Skip to main content

A new paradigm for Israel

It looks like Israel's hard line on just about everything, may come back to bite it on the backside!     The Arab Spring, coupled with the large demonstrations over the last weeks in Israel itself, leaves the country in a bad spot.    Then, add in Turkey effectively breaking off relations with Israel and the protests in Egypt against Israel, and it isn't hard to see why there is a new paradigm afoot for Israel itself and in the region. 

From The Telegraph [UK]:

"But, with alarming speed, all these gains now seem in jeopardy, leaving Israel terrified that the jungle is creeping back once more. This month has already proved one of the most nettlesome in Israel’s recent history – with worse to come before it is over, as the Palestinian leadership heads to the United Nations with a potentially explosive application for statehood."

At The Electronic Intifada:

"We are all going to be invited to the funeral of the two-state solution if and when the UN General Assembly announces the acceptance of Palestine as a member state.

The support of the vast majority of the organization’s members would complete a cycle that began in 1967 and which granted the ill-advised two-state solution the backing of every powerful and less powerful actor on the international and regional stages.

Even inside Israel, the support engulfed eventually the right as well as the left and center of Zionist politics. And yet despite the previous and future support, everybody inside and outside Palestine seems to concede that the occupation will continue and that even in the best of all scenarios, there will be a greater and racist Israel next to a fragmented and useless bantustan.

The charade will end in September or October — when the Palestinian Authority plans to submit its request for UN membership as a full member — in one of two ways."


Finally, Haaretz in "New Mideast will make Netanyahu long for Oslo Accords":

"An article - more accurately, a warning letter - published by Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal in The New York Times yesterday, says that Obama doesn't have the option of sitting on the fence without ripping his trousers.

A former director of Saudi Arabia's intelligence services and a former Saudi ambassador to London and Washington, al-Faisal warns the American president that vetoing the proposal to recognize Palestine in the Security Council would cause substantial damage to American-Saudi relations.

He threatens that Saudi Arabia would turn its back on the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The prince proposes turning the Oslo paradigm into a regional peace, on the basis of the Saudi peace initiative that became the Arab peace initiative.

The Israeli intelligence community assesses that progress in the peace process is the best remedy for Israel's cooling relations with its neighbors. Similarly, al-Faisal writes that an American veto would empower Iran and threaten regional stability and America's interests in the Middle East.

Two of the forum of eight senior cabinet ministers, Defense Minister Barak and Minister Dan Meridor, are familiar with the gloomy forecast by al-Faisal, who chairs the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies (a cover for anti-Global Jihad activity).

They know that opening immediate negotiations over a final-status agreement with the Palestinian state as part of a regional process is the only responsible, realistic and sane alternative to the Oslo Accords. One wonders - how do these two sleep at night?"










Comments

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...

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...

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...