SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (22202)12/10/2010 8:47:15 AM
From: elmatador2 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 22250
 
US urged to recognise Palestine.

From: AFP, AP December 10, 2010 12:00AM

THE chief Palestinian negotiator has said he was hoping to secure US recognition of an independent Palestinian state.

"Israel's defeat of US efforts places the region at a real crossroads," Saeb Erakat said of Israel's refusal to extend a settlement freeze. "We hope that the American administration would recognise the Palestinian state within the 1967 borders as a response to Israel's settlement diktats and other unilateral measures.

"If the United States wants to safeguard the two-state solution, it must recognise the Palestinian state within the 1967 borders," he said in Cairo. The Plan B of getting other countries to recognise a Palestinian state is taking shape after months of intense lobbying.

Brazil and Argentina have recognised "Palestine" and are expected to be followed by Uruguay next month. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is setting his sights on Europe and plans to ask increasingly influential Turkey to serve as a go-between.

But to secure US recognition is by far the most optimistic aim yet. One frequently raised option is to seek UN recognition. Securing a majority in the UN General Assembly would be the easier task, but winning over the Security Council would be the bigger prize. That would mean overcoming a probable US veto. Mr Erakat is to meet US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington today or tomorrow, while Mr Abbas is to hold separate talks this week with US Middle East envoy George Mitchell and Arab leaders.

Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak is also heading to Washington for meetings with senior defence and administration officials.

Washington acknowledged on Tuesday that it had dropped a demand that Israel renew a freeze on Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Without a new freeze, the Palestinians have refused to negotiate, deadlocking direct talks, which were launched on September 2 only to run aground three weeks later when building resumed in West Bank settlements.

But Washington said it was still holding out hope a peace deal could be reached within its 12-month target set in August.

"We believe that's still achievable," State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said. "It's not going to be easy, but we haven't changed our objective."

A spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed Washington's announcement on settlements.

"We said from the outset that settlements were not the root of the conflict and that it was only a Palestinian excuse for refusing to talk," Nir Hefetz said.

But Mr Crowley stressed that Washington "does not accept the legitimacy" of new Israeli construction in the occupied territory.

The EU also reiterated its opposition. "The EU position on settlements is clear: they are illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace," foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton said.

Hamas, which controls Gaza, said the US failure to secure any concession from Israel vindicated its opposition to the policy pursued by Mr Abbas's Fatah party.

"Fatah has lost its gamble of counting on Washington as the US position on the Palestinian question is always utterly dependent on Israel," spokesman Fawzi Barhum said.



To: Brumar89 who wrote (22202)11/11/2012 6:47:06 AM
From: puborectalis1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 22250
 
My President Is BusyBy THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
ISRAELI friends have been asking me whether a re-elected President Obama will take revenge on Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu for the way he and Sheldon Adelson, his foolhardy financier, openly backed Mitt Romney. My answer to Israelis is this: You should be so lucky.

You should be so lucky that the president feels he has the time, energy and political capital to spend wrestling with Bibi to forge a peace between Israelis and Palestinians. I don’t see it anytime soon. Obama has his marching orders from the American people: Focus on Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, not on Bethlehem, Palestine, and focus on getting us out of quagmires (Afghanistan) not into them (Syria). No, my Israeli friends, it’s much worse than you think: You’re home alone.

Of course, no one here will tell you that. To the contrary, there will surely be a new secretary of state visiting you next year with the umpteenth road map for “confidence-building measures” between Israelis and Palestinians. He or she may even tell you that “this is the year of decision.” Be careful. We’ve been there before. If you Google “Year of decision in the Middle East,” you’ll get more than 100,000,000 links.

Is this good for Israel? No. It is unhealthy. The combination of America’s internal focus, the post-Arab awakening turmoil and the exhaustion of Palestinians means Israel can stay in the West Bank indefinitely at a very low short-term cost but at a very high long-term cost of losing its identity as a Jewish democracy. If Israelis want to escape that fate, it is very important that they understand that we’re not your grandfather’s America anymore.

To begin with, the rising political force in America is not the one with which Bibi has aligned Israel. As the Israeli columnist Ari Shavit noted in the newspaper Haaretz last week: “In the past, both the Zionist movement and the Jewish state were careful to be identified with the progressive forces in the world. ... But in recent decades more and more Israelis took to leaning on the reactionary forces in American society. It was convenient to lean on them. The evangelists didn’t ask difficult questions about the settlements, the Tea Party people didn’t say a word about excluding women and minorities or about Jewish settlers’ attacks and acts of vandalism against Palestinians and peace activists. The Republican Party’s white, religious, conservative wing was not agitated when the Israeli Supreme Court was attacked and the rule of law in Israel was trampled.” Israel, Shavit added, assumed that “under the patronage of a radical, rightist America we can conduct a radical, rightist policy without paying the price.” No more. Netanyahu can still get a standing ovation from the Israel lobby, but not at U.C.L.A.

At the same time, U.S. policy makers have learned that the Middle East only puts a smile on our faces when it starts with them: with Israelis and Arabs. Camp David started with them. Oslo started with them. The Arab Spring started with them. When they have ownership over peace or democracy movements, those initiatives can be self-sustaining. We can amplify what they start, but we can’t create it. We can provide the mediation and even the catering, but it’s got to start with them.

We’ve learned something else from our interventions in Afghanistan and Libya: We willed the ends, but we did not will the means — that is, doing all that it would take to transform those societies. That is why we’re quitting Afghanistan, staying out of Syria and relying on sanctions, as long as possible, to dissuade Iran from building a nuclear bomb. These countries are too hard to fix but too dangerous to ignore. We’ll still try to help, but we’ll expect regional powers, and the locals, to assume more responsibility.

Finally, we really have work to do at home. Soon Americans will be asked to pay more taxes for less government. It’s coming. It will not make us isolationists, but it will change our mood and make us much pickier about where we’ll get involved. That means only a radical change by Palestinians or Israelis will get us to fully re-engage.

The other day, in an interview with Israel’s Channel 2, President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority declared: “Palestine for me is the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital. This is Palestine. I am a refugee. I live in Ramallah. The West Bank and Gaza is Palestine. Everything else is Israel.”

This was a big signal, but Bibi scorned it. The Israeli novelist David Grossman wrote an open letter to Netanyahu in Haaretz, taking him to task: “This is a bit embarrassing, but I will remind you, Mr. Netanyahu, that you were elected to lead Israel precisely in order to discern these rare hints of opportunity, in order to transform them into a possible lever to extricate your country from the impasse in which it has been stuck for decades.”

So my best advice to Israelis is: Focus on your own election — on Jan. 22 — not ours. I find it very sad that in a country with so much human talent, the Israeli center and left still can’t agree on a national figure who could run against Netanyahu and his thuggish partner, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman — a man whose commitment to democracy is closer to Vladimir Putin’s than Thomas Jefferson’s. Don’t count on America to ride to the rescue. It has to start with you.

My president is busy.