. It still venerates terrorists. Venerates terrorists? It’s talking about a unity government with the terrorist Hamas. In fact, Hamas is gaining strength in Judea and Samaria and intends to topple the PA there, as it did in Gaza. While, at the same time, the PA security forces have reduced security cooperation with Israel. And as if this were not enough, Mr. Abbas acted unilaterally in a fashion prohibited by the Oslo Accords when he went to the UN.
“The PA, which is awash in corruption and as a result is falling apart fiscally, has done everything but build a state-in-the-making in positive ways and genuinely prepare its people for peace.
“I do not wish to kid myself or to delude my people. There is no reason to entertain thoughts of a Palestinian state.”
In truth, he comes so very close to this. Today, Netanyahu said:
“Everyone knows that Hamas could take over the Palestinian Authority. It could happen after an agreement, it could happen before an agreement, like it happened in Gaza. Therefore, as opposed to the voices that I have heard recently urging me to run forward, make concessions, [and] withdraw, I think that the diplomatic process must be managed responsibly and sagaciously and not in undue haste.”
So, he demonstrates clearly what is not viable — but insists on referring to a “diplomatic process” as if there were one. There isn’t.
I mentioned above prominent members of Likud, such as Shamir and Sa’ar, who are against a Palestinian state. And there are others. MK Ze’ev Elkin, Coalition Chair, for example, and Minister of Public Diplomacy Yuli Edelstein. More good guys.
Quite simply, a good number of the people in the Likud faction are unhappy with their leader right now. Tonight I spoke with someone who works within the party (not in an elected position) and he indicated precisely this to me.
And so this situation must play itself out. Because what we’re seeing is that the party of Naftali Bennett is gaining in the polls at the expense of Likud.
The Israeli electorate is moving right:
A poll just released by Israeli Channel Two Television indicates that 70% of Israelis (and this includes Arabs) do not think it’s possible “to reach a solution to the dispute with the Palestinians in the near future.”
While a poll announced by Israel Hayom yesterday indicates that “about 83 percent of Israelis believe pulling back to the pre-1967 armistice lines will not bring an end to the conflict nor a peace accord with the Palestinians.”
Iranian naval forces have successfully test fired Qader (Capable) coast-to-sea and Nour (Light) surface-to-surface missiles on the fifth day of the Velayat 91 military maneuvers, Press TV reports.
Iran is preparing for war. They are not threatened, they are the ones threatening. And behind them stands Russia and China. They want Iran to do their dirty work for them and they will reap the spoils of nuclear war.
By: Nelson Abdullah
Conscience of a Conservative
Now that our U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice has withdrawn her name from consideration for Secretary of State after the House Republicans thoroughly discredited her questionable ethics, ultra-liberal, pro-Muslim, communist community organizer Barack Hussein Obama has officially nominated Sen. John ‘Swiftboat’ Kerry for the job. The establishment Republicans, aka RINOs, are all breathing a sigh of relief that the worst person for the job won’t be getting it and one of their own Senate Country Club members will. I predicted this was all a smoke screen from the beginning to make the self-annointed hero of Vietnam the acceptable choice.
Someone has posted a petition within the last few days on the White House web page We The People, to remove Kerry from this consideration. It doesn’t go far enough to describe how un-American, anti-military John Kerry really is.
Withdraw John Kerry from Consideration for Secretary of State
In 1971 John Kerry gave false testimony about U.S. soldiers in Viet Nam and single-handedly did more harm to our POWs and returning veterans than any other person in the history of the U.S. He is a thief of stolen valor who has worked his entire career to undermine our military. He referred to American troops serving honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan as terrorists. It is an insult to every member of our armed forces and every American veteran to nominate Mr. Kerry to the position of Secretary of State. He has been a dismal representative of our foreign policy for over four decades and has often worked directly against the interests of the American people. We have every reason to believe that he will continue his traitorous, anti-American policies if confirmed as Secretary of State.
Created: Dec 28, 2012
WND.com does a good job of filling in the missing pieces on John Kerry.
Sen. John Kerry in 1971 gave “false testimony about U.S. soldiers in Viet Nam and single-handedly did more harm to our POWS and returning veterans than any other person the history of the U.S.,” according to a new White House petition.
In 2004, he lost the race for the presidency with the release of the book “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,” which cited witnesses to his actions.
But Barack Obama now has nominated Kerry to be secretary of state, a position that will influence subsequent generations of troops he blasted as rapists and assassins who “cut off heads, taped wires … to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, shot at civilians, raced villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks.”
This is what I wrote on the subject early last month. It is worth repeating. I called it a magic act because what was going on in Washington was the same kind of deception the magician uses to distract his audience.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
We are all watching another Washington, D.C. magic act. The magician waves his left hand to draw your attention while he sets up the next trick with his other hand. The Republicans are mesmerized by the act being played before them and cannot see what is about to happen next. U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice is being set up to be the worst possible candidate for replacing Hillary Clinton as the new Secretary of State, and the Republicans are gobbling it up. When it is all over we will see that Sen. John Kerry, the Swiftboat hero of Vietnam, the same John Kerry who awarded himself three Purple Hearts so he could leave the battlefield and come home to protest the war and accuse his fellow soldiers of killing women and children, will be the second best choice to be our next Secretary of State. And the Republican Senators, like John McCain, who once said about then Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, he could not say anything bad about a fellow member of the Senate, will voice a sigh of relief when they accept John Kerry as the lesser-of-two-evils. It is somewhat incongruous to realize that today, Sen. John Kerry occupies the position of Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the very body that launched his political career in 1971.
John Kerry’s political career was launched in the U.S. Senate in the Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971 when he was invited to appear as a representative of the left wing group Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The testimony Kerry gave accused his fellow American troops of blatantly committing war crimes against the civilian population of Vietnam. He was congratulated for his work by leading liberals on the Senate committee.
And today, as WND.com points out from a story in the Chicago Sun-Times, Hillary Clinton would rather see Sen. John Kerry become her replacement. Of course, John Kerry is more liberal than Susan Rice. And he isn’t involved in any questionable business practices like Susan Rice. He earned his millions by marrying rich women. And he got his start in politics by accusing his fellow soldiers of horrible crimes. Nothing like climbing over your buddies to get ahead. Oh, and he is friends with Jane Fonda and they spoke at anti-war rallies.
And as for the rest of us, we have been suckered once again. Can you imagine what John Kerry would be like as Secretary of State? Those few allies that we have left in the world must be having nightmares. He might even appoint his old friend Jane as his deputy. Why not, she would fit into the Obama administration perfectly because she was once married to a communist.
My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides.
Happy New Year. The birds of a feather are all flocking together. Now we will wait for the confirmation hearings in the Senate and the expected applause Kerry gets from fellow liberals like RINO Senator John McCain who once said in his 2008 campaign against Barack Hussein Obama, “I will not say anything bad about a fellow member of the Senate.” No, never, not even when the fate of your country is at stake. John McCain ought to know a lot about being a ‘patriot’ as my post revealed some unpleasant facts about his tour in Vietnam.
Hat Tip: BB
By: Trevor Loudon
From late 2011 to November 2012, I toured in the United States, three times, promoting my book Barack Obama and the Enemies Within. I spoken in 27 states, to more than 150 audiences. I also did many radio interviews, trying to alert more Americans to the dangers of an Obama presidency.
In 2013, I’ll be back with a new book – this time focusing on the pro-communist and socialist infiltration of the US Congress and Senate. The enemies within now have huge covert influence in the legislative branch of the US government – but owing to similar infiltration of the mainstream media, few Americans have any idea of the problem.
Consequently, millions of Americans blithely vote for candidates bent on the destruction of their constitutional republic, every single election cycle.
More Americans must be alerted to this harsh reality.
I have confirmed engagements in California in June and invitations to more than 30 states so far.
If you’d like to discuss the possibility of me addressing your conference, meeting or seminar please Email me.