Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumNetanyahu to United States: Drop Dead
In 1990, Secretary of State James Baker had basically had it up to here with the Israeli government. The (George H.W.) Bush administration had been trying to entice Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir into negotiations with the Palestinians but he kept adding new conditions to get the United States off his back.
To be acceptable to Shamir, any Palestinian interlocutors had to have no connections with the PLO, none with any associates of Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and could not be from Jerusalem. Beyond that, the Israelis would decide which Palestinians were acceptable as negotiating partners based on their idea of merit (only pro-Israel Palestinians would do, apparently).
Baker was fuming but held his tongue until he went before the House Foreign Affairs Committee to discuss Middle East prospects. But then something happened and, for perhaps the last time ever, a top U.S. government official told the Israelis what he really thought.
First Baker said that he had intended to say that he was ready for a new start with the just re-elected Shamir government but he changed his mind on the way to the hearing. ''I have to tell you, that before I came to this hearing this morning, I was given a copy of some wire reports, one of which quotes one of the ministers in the newly formed government," he said.
--CLIP
And yesterday Shamir's long-time protégé, Binyamin Netanyahu openly adopted the Shamir strategy. No one needs to wait until his retirement to understand that, like Shamir's, it is designed to prevent negotiations not advance them.
MORE...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/netanyahu-to-united-state_b_3060627.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
shira
(30,109 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Maybe not Jewish-Americans, but Republicans love the LIKUD because their (violent) beliefs parallel their own?
shira
(30,109 posts)...who for some reason are now adored by the anti-Israel "Left".
Chuck Hagel too! Now he's like totally awesome!
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...and I'm jonesing for the day when I can piss on their graves.
Was it my use of "LIKUD" that caused the eye-roll smiley?
shira
(30,109 posts)....or universal healthcare.
But they're just like the Republicans, right?
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)
Oh, and since you're quite liberal with your use of them, a special eyeroll smiley for you!
shira
(30,109 posts)....two FUBARs that make the humanitarian situation in the OPT look great in comparison.
Anything else?
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Your move. 
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Who needs to talk in straight lines when it's so much easier to just jump to another country, people or subject matter?
Hold on to your socks. You're in for a ride. 
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)
delrem
(9,688 posts)Read Rosenberg's factual reportage from the OP, then compare how this subthread was started and how it has gone.
It is nothing but that MO, a tactic of hasbara.
eta: notice how the responses to the OP display. This shows that the tactic works.
The initial response to the OP was to post a diversion, an accusation, something highly emotive. That became the focus of the discussion. For that reason I rarely post in reply to that contributor, because it's unfair to the general discussion.
Mosby
(16,263 posts)Just trying to help, I know English can be tricky.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)When one points out a simple mistake like that I correct it.
Thanks.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)
Mosby
(16,263 posts)seems like a strange standard you set up for a Jewish paper.
And is that the issue for you - that The Forward is a Jewish paper and can't be trusted with it's reporting on Israel?
That's what I get out of your comment and emoticon anyway, feel free to clarify.
How about Truthout and Stephen Zunes?
Don't Blame the Iraq Debacle on the Israel Lobby
http://truth-out.org/news/item/15447-dont-blame-the-iraq-debacle-on-the-israel-lobby
I think he is an Episcopalian, just in case you think that's important.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...about reporting truth. Not at that site, though...
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)I never made such a statement. However, when talking about POLITICS (which is what is happening here), THAT is very important.
Mosby
(16,263 posts)More liberal than any other mainstream "Jewish" media outlet in print or web based. They tend to be very critical of conservatism here and in Israel.
I don't understand your issue with it and why they should not be trusted.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Please provide links in which you think they've given the Palestinian position a fair shake. Becuase I looked. and came up empty.
Palestinians Are Sounding Reasonable as Israel Drifts Right
http://forward.com/articles/166889/who-stands-against-peace/?p=all
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas Wants Fresh Peace Talks With Israel
Hopes Look Slim With Hardliners in Israeli Coalition
http://forward.com/articles/172913/palestinian-president-mahmoud-abbas-wants-fresh-pe/#ixzz2QMpmLlvj
A Palestinian State Even the Securocrats Accept
'Half Cup' Better Than Chaos, Ex-Mossad Chief Says
http://forward.com/articles/142822/a-palestinian-state-even-the-securocrats-accept/#ixzz2QMpNBsax
Demographics Drive Likud’s Shifting Agenda
http://forward.com/articles/7386/demographics-drive-likud-s-shifting-agenda/
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Thank you!!!
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)side note the poster you're addressing has a history of posting links that don't quite say what she claims they do
from the forward link keep in mind Ayalon's comments come after A Sharon is in a vegetative state and B Iraq has become a FUBAR mess after 4 years of occupation
But sometime prior to March 2003, Sharon told Bush privately in no uncertain terms what he thought about the Iraq plan. Sharon’s words — revealed here for the first time — constituted a friendly but pointed warning to Bush. Sharon acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was an “acute threat” to the Middle East and that he believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Yet according to one knowledgeable source, Sharon nevertheless advised Bush not to occupy Iraq. According to another source — Danny Ayalon, who was Israel’s ambassador to the United States at the time of the Iraq invasion, and who sat in on the Bush-Sharon meetings — Sharon told Bush that Israel would not “push one way or another” regarding the Iraq scheme.
According to both sources, Sharon warned Bush that if he insisted on occupying Iraq, he should at least abandon his plan to implant democracy in this part of the world. “In terms of culture and tradition, the Arab world is not built for democratization,” Ayalon recalls Sharon advising.
Read more: http://forward.com/articles/9839/sharon-warned-bush/#ixzz2QNEKUElE
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.
Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.
"Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose," Gissin said. "It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction."
The United States has been considering a military campaign against Iraq to remove Saddam from power, listing him as one of the world's main terrorist regimes. However, there is considerable world opposition to a U.S. strike.
As evidence of Iraq's weapons building activities, Israel points to an order Saddam gave to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission last week to speed up its work, Gissin said.
"Saddam's going to be able to reach a point where these weapons will be operational," he said.
Meanwhile, Iraq told the United Nations on Friday that it will continue to discuss the return of U.N. weapons inspectors, but it insisted on conditions that Secretary-General Kofi Annan has already rejected.
In a 10-page letter to Annan, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri reaffirmed an Iraqi offer to hold a round of technical negotiations but he insisted they focus on outstanding issues related to Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction as well as "practical arrangements for the return of the inspection system in the future."
Sabri was replying to a letter from Annan that rejected Iraq's proposal to have chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and Iraqi experts determine outstanding disarmament issues of mass destruction and figure out how to resolve them before inspectors return to the country.
Also on Friday, President Bush said he knows there are "very intelligent people" who doubt the wisdom of attacking Iraq.
But he says Saddam Hussein is "thumbing his nose at the world" -- and must be ousted.
Speaking to reporters near his Texas ranch, the president vowed to make his own decision -- based on the best intelligence available.
Gissin also said Israel was not seeking to dictate the timing of a U.S. military campaign but said that, faced with the threat of one, Saddam was fast developing weapons.
While the Israeli government backs U.S. action against Iraq, there is also concern in Israel that in response, Iraq would launch missile attacks against Tel Aviv and other cities in Israel.
During the 1991 Gulf War, in which U.S.-led forces pushed back an Iraqi invasion of neighboring Kuwait, Iraq hit Israel with 39 Scud missiles — none of them with chemical or biological warheads — causing few casualties but extensive damage.
In an interview published Friday, Ben-Eliezer told the daily Yediot Ahronot that Israel would surely become a target during such a conflict and would consider retaliation in coordination with U.S. forces.
"We will be one of the main targets," he told the newspaper. "What I told the Americans, and I repeat it: 'Don't expect us to continue to live with the process of restraint. If they hit us, we reserve the right of response.'"
Iraq has few chemical and biological weapons, Ben-Eliezer said. "We are taking this into account and we are prepared. But we are so far away from this right now that all this hysteria is simply unnecessary," he said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/18/world/main519037.shtml
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)particularly with the PA working in such close co-operation with the IDF, arresting militants, keeping the peace and such.
No doubt the Americans wish they had a partner as functional as the Palestinian Authority in Afghanistan.
I imagine if they did, they would probably withdraw from Afghanistan tomorrow.
Israel doesnt seem particularly minded to do that though.
I wonder why that is.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)we're supposed to be OUTRAGED
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113439522
but alas it's more like not falling for it 
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Likud opposes abortion and it certainly opposes gay marriage.
In 1990, a Likud-led coalition banned abortion in Israel outside of public hospitals. Likud also opposed a bill in 1975 that would have permitted Israeli women to obtain an abortion on demand.
As it is, Israeli women must obtain approval from a standing committee of one of the public hospitals to obtain an abortion. In practice, most of these requests are granted, but the practice is onerous enough that many Israeli women choose to obtain an illegal abortion from a private physician. Israel is one of only three countries in Europe that do not allow abortion on demand, and the only country apart from Ireland to remove the decision to have an abortion from a woman and her treating physician.
Likud also opposed a bill outlawing discrimination against gays in 1992. There are no serious prospects of Israel introducing gay marriage any time soon, as it is they don't even have civil marriage (apart from very limited civil marriage for religiously excluded people).
shira
(30,109 posts)Speaking at an event at Ariel University, Bennett responded to charges from the Likud that Bayit Yehudi’s Knesset candidates included extremists and people who favor discrimination against women and homosexuals.
“When the Likud saw that attacking me did not work, they switched to an attack on my party’s candidates by twisting their words and taking them out of context,” Bennett said. “I tell my friends in the Likud: Enough with the hatred. This is not the way to build a state, and this is not the way to stop us.”
Bennett noted that his party had three women among its top 12 candidates and none of them required reserved slots to get elected, while the only candidate in the top 12 of the joint Likud- Yisrael Beytenu list was Immigrant Absorption Minister Sofa Landver, who, Bennett said, “is not a Likudnik.”
The one issue where Bennett confirmed the Likud’s accusations was on gay marriage, which he said his party opposes having the state recognize.
Likud would stand no chance in Republican primaries here in the USA by criticizing Republican critics of gay marriage.
And you'll have to do better than going back 20 years for Likud's views on abortion. Likud doesn't oppose abortion rights today. In fact, gay marriage and abortion aren't even election issues for Likud like they are for Republicans in America. That's not to say Likud has the same views on LGBT and women's rights as Meretz, but they're nowhere near the Republicans either.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts) shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)that doesnt mean that they are interested in gay rights. It just means that they are content to use them to score points against Iran.
No I don't, because that was the last time the Knesset ever seriously considered the matter. Abortion policy in Israel hasn't changed since, and accordingly Likud's policy stance on the matter hasn't changed either.
shira
(30,109 posts)...on LGBT issues.
And unlike Republicans, abortion is a non-issue in elections for Likud. No one votes or doesn't vote for them based on that, not like in America.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)you claimed that Likud does not oppose abortion. That claim is false. Exactly where it fits in terms of their priorities is not really the issue, the fact is that they oppose it, on the whole.
Only to the extent that it is a non-issue for Labour as well (in the sense that they, along with Likud, are not particularly interested in improving access to abortion services).
And to be fair to the United States, at least women there rarely have to resort to illegal abortions, whereas in Israel they do.
Pretty much everything in Israel is a non-issue, apart from "the war", although the last election was fought on cost-of-living measures to a large extent. But generally, security tends to trump most concerns, which means that other issues don't often get a lot of oxygen.
And as anyone who has visited Israel can attest, the environment there is in a pretty poor state, particularly the waterways:-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabiah_bridge_collapse
