Free Markets, Free People

Israel: What Peace Deal?

After it appeared there might be a possibility the US might broker a “final accord” following the meeting in New York, Israel is pouring cold water on the idea:

Israel’s powerful foreign minister declared Thursday that there is no chance of reaching a final accord with the Palestinians any time soon, casting a pall over the U.S. Mideast envoy’s latest effort to get peace talks moving again.

Peacemaking policy in Israel is decided by the prime minister’s office, and not the foreign ministry. But Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman carries significant weight in Israeli decision-making, and his is a sentiment common among confidants of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Or, said another way, Lieberman is only saying what Netanyahu is thinking. With all the happy talk coming out of the Obama administration after the President managed to get Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the same room in New York, you’d have thought peace talks and happy days were just around the corner.

Not so says Lieberman:

Lieberman told Israel Radio on Thursday that anyone who thinks the two sides can soon reach a deal ending their decades-old conflict “doesn’t understand the situation and is spreading delusions.”

What the two sides should do, he said, was to come up with a long-term interim arrangement that would ensure prosperity, security and stability, and leave the tough issues “to a much later stage.”

This approach runs counter to U.S. efforts to reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal quickly. Obama has declared that establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel is a vital U.S. interest. Also, Israel would not find a Palestinian partner for putting off a resolution to the conflict indefinitely.

Lieberman’s view does not bode well for U.S. attempts to restart negotiations.

The non-negotiable point for both sides is settlements on the West Bank. Abbas won’t go to the negotiating table without them and Netanyahu refuses to freeze such settlements permanently. Without a resolution on that, there are no negotiations, and such a resolution seems improbable at the moment.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

22 Responses to Israel: What Peace Deal?

  • How dare those annoying Jooos ruin The One’s plans!

  • Clinton had Arafat and Barak at Camp David for days and they were able to negociate a peace with no problem … NOT !! So what makes anybody get “happy feet” over a meeting of a few minutes at the UN ?

    … and they haven’t even begun to talk about “water”

  • Those stiff-necked Jooooos, how dare they interfere with the Nobel Peace Prize Dreams of the Greatest President since Jim-muh Carter (The Greated Souled One)!?!?!

  • Next thing you know, the joooooooooooooooooos be expecting to live peacefully in their own country without having to worry about rockets raining down on them from nearby countries!

    What is with these people! Clearly as “the one” has demonstrated so adequately in the Cambridge Police department case, there’s no issue that can’t be smoothed over by meeting for a few minutes, (avoiding being blown up by an aide with plastique and a radio detonator stuffed up his butt), and having a beer and a nice quick chat.

    All good? okay, let’s not get all “wee wee’d” up over centuries of animosity shall we?

  • What’s with liberal’s never ending desire to find a “Final Solution” for the Jewish Problem?

  • The reason that Israel’s Likud foreign minister proclaims that there is no possibility of a peace settlement for many years is that there never was any possibility. The extreme right-wing LIKUD agenda is for a Greater Israel in all the land of Palestine from the sea to the Jordan river. The entire West Bank. Gaza. Jerusalem. The Negev. Everything. Their agenda is to forcibly transfer all non-Israelis to a neighboring state thereby dispossessing them for the second time in 60 years. But it will never happen. Extremism and the violation of human rights and the killing of innocents will ensure that the international community including the US will in future handle the duplicitous Netanyahu and his foreign minister very carefully. And Europe will do the same.There will be a paradigm shift in the attitude of the world to Israel after the killing fields of Gaza.

  • “The Killing Fields of Gaza”? What Killing Fields would those be, the ones where the vast majority of casualties were Hamas? You really ought to try the talking points elswhere….

  • Joe, “that’s the peace loving terrorists casualties of Hamas!” thank you very much.

    I go back to before, I mean, what? you think a few missiles lobbed here and there from Gaza to help set the tone for peace are a problem?
    You find the idea of the Hamas government’s avowel to the destruction of the state of Israel a barrier to decent bargaining and negotiation between Hamas and the Israeli government?

    How very odd. You’re almost as difficult as the joooooooooooos.

  • Time for the US to play hardball with Israel.

    You want our money to keep your economy afloat, our military equipment, and our support? Then you better take seriously what we want. If not, you’re on your own.

    We have to look out for US national interests, not Israeli national interests.

    • “You want our money to keep your economy afloat, our military equipment, and our support? Then you better take seriously what we want. If not, you’re on your own.”

      Look out, Professor, your anti-semitic slip is showing.

      The US rebuilt Europe and Japan after WWII, but to expect them to “take seriously what we want” would be imperialism.

      The US rescued Iraq from a mad dictator, but to expect them to “take seriously what we want” would be colonialism.

      The US taxpayer has spent billions on welfare for the African-American community, but to expect them to “take seriously what we want” would be racism.

      So what’s your beef with Israel?

      • LOL! Geez, pulling out the anti-semitism card like the race card, how predictably pathetic.

        The US didn’t rescue Iraq, we unleashed a cataclysm of violence and instability from which Iraq is unlikely to recover for decades. Saddam was a dictator, but had been defanged. The Saudis are more repressive. Iraq was a disaster for both us and the Iraqis, a futile war with pointless deaths. We did exercise hegemony over Europe for decades. Now we should pull out.

        • The ‘defanged’ Saddam was still responsible for killing over 500,000 of his own people in the decade before we invaded. Bush’s have resulted in a reduction of the number of dead Iraqis, even the worst year post-Saddam (2007) was better than Saddam’s aveage after 1991.

        • So, why did you dodge the question?

          What’s your beef with Israel?

    • There is no benefit to the US from the creation of a Palestinian state. There is great benefit with having a western democracy in the Middle East, especially one willing to destroy the nuclear capabilities of countries that export terrorists.

    • “You want our money to keep your economy afloat, our military equipment, and our support?”

      Ah, that old time-tested statist ploy. This is the same cudgel with which the federal government extra-constitutionally beats the states into submission (e.g. “We’ll cut off interstate highway funds if you don’t adopt law X“). Of course, this threat would seem quite natural to him. Since Erb thinks we’re an “empire”, it only makes sense that we should dictate to our vassal states. (Funny also that in that diplomatically idiotic post he also manages to slip in an economically idiotic statement: that US aid “keeps [Israel’s] economy afloat”. Aid keeps Israel’s economy down, you brainwashed Keynesian dolt.)

      I’m sure he’ll make a vacuous response about carrots and sticks, or some such nonsense, without realizing that diplomacy is not some totemic ritual done for its own sake, but the pursuit of national interests. We have no national interest in Palestine (other than the harm they do to our nearby allies and risks they raise of a regional war), and they have never shown any reasonable amount of good faith towards reconciliation. Beating that dead horse, when one side shows an absolute unwillingness to compromise on their goals, is a fool’s errand. Obama’s attempt to bully Israel into bargaining “without preconditions” (like requiring the cessation of Hezbollah/Hamas rocketfire into Israel) is downright dangerous.

      I want to see our foreign aid slashed altogether, but especially that which goes to Israel and Egypt. Those two countries combined receive more than a quarter of all US foreign aid, which is nothing more than bribery for the two to behave. We should cut off the aid, but continue to sell our best exportable technology to the Israelis at a discounted rate.

  • There is no point in negotiations until Hamas is a willing partner.

    For Israel, why should they freeze settlement building as a precursor to talks? The Iranians have managed to get talks without the precursor of freezing enrichment, so I can only say the Israelis are smart to wait for Obama to unclench his fist.

    (Note, I think they should freeze settlement building, but since we cannot ask such things of the Iranians, I wonder why should of our allies.)

    • International public opinion leans against the Jews. And unfortunately many of them to varying degrees want to see Iran get the bomb and wipe the Jews the map. And Obama and Democrats value international opinion more than doing the right thing.

  • There must be a deal .. Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Leaping unicorns rejoice through the world.

    Maybe now he can retire.


    Now we can call The One the Prince of Peace instead.

  • Devil’s advocate:

    What would happen if Israel ceased to exist? To what – if any – extent would this reduce terrorism and other troubles, especially in the Middle East?

    Alternately, what would happen if we made it know that we are prepared not only to give Israel a free hand, but even active support in dealing with her enemies?