Skip to comments.Finally, Harsh Realism from Israel
Posted on 04/05/2009 11:54:21 PM PDT by Seeing More Clearly Now
IF AVIGDOR LIEBERMAN'S first speech as Israel's new foreign minister did nothing else, it certainly vexed the media.
The AP called it a "scathing critique of Mideast peace efforts" that had diplomats "cringing," while other reports said Lieberman had "dropped a political bombshell," "sparked an uproar," "repudiated a key accord," and "reinforced fears." The NY Times pronounced Lieberman's remarks "blunt and belligerent," describing the foreign minister as a "hawkish nationalist" ..."Israeli official hits peace efforts," "Lieberman dumps peace deal."
But the headlines were wrong, as anyone can ascertain by reading Lieberman's short address. Far from disparaging peace, Israel's new foreign minister called for pursuing it with the respect and realism it deserves. And far from "dumping" agreements entered into by his predecessors, he explicitly committed himself to upholding the Roadmap - a step-by-step blueprint to a "two-state solution" adopted by Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the international Quartet...in 2003.... It is time, Lieberman is saying, for Israel to stop genuflecting to a feckless and counterproductive "peace process" and to return instead to the pre-Oslo policy of deterrence. "The fact that we say the word 'peace' 20 times a day will not bring peace any closer," he noted. It only makes Israel seem weak and irresolute... "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace," affirmed President George Washington in his first address to Congress...perhaps the world would more clearly understand the nature of Israel's enemy if the media weren't forever fanning moral outrage at the Mideast's only bulwark of freedom and democracy... There is no appeasing such hatred, and demonizing those who say so will not change that fact. "If you want peace, prepare for war." How refreshing to hear an Israeli leader say so.
Jeff Jacoby can be reached at email@example.com.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
The more horrific the atrocities radical Islamic terrorists commit against the peaceful people of Israel, the more the media have been conditioned to keep urging Israel to give yet more land and more concessions - in short to commit national suicide, rather than to defend itself.
As Jacoby says: “If Lieberman is as good as his word - and if he is backed up by Benjamin Netanyahu, the new prime minister - we may finally see an end to Israel’s fruitless attempts to buy peace with ever-more-desperate concessions and retreats. Under Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, Israel surrendered the entire Gaza Strip, released hundreds of arrested terrorists, and even offered to divide Jerusalem with the Palestinian Authority. “But none of these far-reaching measures have brought peace,” said Lieberman. “To the contrary.” The steeper the price Israel has been willing to pay for peace, the more it has been repaid with violence: suicide bombings, rocket attacks, kidnapped and murdered soldiers, and wars with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.”
bump to a good column...
Hey Marine, I hear you have a new website. Tried to go there, but was not able.
A Navy Vet
God bless the Israelis. They seem to be the ONLY ones left in this world with a brain!!!
I especially loved this quote; “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace,” affirmed President George Washington in his first address to Congress..
If only the people of this nation understood that. Peace is not gained through weakness. In weakness it is all but assured that a threat caused by someone possessing greed, hunger for power, and a determination to rule over that weak nation will rise — whether from inside, or from outside the nation.
That is not PEACE. In fact, it leads to some of the WORST massacres our world has ever seen...
Kinda sums up McLames campain!
Didn’t think of that, but you are definitely right!
The peace of the grave. That's what the left seeks for US.
Oslo. Hmmm. Oslo. Where did that junk bond come from?
First Clintoon sent the war room to UK to elect Toni "I am a Socialist and will not retract" Blair. Then he sent Carville and the boys to elect Ehud Barak PM in Israel in 1999. Clinton was running out of time. Within the 18 months Barak was PM, they all connived to give away half of Israel to Yassir Arafag. They called it the Oslo Accord.
I wonder if Israel ever had a plan to overthrow the US Government, its not like other nations don’t do it all the time.
I can just imagine the Mossad greeting Obama in the Oval room.
Liberals start wars, and Conservatives finish them.
That is the way of history.
The problem is in the past the politicians who take a realistic line say one thing at the polls and then once they get in power, buckle under the weight of international pressure to cave in the Arabs and give them everything they desire, and if not you’re the bad guy. This time after two wars which came as a direct result of unilateral moves for “peace,” pulling out of the buffer zone in Lebanon and then pulling out of Gaza, we got a government that has some backbone. Lieberman himself may not be around that long since he’s under investigation for corrupt dealings. The Israeli laws are much tougher than the US. Obama would have been in trouble here for his house deal. But he’s got Uzi Landau in his party to step in, for one. And the ruling Likud has been strengthened by the return of Benny Begin, the son of Menachem. Should be a good government.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
The Accords were wrapped-up in Oslo, Norway on 20 August 1993, and subsequently officially signed at a public ceremony in Washington D.C. on 13 September 1993 in the presence of PLO chairman Yasser Arafat, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and US President Bill Clinton, with Mahmud Abbas signing for the Palestine Liberation Organization, foreign Minister Shimon Peres for the State of Israel, Secretary of State Warren Christopher for the United States and foreign minister Andrei Kozyrev for Russia.
While Clinton was very happy to participate, the architects of the Oslo madness were Israeli leftists lead by Yossi Beilin. In that case they did not need an outsider to screw the Israel, they did it themselves.
bump for a good leader. I’ve been waiting for many years for Lieberman to be empowered.
Finally, harsh realism from Israel
Boston Globe | 4/5/09 | Jeff Jacoby
Posted on 04/05/2009 3:40:32 AM PDT by MartinaMisc
OK. Olso went nowhere until Clinton, Blair (elected 1997) and Barak (elected 1999) teamed up to pull it out of the trash can. Barak lasted 18 months. It was a last ditch effort by Clinton before he left office, his desired "legacy".
President Hussein Obama likes the pro Mohammedan Oslo. Bibi likes Bush's roadmap.yitbos
I have no love lost for Clinton, but lets clarify the facts. What Oslo did is to bring to the West Bank and Gaza Arafat with his gangsters. They were absent from there before Oslo. It was Israel’s own leftists idiocy that Clinton gladly milked. When you are talking about the trash can - what do you mean? That it produced nothing good? Then yes. That it accomplished nothing before the last ditch effort with Barak - then No, I disagree. It already changed positions on the ground: vastly and irrevocably.
Bibi’s leadership only slowed it down (he caved in a few times as well, remember?), and later Barak put more life in it. But it was the tsunamic change of having Arafat with his gangsters as a partner in a first place that changed the game from 1993 on.
It accomplished no peace.
On to The Roadmap.
Would make a good movie and or documentary.
We are definitely on the same side of the barricades. But somehow the point that I am trying to make is getting missed.
Its easy to blame Clinton and all others who were giddy in pushing Israel into more and more appeasement. But the ultimate responsibility rests with the Israel’s Left.
Oslo accomplished nothing positive. But what Oslo did is changed drastically and irrevocably the balance of powers. Before Oslo, Arafat was marginalized and stopped being a primary player. The hope for future was (IMHO of course) in economic development of Arabs (Palestinians) living under the Israeli control. Because Arab countries refused to negotiate with Israel and take responsibility for these Arabs, the hope was that living and working side-by-side with Jews they, Palestinians, will recognize the benefits of peace versus damages of war. As it was, the rates of improvement for Palestinian Arabs from 1967 to beginning of 90th was higher than for any other Arabs, as well as access to medical care and education; and their GDP was second only to the oil rich Arab states.
The local governments while not outright friendly to Israel were wise and balanced enough to recognize the benefits they were getting. The personal safety of travel for jews and arabs throughout was ok. (all of this I recall from reading on the situation - I admit that I look from the outside, but there was no shortage of information back then).
All of this could lead to a very slow improvement and slow progress. Nothing is ever is given, but the optimism was in seeing Arabs recognizing personal economic benefits from peaceful coexistence.
Everything was shattered by Israel’s Left that wanted quick Utopian solutions. They came up with nothing better than hiring gangsters to control that level of hostilities that existed back then. As I recall, there was a rush of Arabs of getting Israeli citizenship to avoid being subjects of PA rule (those who had an opportunity to do it). Many local mayors were outright hostile to newcomers from Tunisia. Armed gangsters took over. Arafat was talking in English one thing and in Arabic the opposite. Palestinian society was radicalized, and kids education became nothing but brainwashing in hate.
I was catuosly hopeful before Oslo that after a generation will grow in peace and economic cooperation between Arabs and Jews, a final settlement will become possible.
Not after the Oslo. While Israel has grown a generation in multicultural PC, Palestinians brought up a generation that knows nothing but hate. A bad situation with some hope became worse with much less hope. And Oslo was that seismic event that worsen the situation. All continuing appeasement on the part of Clinton and Barak were just logical steps that were made possible by Oslo, not another way around.