Olmert to US: Stop focusing on settlements

[Scurrilous]

In article published in Washington Post former prime minister explains US and Israel have already reached understandings regarding settlements; says other issues currently more critical

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3748164,00.html

<snip>

"Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert published an article in the Washington Post Friday in which he subtly criticizes US President Barack Obama and claims that the president should bear in mind that Israel is the US' natural ally, and the only true democracy in the Middle East.

In his column Olmert noted that the US Congress had endorsed President Bush's 2004 letter elaborating Israel's right to defend itself "and recognizing new realities on the ground in which the Jewish population centers in the West Bank would be an inseparable part of the state of Israel in any future permanent-status agreement."

The former PM also referred to the Annapolis peace conference, which laid the groundwork for direct negotiation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

"Yet today," Olmert writes, "instead of a political process, the issue of settlement construction commands the agenda between the United States and Israel. This is a mistake that serves neither the process with the Palestinians nor relations between Israel and the Arab world. Moreover, it has the potential to greatly shake US-Israeli relations."


How to Achieve a Lasting Peace - By Ehud Olmert

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071603584_pf.html

[Thrill]

1. If he's still trying to point to so called wink wink agreements with Bush

he hasn't listened to a damn thing Secretary Clinton has said.

[theoldman]

2. Israel is not a true Democracy.

If it were, the Palestinians would be in control of the government.

[Behind the Aegis]

3. That makes no sense.

[IndianaGreen]

6. One person, one vote

A democratic Israel would have granted full citizenship to all people living within her borders, which includes West Bank. You guys claim Judea and Samaria as yours, then by your own reckoning, Palestinians living there should be Israeli citizens with the right to vote.

You can't have it both ways, but people like you will find yourselves defending the increasingly fascism that is what Zionism has become.

Zionism = Fascism (and racism as well!).

[Behind the Aegis]

7. You can't just make things up to fit your bigoted views.

All citizens of Israel have an equal vote and you know this. People like you like exploit bigotry for your own ends.

[IndianaGreen]

10. No, the Arabs whose land Israel took in 1967 should all be made citizens of Israel

Since your side only pays lip service to 2-state solution, or support a bastardized version of 2-state solution in which Israel keeps the best and most prized of Arab lands, then the only alternative is for Israel to forever keep all the lands taken in 1967 but balance that with giving Palestinians full citizenship in the Greater Israel.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. No, they shouldn't. That is called "annexation."

Your side does nothing more than whine and gnash your teeth over things which don't amount to a hill of beans. Do you want a Palestinian state or not? Of course you don't, you want Israel destroyed, and thus, you are a one-state-er. Couldn't destroy Israel with militaries, can't do it with bigoted laws and "diplomatic" attacks, so, the alternative left to those like you who hate Israel and want it dead...ONE STATE. Maybe if you were actually pro-Palestinian, as opposed to being anti-Israel, you and those like you would see a one state solution is not beneficial for either group.

[IndianaGreen]

15. We already have de facto annexation

so let's make it de jure, and make Israel the nation of Arabs and Jews (and a sprinkle of everything else). As long as the state is resolutely secular, the rights of all religions will be protected, while protecting the citizenry of religious zealotry.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. Keep telling yourself that and the other propaganda lies you parrot here.

[IndianaGreen]

19. The only legitimate 2-state solution is a return to pre-1967 borders in their entirety

No land swaps!

Take your pick: Give up every inch of land Israel took in 1967, or welcome millions of new Arab citizens into a very big Israel that includes all of the land taken in 1967.

[Behind the Aegis]

22. That is not the only legitimate 2-state solution, it is the only one that...

...anti-Israel persons want, if they can't get their dream of destroying Israel. Not only can there be land swaps, there a variety of other options to explore, the least being national suicide on the part of Israel, despite the deepest wishes and desires of those who hate her.

[IndianaGreen]

23. Why are you, and others like you, opposed to the 1967 ante solution?

Before the settlements that followed the June 1967 war, Israel was a great country before it became infested with imperialist dreams wrapped in religious mumbo jumbo. Why do rational people like you reject the 1967 ante solution? I find your position as unacceptable as that of those that would rather take us back to prior 1948.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. Simple. When it comes to the West Bank and the Golan, those borders are more difficult to defend.

The bigger question is why do people like you expect Israel to return to the very spot where she was brutally attacked? There can be tweaks and such, especially since no Palestine existed when Israel took the West Bank and Gaza. The Golan was part of Syria and for that to ever be returned there has to be some serious concessions on the part of the Syrians. While Israel must eventually return the majority of the West Bank, personally, I think Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia (perhaps Lebanon, can't think off the top of my head), owe the Palestinian people compensation and land. I would love to see "pro-Palestinians" demand compensation from the people who put them in the situation in which they now reside.

[IndianaGreen]

25. I was very much alive in 1967 and I remember that keeping the land was only temporary

and that meant the whole enchilada taken in 1967. Land was supposed to be returned in exchange for peace with Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. Then came the first settlers.

Claiming now that you cannot return the land, or portions of the land, because of "security issues" raises the question as to whether Israel fought a defensive war in 1967, or launched a war of expansion. In other words, did Israel strike first in 1967 to defend herself or was it to gain a tactical advantage in order to conquer Arab land?

[Behind the Aegis]

26. Land for peace.

Yes, that was supposed to happen. What really happened? Oh, that's right, the Egyptians and Jordanians didn't want those territories anymore and Syria refused to negotiate a DMZ. Was Israel supposed to just throw up her hands and say "fuck it! It's whoever wants it!" No. The population, now under Israeli control had no real leadership and the ones they did have still wanted to continue the war against Israel; therefore, the terms had to change. There could land for peace, but that was not being extended from the Palestinian leadership. So, Israel struck first to defend herself from destruction, then found herself in the position of occupying a populace still hell-bent on her destruction and being egged on by the Arab/Muslim world. The 'game' had changed.

[IndianaGreen]

27. No, the only game that changed here is that Israel lost her moral authority

Decades of Occupation have eroded Israel's standing in the world, from the little country fighting big enemies around her to a pariah state no different from apartheid South Africa.

This brings us back to the point I first made, that the de facto annexation of East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria must now be followed by a de jure annexation that grants all Palestinians full Israeli citizenship, the one man one vote thingy. The Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria will not have to move, they can expand their settlements to their hearts' content, while the new Israeli citizens will get the same housing that the Jewish settlers have. Big happy family!

[FarrenH]

30. Then found herself settling the land somehow?

The naked deception in this response always astonishes me. "We had to keep the land for security reasons (and we just kinda settled a few hundred thousand people on it, for security reasons)". Do you think the people you're trying to convince are idiots?

[proteus_lives]

33. Ahh, you want Israel weak and on its knees.

It seems like a large chunk of the world doesn't mind Israel existing but wants it to not be able to defend itself.

[IndianaGreen]

38. More propaganda. Israel defended herself well within 1948 borders

and Israel's Occupation of Palestine has made Israel less safe, just as our invasion of Iraq did to us.

[henank]

40. You have obviously never been to Israel

and never talked to the average Israeli man in the street. Believe me, Israel is a whole lot safer with extra territory making it more than 9 miles wide and able to be crossed by an enemy army within a few hours.

Israel defended itself "well" by the skin of its teeth. Read up on some history.

[IndianaGreen]

41. I heard that crap you are spewing from IDF officers we trained

in public relations of all things.

[proteus_lives]

44. So it's not ok for Israel to defend itself but...

But it is perfectly acceptable for Syria to put guns, men and missiles in Golan and it's reasonable for Jordan to be so close to Israel?

Because that's what was happening pre-1967.

[Vegasaurus]

9. Take a look at the 22 Muslim countries

do you also consider them fascist (especially since they have no religious freedom, no civil liberties or human rights, etc)?

Or is it only little Israel that is fascist?

INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!!!

[IndianaGreen]

11. Yes! I am totally opposed to any form of 'Islamic' republics or kingdoms

just as I am against any "Christian" nation. The state must be secular and religion must be kept a private affair, as Lenin said.

[Vegasaurus]

28. Do you recommend or support disbanding of all of the Islamic republics?

or just a Zionist nation?

[IndianaGreen]

29. I am opposed to all theocracies

without exception.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. No, just their secularisation.

I think that changing national boundaries is nearly always a bad idea.

Similarly, I have no problem with Israel keeping its current borders (the Green Line), even though I think it should never have been founded.

I am, however, more concerned about a Jewish state than an Islamic state because "Jewish" is a race, not just a religion. The fact that I - completely secular, but racially Jewish - would be allowed to immigrate to Israel, whereas a Palestinian who was born there and displaced in the Nakba would not, it proof positive that Israel is a racist, and nor merely a religious, state.

[henank]

37. I'm afraid you are wrong

The one thing Jews are not is a race. Judaism is a religion and a way of life. Jews are a nation with, uniquely, a religion of its own. They are not a race, otherwise how would you explain converts to Judaism? How would you explain black Ethiopian Jews, blond slavic Russian Jews, dark Yemenite Jews, fair Ashkenazi Jews?

As to who can immigrate: I am born in Britain. My grandchildren do NOT have the right to immigrate into Britain. They can't even get British passports. So, should I call the UN or complain about my and their human rights being violated?

[IndianaGreen]

32. Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism

Contrary to Zionist propaganda, Zionism is not the answer to anti-Semitism. It is a form of anti-Semitism itself. Zionism began with the fear of West European petty-bourgeois Jews of a flood of Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe. They collaborated with anti-Semites on more than one occasion for a common goal: to cleanse Europe from its Jewish inhabitants (mostly poor workers) and keep them away from collaborating with the growing workers' movement, and particularly with Bolshevism.

Similar to anti-Semitism, Zionism claims that Jews are inherently different from their non-Jewish neighbours and that they cannot and should not integrate with them. So Zionism gives the anti-Semitic answer to the Jewish question: the Jews should be evacuated from Europe to a place far away.

Zionism and imperialism

Zionism in practice meant two things in the past. First of all, it promoted "Jewish" colonialism in Palestine, starting with a group of adventurers who took over Palestinian land in order to build a kind of "White settler" colony on it, and then they imported ordinary Jews as workers and soldiers to be exploited on that same stolen land. Secondly, it also embodies the practice of keeping the local workforce divided along ethnic lines, with “Jews versus Arabs”, fighting each other constantly rather than uniting against their common oppressors. This situation produced a unique opportunity for imperialism, which is the main reason why it survives until today.

After the Israeli state was created, it eventually received recognition and support from imperialism. As the Cold War developed, the Soviet Union (which had originally supported the partition of Palestine and the creation of Israel) threw its weight behind the Arab states, while American imperialism, in particular, came to understand the significance of such a state as Israel for its interests in the Middle East. Such an artificial state, which causes such antagonism amongst its neighbours will be forever dependent on imperialism, and will always need to depend heavily on the supply of arms for its survival. It thus serves as a garrison state in the service of global imperialism against the struggle of the Arab masses. This is the reason why Israel is so supported by the imperialist states. It is not because of some secretive "Jewish domination" over international capital as the anti-Semites claim. It is international capital itself, by its own logic, regardless of who "controls" it, which dictates the need for an artificial, disintegrated, hysterically violent and heavily armed state in the heart of the Arab world.

Jews of the world: denounce Zionism!
Written by Dekel Avshalom in Israel
Thursday, 25 June 2009

http://www.marxist.com/jews-denounce-zionism.htm

[henank]

35. Zionism is anti-semitism????

Surely you jest! Otherwise, please put down the kool-aid and step away from the keyboard.

[IndianaGreen]

36. Read the darned article in its entirety

before knee jerking a reply.

[henank]

42. Reading the little snippet

that you posted, with all its vile demagoguery, not to mention lies, slanders and distortions, was quite enough for me. It should be outlawed on any decent forum.

:puke:

[IndianaGreen]

43. Nothing like narrow minds such as yours

Go drown in your own puke!

[bemildred]

4. "Pay no attention to the little man behind the screen." nt

[IndianaGreen]

5. A 'natural ally' doesn' spy on friends or attacks friends' ships

This is one relationship the United States can do without.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Tell that to the US and the UK.

Oh wait, it is only an issue when Israel does it. :eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

12. NATO should have been abolished years ago

I oppose the West's imperial adventures throughout the world, whether it is in Latin America or West Asia.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. Oh yes, because all the evil of the world is on the west.

:eyes:

Oh and you should read about the spying that goes on in those parts of the world "among friends."

[IndianaGreen]

16. but it is the US and Israel that have a 'special relationship'

according to Ehud Olmert.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. As do many other nations. So, again, showing your only issue is Israel...

...others doing the same or worse, well, whatever.

[IndianaGreen]

20. It was Olmert that used the 'special relationship' phrase in OP

and then proceeded to refer to all sorts of behind closed doors winks and nods between Israeli and US leaders.

[Behind the Aegis]

21. So we are talking about the article again?

There is a special relationship, that is nothing new. Behind closed door agreements/meetings? Again, so surprises there. The US and Israel are hardly unique in this and the reason it is mentioned is because of the current situation. If these "winks and nods" were made, then it should be addressed.

[LeftishBrit]

45. 'Special Relationship' is primarily a term for the relationship between the USA and UK

I believe it was originally used by Churchill.

No doubt Olmert was copying the term. And indeed Israel's relationship with the USA in recent years has quite a lot in common with the UK's relationship with the USA.

[LeftishBrit]

34. Then there are very few 'natural allies'

America has certainly spied on the UK on numerous occasions (and that's just those we know about); and quite a few British soldiers have been killed by 'friendly fire' from American fellow-soldiers.

[IndianaGreen]

39. There is no such thing as a natural ally--smacks of Hitler speaking of Austria

before the Anschluss.