Israel's Netanyahu invites Abbas to the Knesset in UN speech

[Morch]

14 hours ago, coma said:

 

I guess what people like yourself don't realise is that those actions you state above are in fact reactions to a violent and illegal oppression. If you keep kicking them same dog day in,day out someday it will bite you. What else does a dog have as a defense mechanism?

 

The Palestinians are not dogs. They are people. People are usually able to adapt to changing circumstances.

 

The Israeli occupation is wrong, no argument there.

 

To date, resorting to violence achieved little, hardened Israel's position and to a degree, contributed to worsening the Palestinian predicament. Resisting an occupation can take on many forms, not all necessarily violent, and violence not necessarily being the most efficient in achieving goals. The years missed while rejecting compromise and the absence of meaningful non-violent resistance are not coincidental. Rather, they reflect a culture and an ethos, both highlighting certain aspects which hinder peace.

 

This is not offered as a defense of Israel or the Israeli occupation, but as an observation that the Palestinians are responsible, at least to a degree, for their current situation. Rejecting any accountability on their part, is an obstacle for discussing the past, as well as for envisaging a different future.

 

[Morch]

9 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The people who started the violence, both the Palestinian and Jewish terrorists, are all long dead. Why must the youth of Palestine pay for the idiocy of old men of both persuasions? 

 

Because in the real world, one sometimes suffers the consequences (or reaps the benefits) of decisions made by others, long ago. Such is life. This can be compounded if repeating the same, over and over again.

 

 

 

[Morch]

8 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

 

Whilst their relationships with foreign governments are, of course, critically important, the world at large still takes a dim view of the behaviour of Israel. I cannot find a more recent report, but this one from 2013 is telling: 

 

"A poll released Tuesday by the BBC confirms Israel remains one of the world’s least popular countries, with more than half of those surveyed identifying its influence as “mainly negative.” Only North Korea, Pakistan and Iran fared worse."

 

Israel may be pros when it come to schmoozing it up at the UN (and of course, they need to - they must be the world's biggest aid junkies) but the public at large, unencumbered by the niceties of protocol and diplomacy, can let morality and ethics be their guide. 

 

From the same article:

 

Quote

The BBC’s write-up of the survey didn’t offer a precise geographical breakdown of which countries participated in the poll, simply describing respondents as “randomly selected people” in 25 nations.

 

Israelis can hope that certain countries excluded from the study might have performed worse. Participants weren’t asked to express their impressions of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela or Zimbabwe.

 

Israel is far from "being pros when it come to schmoozing it up at the UN" - the OP refers to Netanyahu's criticism regarding the UN's biased treatment of Israel. For an supposedly global organizations, the figures are rather embarrassing. As for "the world's biggest aid junkies" - Israel is not getting significant aid from the UN. The Palestinians, on the other hand, do. May I suggest that certain members would benefit from basing their morality and ethics judgements on firmer factual grounds?

 

 

 

[Morch]

8 hours ago, CharlieK said:

 

And you think Abbas wants to negotiate? now that is naive. 

 

Negotiation entails concessions. Neither Abbas nor Netanyahu are fans of concessions, neither got the political clout to carry such concessions within their respective political systems and public opinion. To make things worse, both are first and foremost concerned with retaining their political power.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, coma said:

 

 

 

Relations between countries are not exactly the relations between leaders, although the latter can somewhat effect the former.

 

 

[Steely Dan]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

The same old.

 

Netanyahu actually gave a pretty good speech, regardless if one agrees with his words or believes them. At least it contained something which could be perceived as optimistic. Some disappointment no props were used. Abbas's address, on the other hand, was basically a repeat of last year's pessimistic speech. Don't know if it was a timing thing or lack of interest, but attendance at both addresses was not impressive. Could be a sign of the times.

 

Netanyahu says an awful lot of things. Then again, he also goes back on his word pretty often. Guess labeling it good or bad is a matter of perspective. I do not believe that he is sincere, nor that he is actually prepared to pay the price peace requires. Inasmuch as he thinks long term (and he doesn't), there is not much future in peace stocks. There could be a combination of circumstances which may push him towards peace, but chances all will converge does seem far-fetched at the moment. IMO, Netanyahu does not have a clear vision as to how the conflict may be resolved, or even how the Israeli occupation can be sustained. He simply manages from one crisis to the next. That's pretty much congruent with the way he handles almost all issues.

 

So, yes, the invitation for Abbas was a gimmick of sorts. Fair enough. l wonder, though, what would have happened if Abbas accepted. Not in the sense that something serious would come out of it, but it could have been an opportunity to put Netanyahu on the spot. Would also have scored Abbas some serious cookie points with international support.

 

 But obviously, Abbas can't accept, domestic politics and Netanyahu being dodgy as they are. Mainly, Abbas seems tired and a little desperate. Things aren't going anywhere with inter-Palestinian reconciliation, the so-called peace process....smells funny, and the international community less involved than expected. Considering his age and political situation, unlikely he'll see the promised land never mind lead his people there.

 

It could be that the inevitable change of leadership would propose new opportunities, but as it stands, it would be a result even if a clone of lackluster Abbas will ascend.

 

As posted on previous topics, despite the number of posts in generates on this forum, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is presently not a top priority issue with regard to most relevant international players. Most are occupied (no pun intended) by matters closer to home or of greater magnitude. These conditions are not going away anytime soon, and IMO this spells more of the same as far as the conflict is concerned. There may be peaks of interest (a diplomatic initiative, a rise in violence levels, another conflagration), but doubt these will materialize as major changes.

 

You made a series of unsubstantiated assertions as to what Netanyahu is or is not. The facts he made in his speech regarding Israeli know how boosting bilateral relations with several nations are indisputable. His recent visit to Africa is to be followed by talks with 17 African nations during the current meet. Relationships with Arab nations are also improving, the Kuwaiti delegation did not walk out on Netanyahu's speech for the first time ever.

 

You can take a jaundiced view on Netanyahu's motives if you like, but a thawing relationship between Israel and her neighbors will put pressure on the Palestinians, especially as regional patience for the Palestinians is wearing thin. Meanwhile as you wrote Abbas offers nothing except lies, historical inversions and whining to a thinning gallery.

[RuamRudy]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Because in the real world, one sometimes suffers the consequences (or reaps the benefits) of decisions made by others, long ago. Such is life. This can be compounded if repeating the same, over and over again.

 

 

 

 

No they must not. I appreciate that Israel excels in collective punishment of Palestinians however the civilised world sees such arbitrary actions as abhorrent; this goes a long way to explaining why the Israeli regime is viewed only marginally more favourably than Pakistan, North Korea and Iran.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Steely Dan said:

You made a series of unsubstantiated assertions as to what Netanyahu is or is not. The facts he made in his speech regarding Israeli know how boosting bilateral relations with several nations are indisputable. His recent visit to Africa is to be followed by talks with 17 African nations during the current meet. Relationships with Arab nations are also improving, the Kuwaiti delegation did not walk out on Netanyahu's speech for the first time ever.

 

You can take a jaundiced view on Netanyahu's motives if you like, but a thawing relationship between Israel and her neighbors will put pressure on the Palestinians, especially as regional patience for the Palestinians is wearing thin. Meanwhile as you wrote Abbas offers nothing except lies, historical inversions and whining to a thinning gallery.

 

Unsubstantiated how?

 

Netanyahu going back on his word, reneging on agreements, backpedaling from statements is a reality. Anyone following Israeli politics will tell you that. As for not willing to pay the price of peace - simply read the OP and the list of things he's unwilling to negotiate. Having a long term "game plan" is, again, a myth. Like most politicians, he reacts to changing circumstances. Not having a clear vision of workable solutions is, again, a fact - no concrete ideas from Netanyahu on that front. His hunger for political power is not debated by anyone.

 

While I think your account of Israel's foreign relations is somewhat optimistic, the same notion does appear in my post: the World got other issues on the "to do" list, and interest in resolving the Palestinians conflict is not a top priority at the moment.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

No they must not. I appreciate that Israel excels in collective punishment of Palestinians however the civilised world sees such arbitrary actions as abhorrent; this goes a long way to explaining why the Israeli regime is viewed only marginally more favourably than Pakistan, North Korea and Iran.

 

I suspect we're referring to different matters.

 

It is not a question of "must". The Palestinians predicament is, in part, a product of decision taken long ago. Some of these decisions were taken by Palestinians, some by others. The Palestinian younger generation can opt to make better decisions, and thereby, change the Palestinian predicament.

 

Repeating the dubious information included in your previous post will not make it any more credible.

 

 

[Steely Dan]

17 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Unsubstantiated how?

 

Netanyahu going back on his word, reneging on agreements, backpedaling from statements is a reality. Anyone following Israeli politics will tell you that. As for not willing to pay the price of peace - simply read the OP and the list of things he's unwilling to negotiate. Having a long term "game plan" is, again, a myth. Like most politicians, he reacts to changing circumstances. Not having a clear vision of workable solutions is, again, a fact - no concrete ideas from Netanyahu on that front. His hunger for political power is not debated by anyone.

 

While I think your account of Israel's foreign relations is somewhat optimistic, the same notion does appear in my post: the World got other issues on the "to do" list, and interest in resolving the Palestinians conflict is not a top priority at the moment.

Yes Netanyahu broke some promises, sure he is Machiavellian and can be opportunistic. In other words he is a politician, a successful one at that. I may be wrong but I do suspect your personal opinion of the man may stop you considering he may just have a plan, or at least the good fortune of being around at the right time. A letter has recently been made public written by Ariel Sharon to the King of Saudi Arabia. Sharon offered the hand of friendship and stated the Saudis could play a key role in bringing about a resolution to the Palestinian issue. The letter was sent shortly before Sharon had a stroke, there was no official answer. If you look you will find evidence of a thaw in relations between Israel and the Arab nations since 2007, hardly short term is it?

 

I suppose a shared enemy in Iran and Obama's dithering incompetence in foreign affairs were the catalyst for this, but as this article observes Netanyahu has beenpp retry successful in sidelining the Palestinian issue. The rejected Olmert offer is something the Palestinians will never see matched or bettered. They and their obsessive supporters will have to get used to it.

 

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/09/23/the-real-middle-east-story/

[Morch]

13 hours ago, Steely Dan said:

 

 

Yes Netanyahu broke some promises, sure he is Machiavellian and can be opportunistic. In other words he is a politician, a successful one at that. I may be wrong but I do suspect your personal opinion of the man may stop you considering he may just have a plan, or at least the good fortune of being around at the right time. A letter has recently been made public written by Ariel Sharon to the King of Saudi Arabia. Sharon offered the hand of friendship and stated the Saudis could play a key role in bringing about a resolution to the Palestinian issue. The letter was sent shortly before Sharon had a stroke, there was no official answer. If you look you will find evidence of a thaw in relations between Israel and the Arab nations since 2007, hardly short term is it?

 

 

 

I suppose a shared enemy in Iran and Obama's dithering incompetence in foreign affairs were the catalyst for this, but as this article observes Netanyahu has beenpp retry successful in sidelining the Palestinian issue. The rejected Olmert offer is something the Palestinians will never see matched or bettered. They and their obsessive supporters will have to get used to it.

 

 

 

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/09/23/the-real-middle-east-story/

 

Netanyahu gives politicians a bad name. Seriously, even his own coalition and party members aren't constantly singing his praises as some here do. The man is in a position of power for years. If he had anything resembling a consistent, realistic plan regarding a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at least its outlines would be public knowledge by now. What we have instead are a series of apparently contradictory statements issued over the years, usually related to specific political needs.

 

I hold that there is quite a gap between Israel's relations with ME countries and the way you portray them. Things change, but the pace is slower, the scope narrower, and like most such things in the ME, fragile. In other words, the cooperation is of humbler dimensions than those alluded to.

 

As for successful (and referencing the linked column), one would have to assume a that Netanyahu's point of view fully represents Israel's, and that it correctly assess the Israeli interest.

 

Quote

Bibi’s successes will not and cannot make Israel’s problems and challenges go away. And finding a workable solution to the Palestinian
question remains something that Israel cannot ignore on both practical and moral grounds.

 

If, as the author writes, resolving the conflict is an Israeli interest, how does sidelining it serves to advance things? The view many hold is that solving the conflict is a zero sum game. If it is good for one side, it must be bad for the other. In reality, things are not that clear cut. Getting "more" in a future agreement, might actually translate in getting "less".

[Ulysses G.]

52 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Netanyahu gives politicians a bad name. Seriously, even his own coalition and party members aren't constantly singing his praises as some here do. 

 

He keeps getting elected somehow.

I do not see here anyone constantly singing his praises. I see a few people putting in a good word for him every once awhile to counter the usual demonizing.

You know a lot more about politics in Israel than I do, but nothing you - or anyone else - has written has convinced me that he is a bad man. As far as I can see, he is doing the best he can in a very convoluted situation.

[Morch]

14 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

He keeps getting elected somehow.

I do not see here anyone constantly singing his praises. I see a few people putting in a good word for him every once awhile to counter the usual demonizing.

You know a lot more about politics in Israel than I do, but nothing you - or anyone else - has written has convinced me that he is a bad man. As far as I can see, he is doing the best he can in a very convoluted situation.

 

He does no get elected in the US sense, there are no direct elections for the PM post in Israel. Governments are always made by coalition with other parties, and are often shaky. For example, up until a few months ago, Netanyahu's coalition was relying on a minimal majority. It is often the case that while able to form a coalition, Netanyahu's approval rating are rather low.

 

Doubt I can be counted as someone "demonizing" Netanyahu. IMO his policies (inasmuch as there are such) with regard to the Israeli Palestinian conflict essentially revolve around delaying tactics. There is little evident effort to address either an outcome or the feasibility of maintaining the occupation. In this, I believe he is acting contrary to Israel's long term interests.

 

Not sure I even know how to relate to the "bad man" reference. The comments made were about his policies, and his conduct within the political context.  

[Ulysses G.]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Doubt I can be counted as someone "demonizing" Netanyahu.

 

I doubt it too. I was referring to the usual suspects. 

[Steely Dan]

 
He does no get elected in the US sense, there are no direct elections for the PM post in Israel. Governments are always made by coalition with other parties, and are often shaky. For example, up until a few months ago, Netanyahu's coalition was relying on a minimal majority. It is often the case that while able to form a coalition, Netanyahu's approval rating are rather low.
 
Doubt I can be counted as someone "demonizing" Netanyahu. IMO his policies (inasmuch as there are such) with regard to the Israeli Palestinian conflict essentially revolve around delaying tactics. There is little evident effort to address either an outcome or the feasibility of maintaining the occupation. In this, I believe he is acting contrary to Israel's long term interests.
 
Not sure I even know how to relate to the "bad man" reference. The comments made were about his policies, and his conduct within the political context.  

Okay so delaying tactics it is then. I'm not disagreeing with that, but let's put things into perspective here. Since Obama became president he wasted no time in facilitating a Muslim brotherhood take over in Egypt. As theArab spring rolled on the ouster of Gadaffi basically opened up the Sahara to Jihaddists and their arms. Withdrawal from Iraq led to chaos and sectarian conflict spreading over into Syria. So throughout Obama's tenure Israel faces a hostile Egypt, arms flooding into Sinai along with Jihaddist groups. To this the potential for a Muslim brotherhood type takeover in Jordan. Then there's the nuclear deal with Iran strongly opposed by Israel and Saudi Arabia. Quite frankly any attempt to allow a contiguous Palestinian territory against such regional chaos would have been madness. Playing for time brought dividends. Morsi was deposed in Egypt, Saudi Arabia started to tackle Jihaddists in Syria. Egypt helped flood Hamas tunnels with sewage.someone is very effectively collapsing Hamas tunnels, twenty two by the last count.

The Arab nations are paying money for Israeli military knowhow and everyday the Arab position towards Israel improves. Latest example, the Saudis have advised Abbas to take up Netanyahu's offer for talks.

http://m.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Saudi-paper-calls-for-Abbas-to-accept-invitation-to-address-Knesset-468767

The ball is now in Abbas's court. Difficult for Abbas to refuse and still part not Netanyahu as the intransigent one.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Morch]

8 hours ago, Steely Dan said:

Okay so delaying tactics it is then. I'm not disagreeing with that, but let's put things into perspective here. Since Obama became president he wasted no time in facilitating a Muslim brotherhood take over in Egypt. As theArab spring rolled on the ouster of Gadaffi basically opened up the Sahara to Jihaddists and their arms. Withdrawal from Iraq led to chaos and sectarian conflict spreading over into Syria. So throughout Obama's tenure Israel faces a hostile Egypt, arms flooding into Sinai along with Jihaddist groups. To this the potential for a Muslim brotherhood type takeover in Jordan. Then there's the nuclear deal with Iran strongly opposed by Israel and Saudi Arabia. Quite frankly any attempt to allow a contiguous Palestinian territory against such regional chaos would have been madness. Playing for time brought dividends. Morsi was deposed in Egypt, Saudi Arabia started to tackle Jihaddists in Syria. Egypt helped flood Hamas tunnels with sewage.someone is very effectively collapsing Hamas tunnels, twenty two by the last count.

The Arab nations are paying money for Israeli military knowhow and everyday the Arab position towards Israel improves. Latest example, the Saudis have advised Abbas to take up Netanyahu's offer for talks.

http://m.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Saudi-paper-calls-for-Abbas-to-accept-invitation-to-address-Knesset-468767

The ball is now in Abbas's court. Difficult for Abbas to refuse and still part not Netanyahu as the intransigent one.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

Well, I'm not one of those seeing Obama as responsible for anything that goes wrong in the Middle East. Criticizing his handling of ME foreign policy might be another matter. IMO, a lot of the mess would have happened regardless of which US administration was in place. As for how things were handled, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and result wise, it would have been "same same but different".

 

Considering Netanyahu's first term in office was 1999-1996, not quite clear as to why Obama's years are used as reference. It is not that Netanyahu turned to delaying tactics following relatively recent developments, but this was pretty much his stance since day one.

 

Quote

So throughout Obama's tenure Israel faces a hostile Egypt

 

Obama's tenure (2009- ), Morsi's tenure, (2012-2013, less than a year). Mubarak was not hostile to Israel, nor is el-Sisi.

 

An "attempt to allow a contiguous Palestinian territory" was not mentioned. There were and there are other ways in which pro-peace efforts could have been advanced over the years. The so-called dividends were not a product of Netanyahu's policies, and noticeably, no mention is made of things such as the 2014 war, or the many ways in which the ongoing occupation is hurting Israel.