the message board for Dubai English speaking community
shafique wrote:Tell me I'm not the only one that finds the US offer of 20 war planes to Israel in return for it stopping building for 90 days in parts (not all) of the occupied territories, extremely bizare.
If I were American I'd be pissed off - the fact that the Israeli govt is 'considering' the offer just adds insult to injury. The tail is wagging the dog folks.
Or am I missing something here (a bit jet lagged, and had to check that it wasn't a spoof):
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... e-1.324496
White House Middle East adviser Dan Shapiro told a group of American Jewish leaders on Friday that U.S. was committed to fighting delegitimization of Israel, and listed recent efforts to advocate on behalf of Israel.
Such efforts included: curbing actions by the United Nations on the Goldstone Report; blocking anti-Israel UN resolutions concerning the Gaza flotilla raid; defeating international resolutions aimed at exposing Israel's nuclear program at the International Atomic Energy Agency; and strengthening pressure on Iran and Syria in regards to their nuclear and proliferation activities.
desertdudeshj wrote:Anyways the US does give around 3 billion in aid annually to Israel so I guess the American tax payer would at the end of the day footing the bill for those in anycase free or otherwise and does have the right be a little ticked off.
And why does a White House official has to explain anything to them ?
desertdudeshj wrote:Personally I've never read anywhere that the US aid to Israel is conditional in any way.
Congress has legislated other special provisions regarding aid to Israel. (..) Israel is allowed to spend about one-quarter of the military aid for the procurement in Israel of defense articles and services, including research and development, rather than in the United States.
The decision required from Netanyahu is clear: Accept the U.S. proposal, freeze settlement construction immediately, and determine the border on the basis of the new security understandings with the United States - even if such a decision requires a different coalition, such as one that includes Kadima and in which opposition leader Tzipi Livni takes Lieberman's place.
Instead of being enticed by futile games in the U.S. political arena, Netanyahu must demonstrate leadership and say yes, loudly and clearly, to U.S. President Barack Obama. Any other decision he might make will damage Israel and undermine the slim chance that remains for an agreement with the Palestinians.
shafique wrote:where he proposes the border of Israel will be.
The decision required from Netanyahu is clear: Accept the U.S. proposal, freeze settlement construction immediately, and determine the border on the basis of the new security understandings with the United States
Netanyahu is getting closer to the moment of decision, when he will be required to choose whether to move on to a two-state solution, as he promised, or to take refuge with political figures like Avigdor Lieberman, Eli Yishai and Daniel Hershkowitz. Will he continue to drag things out and come up with excuses while destroying ties with the Obama administration?
shafique wrote:The Palestinians and International law are pretty clear where Israel's control ended up until the 1967 war
shafique wrote:so, it is only the Israelis who have to tell the world what they don't want to give back.
shafique wrote:The world and the Palestinians would be happy with the 22% of land - so what is Bibi waiting for?
shafique wrote:Do you disagree FD?
Obama is essentially spotlighting a debate that has been going on since the settlements began - namely, whether they contribute to or undermine Israel's security. The U.S. president is now asking: What benefits Israeli security more - a few more trailers on some hilltops or doubling the number of advanced fighters in its inventory?
The U.S. president is now asking: What benefits Israeli security more - a few more trailers on some hilltops or doubling the number of advanced fighters in its inventory?
"The Americans have put forth an excellent proposal. It will be a big mistake not to take it," a senior defense source told Haaretz last night, adding that "the prime minister has made impressive gains. If we do not implement this deal, we will suffer in terms of defense."
Under this new deal, Israel will agree to a 90-day re-freeze in return for a generous package of military and diplomatic goodies from America. These include an additional 20 F-35 stealth fighters, worth $3 billion, to be added at America's expense to the original 20 ordered by Israel. America has pledged, too, to stiffen its backing for Israel at the United Nations and to work for tougher international economic sanctions against Iran.
Two states or one?
Everyone understands, says a senior Israeli minister, that this is the core issue behind the row over the freeze. When ministerial hawks such as Benny Begin (who belongs to Mr Netanyahu’s Likud party) or Avigdor Lieberman, the foreign minister who leads the far-right Yisrael Beitenu, oppose a new freeze, in truth they resist the idea of the two-state deal that may ensue.
When Mr Netanyahu tries to make his coalition partners agree to a freeze by using imprecise wording, he wants to defer the day when this fundamental ideological conflict in his cabinet is laid bare, between pragmatists who are reconciled to an independent Palestine and the ideologues who still want a Greater Israel. He also means to defer the day when he must himself decide which camp he belongs to.
The list of defense-related and other gifts the U.S. administration is willing to offer to Israel in exchange for three months of construction freeze in the settlements raises suspicions that someone has gone mad. An additional extension of the freeze, which he has previously rejected out of hand, may spell a political and ideological headache for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—but the offer by U.S. President Barack Obama is very enticing. The addition of 20 F-35s to the package discussed two months ago tips the balance very clearly. From Israel's point of view, it is an offer that cannot be refused.
Poll: Most Palestinians see two-state solution as precursor to single state
Almost two-thirds of Palestinians (59 percent in the West Bank and 63 percent in Gaza) support the two-state solution (Israel and Palestine) but eventually hope that one state − Palestine − will prevail, according to a survey by pollster Stanley Greenberg for The Israel Project.
Robert Fisk: An American bribe that stinks of appeasement
Saturday, 20 November 2010
In any other country, the current American bribe to Israel, and the latter's reluctance to accept it, in return for even a temporary end to the theft of somebody else's property would be regarded as preposterous. Three billion dollars' worth of fighter bombers in return for a temporary freeze in West Bank colonisation for a mere 90 days? Not including East Jerusalem – so goodbye to the last chance of the east of the holy city for a Palestinian capital – and, if Benjamin Netanyahu so wishes, a rip-roaring continuation of settlement on Arab land. In the ordinary sane world in which we think we live, there is only one word for Barack Obama's offer: appeasement. Usually, our lords and masters use that word with disdain and.
Anyone who panders to injustice by one people against another people is called an appeaser. Anyone who prefers peace at any price, let alone a $3bn bribe to the guilty party – is an appeaser. Anyone who will not risk the consequences of standing up for international morality against territorial greed is an appeaser. Those of us who did not want to invade Afghanistan were condemned as appeasers. Those of us who did not want to invade Iraq were vilified as appeasers. Yet that is precisely what Obama has done in his pathetic, unbelievable effort to plead with Netanyahu for just 90 days of submission to international law. Obama is an appeaser.
..
Three billion dollars for three months is one billion dollars a month to stop Israel's colonisation. That's half a billion dollars a fortnight. That's $500m a week. That's $71,428,571 a day, or $2,976,190 an hour, or $49,603 a minute. And as well as this pot of gold, Washington will continue to veto any resolutions critical of Israel in the UN and prevent "Palestine" from declaring itself a state. It's worth invading anyone to get that much cash to stage a military withdrawal, let alone the gracious gesture of not building more illegal colonies for only 90 days while furiously continuing illegal construction in Jerusalem at the same time.
..
..
In the three months of "good behaviour", of course, the Palestinians will have to bite the bullet and sit down to "peace" talks which will decide the future borders of Israel and "Palestine". But since Israel controls 62 per cent of the West Bank this leaves Fayyad and his chums about 10.9 per cent of mandate Palestine to argue about.
And at the cost of $827 a second, they'd better do some quick grovelling. They will. We should all hang our heads in shame. But we won't. It's not about people. It's about presentation. It's not about justice. It's about "security". And cash. Lots of it. Goodbye Palestine.
shafique wrote:Joe - fortunately we have recourse to International Law and the UN to resolve who legally has a right to control the land that was captured in 1967 by Israel.