Tweet
The new government of Israel is seeking to reorient the country’s foreign policy, arguing that to rely purely on the formulas of trading land for peace and promising a Palestinian state fails to grasp what it views as the deeper issues: Muslim rejection of a Jewish state and the rising hegemonic appetite of Iran.
Advisers to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are drafting policy suggestions aimed at forming a framework that he plans to present to President Obama at their first summit meeting, in Washington on May 18. In addition, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman left Sunday for Europe on his first official visit, and on Tuesday, President Shimon Peres is to meet with Mr. Obama in Washington.
So given that the official policy of the Israeli government is to reject the two-state solution, when can we say that the Israelis have a rejectionist government? I want a standard here. When they actually present the framework to Obama on May 18? Or never, because, according to a senior Israeli official quoted in the piece, "ultimately the goal was a Palestinian state," and so as long as the Netanyahu government argues that the Palestinian state should come into being the third Wednesday in Nevervember they’re not officially rejectionist? OK then. I enjoy having my intelligence insulted. Bring on Michael Oren!
Seriously, Israel: do you really want to put yourself in this position? This is a dark and dangerous road you’re on. Please reconsider.
"Rejected" video by YouTube user TonyNoble182. Not only is "Rejected" one of the best songs on Rancid’s killer debut, it’s the best Bad Religion song that Bad Religion forgot to write. And if you don’t know, now you know.
4 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
If you really need your intelligence insulted, there’s Siun.
“Officially”, their government seems to have decided to bite down hard on their tongue, clench their teeth, and keep mouthing the words “two-state solution”. While scowling and glaring at the rest of the world, with fingers crossed behind their back.
Just so long as they can then quickly change the subject back to threatening to “exact a price from Iran for their intransigence.”
It seems pretty likely that any real progress towards a peace agreement is going to have to wait another election cycle at least, until the Israelis tire of the antics of the rightwing religious nuts they’ve installed.
The symmetry is almost perfect, actually. They refuse to recognize the legitimacy of a Palestinian state, certainly haven’t forsworn the use of political violence, and have announced that they will not abide by agreements made by previous Israeli governments (Annapolis, in particular).
By the Quartet’s own rules, shouldn’t that disqualify Israel from even being dealt with at all, much less unconditionally supported by Washington?
I have a question. Is the United States precluded from using military aid to Israel as leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process by the 2007 Memorandum of Understanding negotiated between Israel and the U.S. government locking in a 25% increase in military aid to Israel for 10 years?