Friday, February 06, 2009

Nice To Know Netanyahu

From an opponent, Haaretz's Nehemia Strassler:

...Netanyahu possesses an organized set of beliefs in both the foreign policy and the economic arenas. So one can catch him making inaccurate statements. That is not the point. His ideology is the key, and it is frightening and dangerous.

Netanyahu has never accepted the principle of "two states for two peoples." He does not believe in a negotiated solution to the conflict. He has no desire for any talks with the Palestinians. He is opposed to disengagement and he is opposed to withdrawal. He is seeking "might and not weakness," "war and not ingratiation." He is looking for force, and we know that when force doesn't work, use more force.

Bibi has no intention of relinquishing one square millimeter of West Bank land. He wants to do just the opposite, "to annex as much of the open space as possible," something like 50 percent, and to grant limited autonomy to certain towns and densely populated areas because he believes that any land that is evacuated will become a base from which radical Islam can operate against us. Every concession will play into the hands of Iran and Hamas. If we withdraw from the West Bank, Netanyahu says, missiles will threaten Ben-Gurion International Airport. And so Israeli settlements must be expanded, not evacuated, and of course we must retain the Jordan Valley as a security zone in the east...

5 comments:

Suzanne Pomeranz said...

Netanyau says all this during elections to woo the right wing, but when he was PM, he gave away Hevron for NOTHING... and supported the "peace process" etc. etc. etc.

Netanyahu can NOT be trusted. Don't vote for Likud - vote, instead FOR Israel, for a REAL future, not for a bunch of promises that will NOT be kept!

Vote HaIchud HaLeumi.
http://www.leumi.org.il
http://www.leumi.org.il/english

g said...

Don't vote for someone who support "peace process"?!?! Finkelstein is right once again, "the fundamental motives behind the latest Israeli attack on Gaza lie ... in the threat posed by a new Palestinian "peace offensive".
You don't want peace and never wanted it. So why don't you just admit it?!!! Cowards!

YMedad said...

Pssst. If this is a "peace offensive", we're really living on two different planets.

g said...

Can't you recognize thought process?

"In addition, Hamas was "careful to maintain the ceasefire" it entered into with Israel in June 2008, according to an official Israeli publication, despite Israel's reneging on the crucial component of the truce that it ease the economic siege of Gaza. "The lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations," the source continues. "At the same time, the [Hamas] movement tried to enforce the terms of the arrangement on the other terrorist organizations and to prevent them from violating it."[31] Moreover, Hamas was "interested in renewing the relative calm with Israel" (Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin).[32] The Islamic movement could thus be trusted to stand by its word, making it a credible negotiating partner, while its apparent ability to extract concessions from Israel, unlike the hapless Palestinian Authority doing Israel's bidding but getting no returns, enhanced Hamas's stature among Palestinians. For Israel these developments constituted a veritable disaster. It could no longer justify shunning Hamas, and it would be only a matter of time before international pressure in particular from the Europeans would be exerted on it to negotiate. The prospect of an incoming U.S. administration negotiating with Iran and Hamas, and moving closer to the international consensus for settling the Israel-Palestine conflict, which some U.S. policymakers now advocate,[33] would have further highlighted Israel's intransigence. In an alternative scenario, speculated on by Nasrallah, the incoming American administration plans to convene an international peace conference of "Americans, Israelis, Europeans and so-called Arab moderates" to impose a settlement. The one obstacle is "Palestinian resistance and the Hamas government in Gaza," and "getting rid of this stumbling block is...the true goal of the war."[34] In either case, Israel needed to provoke Hamas into breaking the truce, and then radicalize or destroy it, thereby eliminating it as a legitimate negotiating partner. It is not the first time Israel confronted such a diabolical threat -- an Arab League peace initiative, Palestinian support for a two-state settlement and a Palestinian ceasefire -- and not the first time it embarked on provocation and war to overcome it.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=2542

YMedad said...

Galia, you couldn't get a cup of coffee with me quoting Finkelstein. Sorry.