PM Of Israel Gives Great Speech To U.S. Congress

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    May 24, 2011 4:32 PM GMT
    I found the speech by PM Netanyahu of Israel to congress very positive, supportive, and uplifting. This is an exrremely charismatic leader. It appeared that he was extending the olive branch in a huge way to Palestinians, and that Israel is ready and willing to make concessions and compromises. The question is -- are the Palestinians? There was no question from the reception that he got (dozens of standing ovations) that Israel has, and probably always will have, unwaivering support from the U.S.A.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2011 1:10 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidIsrael is ready and willing to make concessions and compromises. The question is -- are the Palestinians?

    Israel, and the Jewish Agency before it, have been open to compromise long before the 1947 UN partition compromse (which was violently rejected by the Arab parties).

    Prof. Benny Morris points out:
    It is worth noting, at this point, a major asymmetry in the evolution of the Jewish national movement and the Palestinian national movement. The Zionists, too, at first sought sovereignty over the whole of the land. As one early Zionist, Ze'ev Dubnow, put it in October 1882, the first year of Zionist settlement in Palestine: "The ultimate goal ... is, in time, to take over the Land of Israel and to restore to the Jews the political independence they have been deprived of for these two thousand years... The Jews will yet arise and, arms in hand (if need be), declare that they are the masters of their ancient homeland." But over the decades the Zionists came to recognize that the land was inhabited by hundreds of thousands of Arabs who devised their own collective identity and began to resist the Jewish influx. Following the start of the Arab Revolt, the Zionist movement formally accepted--in 1937, in response to the Peel Commission recommendations--the principle of partition, meaning a division of Palestine between its two communities. And in 1947, the movement accepted both the principle of partition and the specific United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, which, positing the establishment of two states, awarded the Zionists some 55 percent of Palestine (most of it in the Negev desert) and the Palestinian Arabs some 40 percent.

    The shift in Zionist ideology from an ideologically pristine demand for all of Palestine to a sober acceptance of partition was not paralleled in the development of the Palestinian national movement. This asymmetry has underpinned the conflict since the 1930s.


    After the 1948 war, the Arab League issued its infamous "3 NOs": No negotiations, No recognition, No peace.
    This was repeated after the 1956 war despite Israel's unilateral withdrawal.

    After the 1967 war, Israel accepted UNSCR 242 (which established the "land for peace" formula). The Arab League, meeting in Khartoum, reiterated their 3 NOs.

    After another failed Arab war in 1973, Israel was under the leadership of its most right-wing government. Yet when Anwar Sadat said he'd journey to Jerusalem, he found a ready, willing and able partner in Menachem Begin. No other Arab party would accept President Carter's invitation to Camp David. For making peace, Sadat would be assassinated and Egypt - the largest Arab country - expelled from the Arab League.

    It took the 1990 Gulf War and Arafat backing Saddam (thus alienating his Gulf sponsors) to get the PLO to renounce violence and terrorism (for the first of many times). Israel, under the right-wing government of Yitzhak Shamir, in short order came to Madrid to launch what became known as the Oslo Peace Process.

    This led to Camp David 2000 and Taba, at which Israel agreed to:

    * An independent, sovereign and internationally recognized Palestinian Arab state on a net 97% of the disputed territories.
    * Contiguous in Jordan's former "West Bank" and Gaza.
    * Including the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem.
    * With shared sovereignty over the Temple Mount.
    * A so-called "right of return" to then nascent state.
    * With a $30 Billion fund to compensate/resettle the Arab refugees and descendents.

    Arafat rejected this without so much as a counter-offer (leading some to falsely state it was a "take-it-or-leave-it" offer).
    Or, rather, his counter-offer was re-turning to his old friends of violence and terrorism.

    Here we are, 10 years later.
    Perhaps the Palestinian Arabs on RJ (or their anti-Israel supporters) can finally answer the question:

    On what can the Arabs compromise?
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    May 26, 2011 1:34 AM GMT
    Caesarea4 said
    CuriousJockAZ saidIsrael is ready and willing to make concessions and compromises. The question is -- are the Palestinians?

    Israel, and the Jewish Agency before it, have been open to compromise long before the 1947 UN partition compromse (which was violently rejected by the Arab parties).

    Prof. Benny Morris points out:
    It is worth noting, at this point, a major asymmetry in the evolution of the Jewish national movement and the Palestinian national movement. The Zionists, too, at first sought sovereignty over the whole of the land. As one early Zionist, Ze'ev Dubnow, put it in October 1882, the first year of Zionist settlement in Palestine: "The ultimate goal ... is, in time, to take over the Land of Israel and to restore to the Jews the political independence they have been deprived of for these two thousand years... The Jews will yet arise and, arms in hand (if need be), declare that they are the masters of their ancient homeland." But over the decades the Zionists came to recognize that the land was inhabited by hundreds of thousands of Arabs who devised their own collective identity and began to resist the Jewish influx. Following the start of the Arab Revolt, the Zionist movement formally accepted--in 1937, in response to the Peel Commission recommendations--the principle of partition, meaning a division of Palestine between its two communities. And in 1947, the movement accepted both the principle of partition and the specific United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, which, positing the establishment of two states, awarded the Zionists some 55 percent of Palestine (most of it in the Negev desert) and the Palestinian Arabs some 40 percent.

    The shift in Zionist ideology from an ideologically pristine demand for all of Palestine to a sober acceptance of partition was not paralleled in the development of the Palestinian national movement. This asymmetry has underpinned the conflict since the 1930s.


    After the 1948 war, the Arab League issued its infamous "3 NOs": No negotiations, No recognition, No peace.
    This was repeated after the 1956 war despite Israel's unilateral withdrawal.

    After the 1967 war, Israel accepted UNSCR 242 (which established the "land for peace" formula). The Arab League, meeting in Khartoum, reiterated their 3 NOs.

    After another failed Arab war in 1973, Israel was under the leadership of its most right-wing government. Yet when Anwar Sadat said he'd journey to Jerusalem, he found a ready, willing and able partner in Menachem Begin. No other Arab party would accept President Carter's invitation to Camp David. For making peace, Sadat would be assassinated and Egypt - the largest Arab country - expelled from the Arab League.

    It took the 1990 Gulf War and Arafat backing Saddam (thus alienating his Gulf sponsors) to get the PLO to renounce violence and terrorism (for the first of many times). Israel, under the right-wing government of Yitzhak Shamir, in short order came to Madrid to launch what became known as the Oslo Peace Process.

    This led to Camp David 2000 and Taba, at which Israel agreed to:

    * An independent, sovereign and internationally recognized Palestinian Arab state on a net 97% of the disputed territories.
    * Contiguous in Jordan's former "West Bank" and Gaza.
    * Including the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem.
    * With shared sovereignty over the Temple Mount.
    * A so-called "right of return" to then nascent state.
    * With a $30 Billion fund to compensate/resettle the Arab refugees and descendents.

    Arafat rejected this without so much as a counter-offer (leading some to falsely state it was a "take-it-or-leave-it" offer).
    Or, rather, his counter-offer was re-turning to his old friends of violence and terrorism.

    Here we are, 10 years later.
    Perhaps the Palestinian Arabs on RJ (or their anti-Israel supporters) can finally answer the question:

    On what can the Arabs compromise?


    Ah, but you already know what kind of answer you're going to get on this, don't you C4?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2011 2:26 AM GMT
    You are right Netanyahu did indeed give a well received speach and he did sound on some level to be willing to make concessions.

    There is one Glaring problem. The Israeli's have been building settlements on Occupied land spreading from those 1967 lines. The day before his meeting with Obama his Government approved 1500 more Settlement units, a few days later I believe it was another 300 Settlement Units that were approved, earlier in the year there were Approximately 300 Settlement Units being built, and shortly after the horrific and tragic murder of the Fogul Family there was 500 more Settlement Units announced in rememberance of that unfortunate family. So you see this all adds up to Approximately 2600 Settlement Units (there may be more that I don't know about)

    Not one word was clearly stated as to what the purpose or intentions are for these additional Settlement units on OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY. So we arrive at a time when this well spoken man talks nice while not mentioning his approving more units, but he says he's willing to make major concessions. Does this not appear to raise a really huge conflict of interest in seeking peacefull and equitable borders ? Does this action of additional units while saying he wants peace seem like he really is seeking peace in good faith ?

    Then while keeping the above in mind Leeron Wants to know "on what the arabs can compromise" Doesn't anyone see a glaring problem with this while it is Israel even now is taking more land?

    But even so, most Palestinians I know agree that Hamas must let the Fatah group take the lead, Hamas must renounce Violence and accept Israels existence, I believe there will have to be some concessions on right of return. (its my understanding that Hamas has already agreed to end the violence and accept Israels existence.

    I think Isreal should also accept Palestinians right to their existence and their lands, so should stop the Settlement building immiately to show good faith interest in seeking peace. Those settlements are anything but a peaceful gesture toward the Palestinians. Once these new ones are stopped they both can work out land swaps.

    Now is this so bad ? did I say anything that shows hate for Israel? No !!, so lets see what you think !!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2011 2:58 AM GMT
    TrentGrad saidAh, but you already know what kind of answer you're going to get on this, don't you C4?

    True, but maybe one day things will change.
    And maybe one day that day will be today.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2011 3:04 AM GMT
    Caesarea4 said
    TrentGrad saidAh, but you already know what kind of answer you're going to get on this, don't you C4?

    True, but maybe one day things will change.
    And maybe one day that day will be today.


    ________________________________________________________

    Yes !!! so try reading the above and being as civil in response as I was above
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    May 26, 2011 4:38 AM GMT
    realifedad said

    There is one Glaring problem. The Israeli's have been building settlements on Occupied land spreading from those 1967 lines.



    Actually, the real glaring problem is that to this day the Palestinian President has yet to make a public speech and recognize Israel. Until this happens, I will not have any sympathy for them, nor will I believe that they genuinely want peace.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2011 4:47 AM GMT
    [quote][cite]CuriousJockAZ said[/cite]
    realifedad said

    There is one Glaring problem. The Israeli's have been building settlements on Occupied land spreading from those 1967 lines.



    Actually, the real glaring problem is that to this day the Palestinian President has yet to make a public speech and recognize Israel. Until this happens, I will not have any sympathy for them, nor will I believe that they genuinely want peace.[/quot
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I thought the Fatah leader had done that ? Yes, I agree though, its not that hard to just say it openly in a speech, the unity gov. of Palestine could do that and no reason not to make it very clear that they accept Israels existence. But when this happens in whatever form it comes in, Current settlement building needs to stop right where it is, then deal with borders over already built settlements rather than keep right on adding them, which is a slap in the face of possible negotiations for peace.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2011 4:58 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI found the speech by PM Netanyahu of Israel to congress very positive, supportive, and uplifting. This is an exrremely charismatic leader. It appeared that he was extending the olive branch in a huge way to Palestinians, and that Israel is ready and willing to make concessions and compromises. The question is -- are the Palestinians? There was no question from the reception that he got (dozens of standing ovations) that Israel has, and probably always will have, unwaivering support from the U.S.A.


    a big +1. I was even more impressed by his one on one with Hannity



    I'm as impressed with him as I ever was with Reagan. A truly good man.