US hits back at Lieberman: The goal is two states

[Barack_America]

In response to divisive comments made by new foreign minister, State Department makes clear Washington fully behind two-state solution as only viable option. Opposition at home also seizes on chance to accuse FM of destroying US-Israel diplomatic ties

Yitzhak Benhorin
Published: 04.08.09, 00:54 / Israel News

The US State Department hit back at Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's warning on Tuesday to those pressuring Israel on its foreign policy agenda.

<snip>

Washington has other ideas however. State Department spokesman Robert Wood responded to a question regarding the foreign minister's statements, saying that the US' top priority was to steer the stagnated talks back to the pursuit of the two-state solution.

Wood said that President Barack Obama's special envoy to the Mideast, George Mitchell, would be visiting the region next week to "continue discussions with how we can move back to a very positive track with the goal being a two-state solution. We are going to hear comments from various parties about how they assess things.

"The important objective for us is to get this process back on track so that we can get to this two-state solution that we think is in the best interests of not only the Israelis and the Palestinians, but the United States and the rest of the world."...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3699117,00.html

[IndianaGreen]

1. Bibi and Ivette will not play the 2-state solution game

The Likud's charter is dead set against it.

Better wait for the current government to collapse and make a deal with Kadima down the road.

[Barack_America]

3. All the more reason to keep the pressure up.

After all, the more pressure you put on something, the faster it will collapse.

Today really had an amazing US/Israel subdrama going on, what with this and Biden threatening(?) Bibi that it would be "unwise" for him to point those rockets at Iran nuclear sites.

:popcorn:

[ProgressiveMuslim]

5. Why Kadima? You think they had any more intention of making peace?

I sure don't.

They might speak differently, but their actions are indistinguishable. The party responsible for the massacre in Gaza can hardly be touted as the "peace" party, don't you agree?

[IndianaGreen]

7. If I was living in Israel...

I would either support Hadash, which has no chance of ever forming a government, or opt for the pragmatic support of Kadima. Labour is finished as a political party, thanks to the poodle Barak. Likud is too racist for my taste, and too crazy for even Ariel Sharon. The logical choice would be Kadima.

Despite my serious disputes with the "pro-Israel" contingent in DU, I still remain a Jew, and Israel does mean something to me. I fully adhere to Lenin's dictum that religion must remain a private matter. This is why I can support a binational state, since IMHO a 2-state solution is impractical. A binational state is the only way to implement a right-of-return to both parties in this sad conflict.

From Communist Party of Israel

[e-mail] - www.maki.org.il

Hadash Chairman Barakeh, was attacked by occupation soldiers during a demonstration in Hebron

Hadash Chairman and Member of the Knesset, Mohammad Barakeh, denounced today (Saturday, March, 28) that he was attacked by Israel Defense Forces soldiers during a demonstration in Hebron, in the Palestinian occupied territories.

MK Barakeh, a leading member of the Communist Party of Israel, said troops pushed him violently and sprayed him with tear gas when they through tear gas and shock grenades into the crowd.

The incident occurred when IDF soldiers asked dozens of peace and Palestinian demonstrators to disperse. They had staged their protest in front of the settlement inside the West Bank city, a frequent flashpoint for tensions between occupation soldiers and Palestinians. Barakeh, however, refused to leave and told the soldiers that the only people able to make such a request were the city's true owners, the Palestinians.

Last month, Haaretz Israeli daily newspaper reported that Attorney General Menachem Mazuz was considering indicting Barakeh for "attacking a policeman during a demonstration". Barakeh is suspected of having assaulted a member of the Israel Prison Service's elite Masada unit at a protest in the West Bank during a demonstration in the village of Bi'ilin in 2005. The policeman was taking a detainee to a police car at the time of Barakeh's alleged assault

http://www.maki.org.il/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2819&Itemid=106

[ProgressiveMuslim]

8. So why support Kadima if your goal is a binational state?

[IndianaGreen]

9. My goal is peace!

I just came to the conclusion that a 2-state solution is a pipe dream, impossible to implement.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

12. So what has Kadima done that leads you to believe they have interest in bringing about peace.

I am asking in all earnestness.

[Ken Burch]

11. If only there were some way to create an alliance between the supporters of

Hadash, Meretz, the left parties(including the Greens)that fell below the threshold, and the large number of current Labor voters who are likely to "bug out" of that party soon in utter disgust over Barak's betrayal(he's promised NEVER to join a coalition with Netanyahu in his comments to Labor supporters after the election).

Such an alliance might not win, but it could build enough support to force Kadima to form a government with it, or possibly eventually surpass it as Kadima's failure to achieve its stated goal(peace through some sort of "centrism")becomes increasingly apparent.

It would also be good if it were possible(and I'll grant that this is a longshot)if the alliance I outlines above were able to make a serious appeal to the Mizrahi community, a group that has been hawkish but is on the low-income end of the Israeli economic spectrum and hasn't really gained anything from backing the Shas party, the group more Mizrahi back at present than anybody else. But that would require the ability to make the case that putting "security, security, security" before all other goals(and insisting on trying to achieve that security though the hopeless efforts to crush the Palestinians militariliy, has left the Mizrahim out in the cold. The first example of Mizrahi political activism, the Israeli Black Panthers of the 70's, was actually secular and leftist and had the international support of people like Angela Davis, so it might be possible to work for an alternative involving the Mizrahi if it were based on a campaign against Askenazi elitism and a recognition that the Mizrahim have probably suffered in disproportionate numbers in the wars the IDF has sent them off to.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

13. Same question to you Ken: why do you think the party that oversaw OCL has any interest in

a just settlement with the people of Palestine?

[Ken Burch]

15. Not the leaders, obviously, but a large chunk of the rank-and-file

I would never include Barak in the list of those who'd actually back peace.

[shira]

14. what makes you think Meretz is a better ideological fit for you than any other party?

You'd be hard pressed to find any Meretz supporters in Israel who were against OCL. The Meretz statements before and during OCL show support for the operation. Being hit with thousands of missiles over a 7-8 year period would sorta lead any rational person to want the gov't to respond militarily to such aggression.

[Ken Burch]

16. Actually, Meretz reversed itself on this during the campaign

And, once again, you know there wouldn't have been those tiny bottle rockets if it hadn't been for the blockade and the general abuse the IDF and the Israeli government had been inflicting on Gaza. And you know those missiles hit hardly anyone and were basically symbolic.

Israelis never had any right to feel like the victims in the Gaza situation.

[oberliner]

17. Tiny bottle rockets?

The Qassam attacks have killed and injured people, including children, and destroyed property.

The attacks have also been going on since before there was any blockade of Gaza.

The rockets have nothing to do with the Gaza blockade. When there was much freer movement of goods and people between Gaza and Israel there were not only Qassam attacks but also suicide attacks conducted by Hamas as well which resulted in large numbers of civilian casualties.

[Ken Burch]

18. The casualty count on the Israeli side was trivially small compared

to the continual losses on the Palestinian side.

Plus, there's the fact that history proves military responses are futile in this situation, having no other effect but to create a more extreme and intransigent leadership on the Palestinian side.

Might as well admit it-the Iron Fist doesn't work.

[Vegasaurus]

19. As long as people like you have no understanding

of the threats of constant terrorism, and continue to call deadly and damaging rockets "tiny bottle rockets" (others here have called them "pesky" and a "nuisance") you will never have peace.

Only by understanding the "other side" will there be progress.

The rockets are not just pesky or a nuisance, but a daily threat, as were suicide bombers, before the wall and checkpoints were needed to protect Israelis citizens.

[Ken Burch]

21. There were a few people who died, and I mourn their loss

But there's no way in hell that the massive overresponse and the collective punishment of all Gazans was justified. And there's no way it can help.

Why can't you get it through your head that "peace through crushing the foe" isn't possible here? And that all the Israeli military-political regime achieve by trying to crush Hamas, rather than take the sensible step of negotiating with it, is to increase its popularity and increase its determination to do worse? And that even if Hamas were to be crushed(which you KNOW isn't possible)it could only be replaced by a more extremist leadership? What part of "Israeli security policy meets the definition of insanity" do you not get?

The answer is not to be fixated on "winning". The answer is to stop the collective punishment.

[Vegasaurus]

22. I don't think there will be peace through "crushing the foe" either

But I am not naive.

Whenever Israel lets up for one second, the militants move in, to try to kill, capture or terrorize Israelis,

The Palestinians choose violence and terrorism every time, and Israel responds.

Too strong a response?

I think so.

But 8000 someodd rockets in eight years before a response?

I'd say it was high time for some response, because no matter what Israel did, whether it was sonic booms, or targetted killings against the rocket launchers, or bombing tunnels, or stopping food, it NEVER stopped the violence.

And since the Palestinians have made it clear that they do not intend to stop their violence until they "liberate all of greater Palestine", it seems that there will be more collective punishment in the future.

It wouldn't have to be this way.

[shira]

20. tiny bottle rockets and symbolic missiles against non-victims?

You cannot expect to be taken seriously.

These are real threats against real people, about a million now within range of Hamas - they have families, and many are Arabs around the Sderot area (as if that should make a difference to you).

[leveymg]

2. Commentary at Haaretz on Lieberman's statements,

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1077054.html

SNIP

Avigdor Lieberman's performance at the foreign minister's handover ceremony looked menacing, a little because of what he said and a little because of his demeanor.

His credo did not exactly fit what is currently expected of an Israeli foreign minister. He does not recognize the Annapolis process, and he objects to territorial concessions. Add to that his telling Hosni Mubarak to go to hell and threatening to bomb Egypt's Aswan Dam, and you ask yourself: Is this the new government's position? And was his announcement coordinated with Benjamin Netanyahu?

It's hard to answer that unequivocally on the basis of Bibi's statements. Bibi, you see, said his government is bound by all the previous government's commitments, including Annapolis and the road map. Are the contradictory declarations coordinated? If not, why doesn't the prime minister call Lieberman to order and make it clear to him that he is doing Israel great damage? And if Bibi keeps mum, is that a sign he agrees with Lieberman, or worse, he's afraid of him?
Advertisement

At a certain stage Bibi and his cabinet will have to make a decision on the Syrian issue as well, for it is undoubtedly in our interest to remove Syria from the axis of evil. But according to what Lieberman says, this arrangement will be achieved without giving up the Golan. This is not the message Bibi conveyed to the American president's envoy, George Mitchell. So where does the truth lie?

If the contradictory statements are coordinated, starting out this way does not indicate decency or wisdom. If Bibi doesn't call Lieberman to order, he will seriously impair his status as a responsible prime minister, who does not want to repeat the mistakes he made during his previous term as PM.

"He who wants peace must prepare for war," Lieberman proudly cited a famous Roman epigram. Ehud Barak did well to finally break his vow of silence and criticize Lieberman's statement.

It is very important that this government not be clever to the point that the Americans start showing their claws. We have been known to misinterpret their manners. When the White House spokesman talks about "open talks" with the president, he means deep controversy. On more than one occasion I remember Menachem Begin coming out of a meeting with Jimmy Carter and announcing "we had excellent talks," while the White House made it clear to the Israeli reporters accompanying the prime minister that the expression "open talks" meant the opposite of Begin's interpretation.

When we make them angry, for example, when we wanted to sell China reconnaissance and intelligence aircraft, we came very close to a rift. Those with good memories may remember with a shudder the sanctions Henry Kissinger imposed on us under the title "reevaluation," or the time secretary of state James Baker refused to meet our ambassador, Zalman Shoval, saying that if we had an answer, this was the White House's phone number.

Gone are the days when we boasted that Israel was a strategic weapon of the U.S. and even saw ourselves, without blushing, as America's frontline aircraft carrier in the region. It's not that we've become a burden, but the Obama administration expects much more of us if it is to create a bloc of moderate Muslim states.

These days, when Obama has a majority in Congress and the world's eyes are on him, we cannot pressure him using our power hubs in Washington. The Jewish lobby has lost much of its strength in the current administration. And if we don't accept the principle of two states for two peoples, even Netanyahu's close ties with the evangelists and neoconservatives, who have lost their power and influence with this administration, won't help.

Lieberman puts a question mark on Israel's commitment to peace and could lead the Obama administration to show its claws.

SNIP

[Barack_America]

4. He sounds like Israel's Sarah Palin, with these idiotic statements and that ethics investigation...

...he's got going on.

[leveymg]

6. Israel lost that election.

Too bad. That one was pretty high-stakes. It may cost them dearly in many ways, from access to technology to access to the NY Fed Window.

There's a whole range of ways to withhold carrots. They don't want to know about the sticks. So, behave.

[azurnoir]

10. With ‘Annapolis,’ a Warning to Israel

WASHINGTON—Watchers of Middle East politics were quick to take note of a line in President Obama’s address before the Turkish Parliament on Monday in Ankara, in which he mentioned “Annapolis.”

The issue sprouted last week when Israel’s hawkish new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said that agreements reached at the American-sponsored peace conference in Annapolis, Md., have “no validity.” Mr. Lieberman said that the Israeli government “never ratified Annapolis, nor did Parliament.”

But there he was on Monday, directly rebutting Mr. Lieberman’s comments in his most high-profile address about America’s relationship with the Muslim world, before Turkish legislators. He would push for a two-state solution, Mr. Obama said, despite the view of many foreign policy experts that such a goal will be even more difficult to reach because of the makeup of the new Israeli government under Mr. Netanyahu, not to mention the fractured state of internal Palestinian politics.

But privately, several administration officials and Middle East experts said that Mr. Obama is girding for a protracted showdown with the new Israeli government over the pursuit of Palestinian statehood.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/us/politics/09web-cooper.html?_r=1&hp