Skip to main content

It's the same old story....

Some are still talking about the outcome of last week's Annapolis Mid-East meeting in positive terms. More sober observers and experts assess the meeting as not much more than a talk-fest and photo-opportunity.

Yet again, post any sort of meeting between the Israelis and the Palestinians, Israel is already flagging where it stands - well, yes, we did agree to try and get some agreement in place by the end of 2008, but it probably won't happen, etc. etc. It's the same old story. Israel just won't step up to the plate in any real meaningful way. Once again the world has been conned and seemingly is prepared to stay mute, certainly publicly, in criticising Israel for fear of being accused of being anti-semitic or anti-Zionist.
isreal.jpost.com [the Jerusalem Post] in a piece "PM won't commit to Annapolis timetable" reports:

"Five days after pledging in Annapolis to try and wrap up an agreement with the Palestinians by the end of 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told the weekly cabinet meting on Sunday that despite the pledge, there was no Israeli commitment to any timetable.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, US President George W. Bush, and PA President Mahmoud Abbas wave after a trilateral meeting wrapping up the Annapolis conference.

"An effort will be made to hold accelerated negotiations in the hope that it will be possible to conclude them in 2008," Olmert said. "However there is no commitment to a specific timetable regarding these negotiations."

Both Livni and Olmert said that from Israel's point of view, the most important aspect of the understanding was that any future agreement would only be implemented after the Palestinians fulfilled their security requirements under the roadmap. "Israel will not have to carry out any commitment stemming from the agreement before all of the road map commitments are met," Olmert told the cabinet."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more