|the luckless amphibian that relaxed when the waters were tepid,
adapted when they became hotter, and died when they began to boil?(Details)
The author, who served as Cabinet Secretary to the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and his successor Shimon Peres, declares: “I have no doubt that if he had not been murdered, Yitzhak Rabin would have cancelled the Oslo accords and sent Arafat and his cohorts back to Tunisia,” and adds: “I sobered up at that time, with great pain, from the vision of peace in which I believed and which crumbled before my eyes in the blood of innocent Jews.”
The paper avers that “Whoever talks about ‘two states for two peoples’ is, for all intents and purposes, talking about establishing a Hamas state in Judea and Samaria in addition to Gaza since it is clear that Hamas will take control of Judea and Samaria, whether by elections or violence (as in Gaza). This means an Iranian proxy a few kilometers from the heart of Israel.”
The author asserts: “The gap between Israel’s positions, including moderate elements among the public, and the Palestinians is immense and unbridgeable. Not in our time,” and bids his readers closely read Khaled Mashaal’s recent speech in Gaza.
The paper suggests that “Even if there was not even one settlement in Judea and Samaria, it would not be possible to reach a lasting peace,” and adds: “Whoever accuses the Government of halting the diplomatic process and promises to change the situation is selling the public an illusion with no basis in reality. It would be better to tell the truth: We are fated to continue fighting for our land and our lives and to live on our swords for a long time, as in the past 100 years. It is much easier to become caught up in the euphoria of peace, as in the days of Oslo. The truth is hard and painful, but it is preferable to illusions.”
One of the most refreshing pieces of news in a long time in the U.S. is that Mitt Romney clearly understands that a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine will never happen. Why? Because Palestine will not accept Israel’s right to exist. It’s that simple. George Bush would not acknowledge that fact. Condoleeza Rice wouldn’t acknowledge the fact. The Palestinian Authority and Hamas can fix the problem – not the U.S., not Russia, not the Arab League.
The website Mother Jones released a recording of Romney’s remarks made at a private fundraiser. Jimmy Carter’s grandson with the assistance of Mother Jones comumnist, David Corn, secretly recorded the event.
According to M-Jones, Romney said this:
“I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there’s just no way.”
[S]o what you do is, you say, you move things along the best way you can. You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem…and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it.”
Then the Leftist website went on to translate:
Romney was indicating he did not believe in the peace process and, as president, would aim to postpone significant action
If Mother Jones can translate, so can I. Romney didn’t “indicate,” he would postpone significant action, he acknowledged there would be no significant action for a two-state solution without the Palestinian Authority and Hamas accepting Israel’s right to exist. The U.S. cannot make it happen, nor Russia.
There would have been a two-state solution years ago, had the various governing Palestinian factions simply acknowledged Israel’s right to exist as a people. That’s what Israel has asked for to get final talks moving, and they have asked for it for years. Palestinian Charters and their versions of a Constitution call for the extermination of Israel. Israel wants the language removed, and Palestine has refused.
Jihad Watch May 31, 2011:
Whereas Hamas openly denies Israel’s right to exist in both English and Arabic, the PA professes in English before the international community to have recognized Israel’s right to exist. As documented by Palestinian Media Watch, when addressing its own people in Arabic, the PA – like Hamas – completely denies Israel’s right to exist.
In the same JihadWatch article linked above, long before the movie 2016: Obama’s America came out, Robert Spencer documents that the Palestinian Authority considers Jews and the Nation of Israel colonialists, and having no connection to the land. As D’Souza in 2016 clearly demonstrated: colonialism is at the bottom of Obama’s agenda. Remember Obama Senior’s close friend, saying during an interview with D’Souza, that Senior ‘hated’ colonialism and the friend still ‘hates’ it today – he spit the words out and you could feel the deep-seeded emotion behind his hate. 2016 shows the former colonized areas of the world and the help Obama has given them, specifically, while denying America’s own interests. Then there’s the Churchill bust that was out of the White House immediately upon Obama’s arrival there. I believe D’Souza was spot-on.
“The Zionists must acknowledge publicly, in front of the world, that the Jews have no connection to the Palestinian Arab land, upon whose ruins arose the colonialist settler Zionist plan that settles and expels, represented by the Israeli apartheid state. That which occurred two thousand years ago (i.e., the Jewish/Israeli presence in the land), assuming that it is true, represents in the book of history nothing more than invention and falsification and a coarse and crude form of colonialism.” [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 27, 2011]A two-state solution will never happen until and unless Palestine acknowledges Israel’s right to exist. George W. Bush had to know this, yet he continued with his two-state talks that he surely knew would disappoint time after time. I don’t know what Condi Rice actually understood about the region and history, but her stern push for Israel to bow without being recognized is unforgivable.Benjamin Netanyahu, in 2009, stated again, he was open to a two-state solution:In “a very good meeting” that lasted 79 minutes, Netanyahu said, he and Obama discussed “our quest for peace with the Palestinians.” And during that meeting, he added, “I outlined my vision of a demilitarized Palestinian state” that would recognize “the Jewish state.”…“The problem we face is to make sure that doesn’t repeat itself,” he said. Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon was “step one,” its evacuation from Gaza was “step two,” and the country “cannot afford step 3.”
In his remark about Jerusalem, made in response to a question from the audience, the Israeli leader said, “Everyone knows that there are Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem that under any peace plan will remain where they are.”
That implied that other neighborhoods of Jerusalem may not remain “where they are” and could become part of an eventual Palestinian state, Uriel Hellman of the JTA reported. The JTA interpreted the remark as “a hint that that his government’s insistence on Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem might not be ironclad.” SourceIsrael Matzav March 2012:
The latest round of rocket fire from Gaza underscored just how ill-considered it would be to relinquish more land to the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria. The recent Harvard one-state conference demonstrated how clinging to an unfeasible formula has merely generated the opportunity to promote even more menacing alternatives.
For whatever the final contours of a putative Palestinian state, it would entail a frontier of at least 300 kilometers – approximately six times longer than the Gaza front – much of which would be adjacent to Israel’s most populous urban centers, from the environs of Haifa in the north to Beersheba and beyond in the south. (Significantly, Beersheba is much closer to the pre-1967 border of the “West Bank” than it is to the Gaza Strip).
Moreover, unlike in Gaza, a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria would reduce Israel’s width in its most populous areas to a minuscule 11-25 km. – roughly the distance from Beverly Hills to Malibu along Sunset Boulevard.
Even more important than geographic expanse – or the lack thereof – is topographical structure. Unlike the flat Gaza Strip, the limestone hills that comprise the “West Bank” dominate the urbanized Coastal Plain, together with much of Israel’s vital infrastructure, its only international airport, vital centers of civilian government and military command – and 80 percent of its population and commercial activity. ~ Martin ShermanIn 2007, The Arab League endorsed recognizing Israel. Hamas did not.
The team of international peace brokers – the United States, United Nations, Russia and the European Union – has demanded that the PA government recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by previously signed peace agreements in order to lift the sanctions imposed in the wake of the 2006 Hamas election victory.
“We are demanding that the government meet these three conditions,” Livni stressed.
The Arab initiative, drafted at a March 2002 meeting of the Arab League in Beirut, calls for the full normalization of ties between Israel and the Arab world in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from all lands captured in the 1967 Six-Day War. Source
Israel has been willing to go back to 1967 borders, but must have the assurance of a true peace, otherwise their borders are not defensible, as has been proven over and over. How can you live side-by-side with those pledging to kill you when your borders allow no safety for the people? Read a reminder of how Israel gained territory in 1967 and why.Mother Jones says Romney spoke of “the Palestinians as a united bloc of one mindset,” and indeed he did, because he knows who rules, and it isn’t ordinary Palestinians trying to live a normal life. The issue is the acceptance of the right of Israel to exist.
MOTHER JONES IS A FAR LEFT
ANTI-ISRAEL SITE) At a private fundraiser (in May), the GOP candidate calls Middle East peace “almost unthinkable” and says he would “kick the ball down the field.”
—By Mother Jones, MOTHER JONES, Sep. 18, 2012
At the private fundraiser held May 17 where Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney candidly … discussed various foreign policy positions, sharing views that he does not express in public, including his belief that peace in the Middle East is not possible and a Palestinian state is not feasible.
Mother Jones has obtained video of Romney at this intimate dinner and has confirmed its authenticity. The event was held at the home of controversial private equity manager Marc Leder in Boca Raton, Florida, with tickets costing $50,000 a plate. During the freewheeling conversation, a donor asked Romney how the “Palestinian problem” can be solved. Romney immediately launched into a detailed reply, asserting that the Palestinians have “no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish.”
Romney spoke of “the Palestinians” as a united bloc of one mindset, and he said:
“I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there’s just no way.”
“And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and I say there’s just no way.”
Romney was indicating he did not believe in the peace process and, as president, would aim to postpone significant action:
“[S]o what you do is, you say, you move things along the best way you can. You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem…and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it.”
Romney did note there was another perspective on this knotty matter. He informed his donors that a former secretary of state—he would not say who—had told him there was “a prospect for a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis.” Romney recalled that he had replied, “Really?” Then he added that he had not asked this ex-secretary of state for further explanation.
Here’s Romney’s full response; he starts out saying he has “two perspectives,” but as he answers the question, it turns out that’s not really the case:
I’m torn by two perspectives in this regard. One is the one which I’ve had for some time, which is that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish. Now why do I say that? Some might say, well, let’s let the Palestinians have the West Bank, and have security, and set up a separate nation for the Palestinians. And then come a couple of thorny questions. And I don’t have a map here to look at the geography, but the border between Israel and the West Bank is obviously right there, right next to Tel Aviv, which is the financial capital, the industrial capital of Israel, the center of Israel. It’s—what the border would be? Maybe seven miles from Tel Aviv to what would be the West Bank…The other side of the West Bank, the other side of what would be this new Palestinian state would either be Syria at one point, or Jordan. And of course the Iranians would want to do through the West Bank exactly what they did through Lebanon, what they did near Gaza. Which is that the Iranians would want to bring missiles and armament into the West Bank and potentially threaten Israel. So Israel of course would have to say, “That can’t happen. We’ve got to keep the Iranians from bringing weaponry into the West Bank.” Well, that means that—who? The Israelis are going to patrol the border between Jordan, Syria, and this new Palestinian nation? Well, the Palestinians would say, “Uh, no way! We’re an independent country. You can’t, you know, guard our border with other Arab nations.” And now how about the airport? How about flying into this Palestinian nation? Are we gonna allow military aircraft to come in and weaponry to come in? And if not, who’s going to keep it from coming in? Well, the Israelis. Well, the Palestinians are gonna say, “We’re not an independent nation if Israel is able to come in and tell us what can land in our airport.” These are problems—these are very hard to solve, all right? And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, “There’s just no way.” And so what you do is you say, “You move things along the best way you can.” You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem. We live with that in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it. We don’t go to war to try and resolve it imminently. On the other hand, I got a call from a former secretary of state. I won’t mention which one it was, but this individual said to me, you know, I think there’s a prospect for a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis after the Palestinian elections. I said, “Really?” And, you know, his answer was, “Yes, I think there’s some prospect.” And I didn’t delve into it.
After saying all that, Romney emphasized that he was against applying any pressure on Israel:
“The idea of pushing on the Israelis to give something up to get the Palestinians to act is the worst idea in the world.”
On his campaign website, Romney, whose foreign policy advisers include several neocons known for their hawkish support for Israel, does not explicitly endorse the peace process or a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But the Republican Party platform does state unequivocal backing for this outcome: “We envision two democratic states—Israel with Jerusalem as its capital and Palestine—living in peace and security.” The platform adds, “The US seeks a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, negotiated between the parties themselves with the assistance of the US.”
In public, Romney has not declared the peace process pointless or dismissed the two-state solution. In July, when the Israeli newspaper Haaretz asked Romney if he supports a two-state solution and the creation of a Palestinian state, he replied, “I believe in a two-state solution which suggests there will be two states, including a Jewish state.” Yet Romney’s remarks to these funders—this was one of his longest answers at the fundraiser—suggest he might be hiding his true beliefs regarding Israel and the peace process and that on this subject he is out of sync with the predominant view in foreign policy circles that has existed for decades.
Throughout the hourlong fundraiser, Romney discussed other foreign policy matters with his patrons, especially Iran. He repeated the tough talk he has issued on the campaign trail, but he also provided an odd reason for drawing a red line with Tehran about its nuclear program:
If I were Iran, if I were Iran—a crazed fanatic, I’d say let’s get a little fissile material to Hezbollah, have them carry it to Chicago or some other place, and then if anything goes wrong, or America starts acting up, we’ll just say, “Guess what? Unless you stand down, why, we’re going to let off a dirty bomb.” I mean this is where we have—where America could be held up and blackmailed by Iran, by the mullahs, by crazy people. So we really don’t have any option but to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.
Romney didn’t appear to understand that a dirty bomb—an explosive device that spreads radioactive substances—does not require fissile material from a nuclear weapons program. Such a bomb can be produced with, say, radioactive medical waste. If Iran’s nuclear program poses a threat, it is not because this project will yield a dirty bomb.
Talking to these funders, Romney also demonstrated that his campaign-long efforts to criticize Obama’s handling of foreign policy in simplistic and exaggerated terms—he’s an appeaser, he’s an apologist—are not reserved for public consumption. Romney told these well-to-do backers that the president is a naïf with an oversized ego:
The president’s foreign policy, in my opinion, is formed in part by a perception he has that his magnetism, and his charm, and his persuasiveness is so compelling that he can sit down with people like Putin and Chávez and Ahmadinejad, and that they’ll find that we’re such wonderful people that they’ll go on with us, and they’ll stop doing bad things. And it’s an extraordinarily naive perception.
Romney did share a disappointment with his patrons, noting it was “frustrating” to him that on a “typical day” when he does several fundraising events, “the number of foreign policy questions I get are between zero and one.” He complained that “the American people are not concentrated at all on China, on Russia, Iran, Iraq.” But at this fundraiser, Romney received several queries related to national security—and was afforded the opportunity to tell his financial backers what he does not (and will not) tell the public.
Video production: James West, Adam Serwer, Dana Liebelson, Erika Eichelberger, and Tim McDonnell.
Steven Plaut americanthinker.com http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/middle_east_non-solutions.html
The mantra crops up almost everywhere . “You Israelis have two simple choices ,” it goes. “You can either annex all of the ‘occupied territories’ and grant equal Israeli citizenship to all of the Palestinians there, in which case Israel will no longer be a Jewish state. Or you can agree to a two-state solution, in which Israel continues to exist alongside a Palestinian Arab state. Simple. Make your choice !” The posing of these two “choices” for Israel is part of the campaign to convince Israelis that there is no alternative to the “Two-State Solution.”
The first “alternative” is often dubbed these days the “One-State Solution” by its anti-Israel advocates. Israel and its Jewish population would be enfolded within a larger Arab-dominated Islamic state. A better term for this is the “Rwanda Solution.” It is little more than a recipe for a second Holocaust of Jews, a Nazi-style final solution, in which the Middle East conflict would end because the Jewish population of the Middle East would be exterminated.
But the “Two State Solution” is little better. The creation of a “Palestinian” state “alongside Israel” would not solve anything and would not end the conflict. To the contrary, it would be the opening round for a major escalation in the conflict and the launching of an all-out war by “Palestine” against the rump Jewish state — a war in which “Palestine” would be joined and backed by the entire Arab world and much of the non-Arab Muslim world. Like rump Czechoslovakia after Munich, the remaining Jewish mini-state would be the target for aggression and irredentist belligerence, manifested in rocket and missile attacks. The thousands of rockets that were fired at Sderot and the Negev after the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza will appear as a child’s game by comparison.
Let us note that neither the “One State ” nor the “Two State” is a viable solution to the Middle East conflict. Neither would resolve anything.
There is no two-state solution — only a two-state “solution.” There is also no such thing as a “One-State Solution,” at least if one means by that the granting of Israeli citizenship to all those claiming to be “Palestinians.” So how must Israelis respond to the diktat that they choose either the one or the other? They must answer neither.
Israelis cannot formulate and propose “solutions” to the Middle East conflict for the exact same reason why the Western allies could not have proposed or formulated any “solution” to the ambitions of Germany in the late 1930s. No solution would have satisfied those ambitions, and none could have appeased Hitler. The quest in the 1930s for “solutions” resulted in years of delay, during which Germany re-armed and support for Hitler within Germany solidified. Similarly, no “solution” could have prevented the assaults against Pearl Harbor, Malaya, and the Philippines by Imperial Japan. The only solution to those conflicts was Western victory.
In short, “solutions” are magical panaceas sought by lazy, shallow, and impatient minds.
The entire Oslo “peace process” initiated by Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres was based upon the belief that peace can be achieved by pretending that war does not exist. Never mind what the Arabs are saying.
The Middle East conflict also has nothing to do with territory. The Arab countries already control territory nearly twice that of the United States (including Alaska), while Israel is smaller than New Jersey. The architects of the “peace process” argued that possession of territory twice the size of the U.S. without the Everglades-sized West Bank is a recipe for endless war, but if Israel just turns that Everglades-sized zone over to the “Palestinians,” all will be peaceful. Twenty-two sovereign Arab states have produced war and barbarism, but creating a 23rd Arab state as a “Two State Solution” will produce peace.
Now, if Israelis refuse to embrace the above two pseudo-solutions, insists the left, then Israel will end up an “apartheid regime” — one in which “Palestinian Arabs” live under endless Israeli “occupation” and control, but without Israeli citizenship, without the right to vote. It is always amusing to hear whining about the absence of the Palestinian right to vote in Israeli elections, especially when it comes from the very same people who do not care that Arabs have no free elections anywhere else in the Middle East. And never mind that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that is not an apartheid regime. Essentially, the insistence that Israel must choose one of the two pseudo-solutions or else it will morph into an “apartheid regime” amounts to the belief that Israelis are better off allowing their country to be annihilated rather than risk becoming the target of name-calling.
In reality, the most productive way to seek to resolve the Middle East is to take as the starting point the list of what is ruled out, what must never be. No “solution” to the Middle East conflict is possible if it involves creation of an Arab “Palestinian” state, and none is possible if it involves “Palestinians” being granted Israeli citizenship. Both of these nonstarters must be ruled out absolutely. Once that is understood, any proposal based upon those two nevers can be taken into consideration.
The immediate implication is that Israel must remain in the West Bank, and the “Palestinian” population there will be granted neither Israeli citizenship nor national sovereignty. The United States occupied Okinawa for decades, and American national historic and cultural roots did not originate in Okinawa. Indeed, American armed forces still fill that island. There is no time limit on how long Israeli “occupation” can last, and the very word “occupation” is actually a misnomer. In any case, the Israeli presence in the West Bank is sui generis and not comparable to any other case of “occupation.”
So if West Bank “Palestinians” will be granted neither Israeli citizenship nor national sovereignty, what can they be offered? The original “peace proposals” offered by Israel in the 1970s and 1980s spoke about limited local autonomy. Had the Palestinians played their cards right, they could have enjoyed as much freedom and prosperity under local autonomy as do Puerto Rica, Guam, and American Samoa. But the Israeli Labor Party lost patience with the idea after a few years and decided to frog-leap to a “Two State Solution.” It imported Yasser Arafat’s storm troopers into the suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and proclaimed its “recognition” of the “Palestinian people.”
There is indeed another “solution” for West Bank “Palestinians” unhappy with the two nevers defining conflict resolution. They can leave. There are those 22 sunny Arab states, plus lots of other Muslim states, whither any unhappy West Bank “Palestinian” can move and live amongst his kin. After all, Jews unhappy with life in Argentina, France, or Hungary demand not the annihilation of those countries, but merely the right to move to Israel. The fact that the “Palestinians” prefer Israeli “occupation” over blissful residence in these alternative countries speaks volumes about just how badly treated the “poor suffering Palestinians” really are.
The “Palestinians” find these constraints on their options distasteful? Too bad! Part of adulthood means coming to terms with the fact that, as in Mick Jagger’s words, “[y]ou can’t always get what you want.” What the “Palestinians” and their apologists want is the annihilation of Israel and a second Holocaust of Jews.
And they are not going to get what they want.