In the meantime, Haaretz reports on a document about a meeting Netanyahu had with some American diplomats right after he was elected, and long before Obama began pressuring him to desist from building in settlements:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Obama administration just two weeks after elected to Knesset that he supported the idea of a land exchange and had no desire to govern Palestinian territories, according to a diplomatic cable released by the online whistleblower WikiLeaks on Sunday.
"Netanyahu expressed support for the concept of land swaps, and emphasized that he did not want to govern the West Bank and Gaza but rather to stop attacks from being launched from there," read a February 2009 diplomatic cable describing a meeting between Netanyahu and a delegation led by Senator Benjamin Cardin.
6 comments:
I hope I am right in assuming that Netanyahu is good at playing poker
Silke
Silke! You have a blogspot profile now! Is a blog soon to follow?
Politicians are not what they say, they are what they do. Netanyahu said he the initial freeze was a one-time thing and would not be renewed, now he wants to renew it. He no longer has credibility with me. This is what counts.
If true, it makes you wonder why Obama and the mainstream media have spent the past two years pushing the line that Israel has a "hard-right" government which is an obstacle to peace?
Unless, the point is more to vilify Israel than it is to have Israel follow policies that Obama and the MSM claim to support.
Because they don't much like the Jews, at least those Jews who insist on having a sovereign state in their historic homeland, and one more similar to the US than to Cuba or some other "anti-imperialist" utopian paradise so beloved by Obama and his friends...
Not that I think it would be wise for Israel to give up land to the Palestinians, given the fact that they have no track record of honoring agreements and the majority of Palestinians who support a "two-state solution" do so as a first step to the destruction of Israel.
With a reasonable adversary, it is worth making sacrifices for peace. With the Arab-Muslims, it is all sacrifices and concessions...and very little in return.
With Egypt and Jordan, Israel has a cold peace, which is better than a warm war. But the day those countries reach a point when they feel strong enough to defeat Israel, they will have no trouble arousing the passions of their people for war, as they have kept none of the commitments regarding fostering relations between peoples and ending incitement.
17 plus years of "peace" negotiations with the Palestinians in which Israel has turned over land, funds and weapons to its enemies in the PLO, and given up administration of major portions of the West Bank and all of Gaza to the Palestinians. And the Palestinians still can't accept the idea of a Jewish State as anything other than a "racist, colonialist, illegal Zionist entity;" deny any Jewish historical connection to Jerusalem; can't find Israel on any of their official maps; incite the worst anti-semitism in their media, schools and mosques and resort to terrorism when it suits their goals, despite having renounced violence 17 years ago. A Hudna (temporary truce) is the best Israel can ever hope for with the Palestinians.
Lieber Victor
no way, even though I never say never, as far as that goes, I think I can dare to say it.
I am much too scatterbrained to come up with posts which could even remotely match the ones I read at yours yesterday.
Seriously, great stuff!!!
I hope I'll find reasons to link to them elsewhere ;-)
Silke
Post a Comment