Lieberman: 'Concessions invite war'
Here's another article on Avigdor Lieberman's speech at the foreign ministry handover ceremony today, highlighting another quote: 'Concessions invite war' (Hat Tip: Memeorandum). Israel's new hard-line foreign minister has said he opposes his predecessor's peace talks with the Palestinians over the past year and warns that making concessions will only invite war.But his predecessor - opposition leader Tzipi Livni - was there and she actually interrupted his speech with heckling.
Avigdor Lieberman delivered his criticism during a handover ceremony at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem. It was his first speech since taking office.
Livni offered a brief but pointed reaction to Lieberman's speech.CBS also reported that Israeli diplomats 'shifted uncomfortably' at Lieberman's speech.
"This speech proved that I did the right thing when I did not join the government," Livni said.
But can anyone really argue that he is incorrect?
Sharon ... believed that the military pullout from the entire Gaza Strip would convince the Gazans of our goodwill. Their perception, though, was different. "Israel retreated because it was defeated by us," a Hamas spokesman said, "therefore let's intensify our battle, and we'll destroy the Zionist entity."Meanwhile, CBS reports that Tony Blair has been channeling Chicken Little:
Middle East envoy Tony Blair said Wednesday the peace process was in jeopardy and Israel must fully support the goal of living in peace next to an independent Palestinian state.To date, the 'process' has never moved forward so it has no place to which to slip back. Israel has been negotiating against itself for the last 15 years. Maybe that will now change.
He said a period of political inactivity caused by Israeli elections and the change of U.S. administration has harmed the peace process. The hiatus coincided with the launch of Israel's Gaza offensive in December to try to halt years of rocket fire at Israeli towns and cripple Hamas.
"We face a situation of very great jeopardy for the peace process" in 2009, said Blair after talks at EU headquarters with Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU external relations commissioner.
"We need a combination of strong political negotiations toward a two-state solution and major change on the ground."
"The next six months actually will be completely critical in determining whether this process can move forward or whether it will slip back," he added.
Israel has no signed agreements that require it to fulfill Blair's edict that Israel "must fully support the goal of living in peace next to an independent Palestinian state." While the Olmert-Livni-Barak government had made that commitment, they did not do so in a document that binds the State of Israel. And that commitment got them nothing in return. It's time for a new approach. And it may be time for real negotiations rather than one Israeli concession followed by another while the 'Palestinians' give nothing.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:21 PM
16 Comments:
Negotiations over anything should only start once Israel's enemies surrender. Officially. On paper. Israel should never have accepted cease-fires with its neighbors - after beating them into crying to the UN, the govt. should have forced Syria, Egypt, etc to surrender. Only then can fruitful talks about whatever the future may be can be, well, fruitful. Otherwise why did so many lose their lives - if all we're going to do is repeat this all over again...?
I think Lieberman made the point that Israel was more popular after the Six Day War not after Oslo A, B, C and D. Weakness invites contempt for Israel. Its not just Lieberman who holds the view. His boss does and so does Moshe Yaalon and Uzi Landau. Israel has a government of realists. There's hardly anything extreme or radical about it; its very mainstream and it disconcerting to a lot of foreign governments who have seen Israel conduct itself with jello for the past 15 years or so. That may change. We'll to wait and see.
The irony here is that he's talking more like the Rebbe than religious Jews do. But I'll take what I can get. He is right about that.
"Negotiations over anything should only start..." -- LB
No. As the Rebbe said, even talking about setting up a meeting to explore the possibility of negotiating concessions invites more demands from the nations.
No concessions! no negotiations!
Because the more we concede, the more Jews will be at risk of being murdered, and the more Jews will suffer everywhere. We won all the wars we fought with them. We need to be the ones making the rules.
Why is it so hard to understand? Just look at what concessions and negotiations have accomplished? NOTHING but suffering for everyone involved.
And, Norman F, 15 years is way to short a time. The Rebbe was talking about this over 30 years ago, so it's been going on for a very long time, just so slow at first that it wasn't noticed the way it should be today. I say 'should be' because still so many Jews refuse to see the obvious and continue to believe that they can buy off the demons with stuff they hate, like freedom, peace, prosperity, material posessions, etc., etc.
Ytba, the "peace process" has become an idol to which Israeli governments genuflect. What's been murdered in Israel is justice. As the Hebrew Prophets stressed, true peace can only be realized in the presence of justice. Uprooting thousands of Jews from their homes is an act of injustice and running away from the Jewish homeland will never bring peace about. As long as Israel's leaders do not face up to this elementary truth, peace will be forever beyond their reach.
ytba - I think you've misunderstood me. My point was not negotiations - but that Israel be a true victor before we can talk about anything. I did not advocate concessions or negotiations.
This is true because of empirical facts, not because of the importance of anyone who said so.
@LB
OK, but victors don't "negotiate" with those who have surrendered. If we shouldn't do it before we have won, why would we want to even after? And, yes, if all we ever do is keep repeating the same deadly mistakes over and over, what's the point? But the only "talks" we should have with them after we have decisively won (probably not till after Moshiach) are where we tell them what they need to do to satisfy our demands, even if it's only to tell them to shut up and be happy with what they have.
@NormanF
RE "peace process" - yes. As much as I say that, the only people who listen are those who already agree. The hardest to talk about it with are Israelis, who seem like they are hypnotized or something. They talk as if they know all the facts when all they are doing is repeating a lot of Leftist propaganda. And that's even some of the ones who actually do know the current policies are nuts. Very frustrating.
@LB
"This is true because of empirical facts, not because of the importance of anyone who said so."
I assume you are saying I shouldn't be using an "appeal to authority?" But the "logical fallacy" objection doesn't apply if the authority really is one. I mean, when we have a question of Halachah, we go to our Rav. This is a question of Halachah. The Rebbe was the Nassi HaDor. Your objection doesn't apply in this case.
@ytba - regarding appeal to authority. I'm sorry, but we're going to have to agree to disagree - there is just no way you will convince me that he was nessi hador, nor that arguing like that is valid (not to mention fruitful), nor that one should ever accept authority blindly.
As to Nassi HaDor, it was all the other big Rabbis who came to him for Brachos.
Also, w/r to the "empirical facts" you mention, the Rebbe was telling us that "Concessions invite war" long before those "empirical facts" proved that the Rebbe did indeed know what he was talking about. In fact, he was right about everything he said, including Shamir, who's government the Rebbe brought down for Shamir's going to Madrid for "talks" (and, of course, concessions) which the Rebbe specifically told him NOT to do. I'd like to see anyone but the Nassi HaDor pull off something like that.
@LB
"...nor that one should ever accept authority blindly."
You are absolutely right! Don't ever accept any authority blindly (as long as the choice is up to you as it sometimes unfortunately isn't). But with the empirical facts all pointing to the Rebbe's authority being valid, it wouldn't hurt to investigate the matter, and not blindly dismiss it without careful scrutiny. I mean, he wasn't ever wrong about what should be done, or what would happen if we did the wrong things. And he was the only one with a perfect track record. That's just not natural.
Gotta go. Good Night.
Does anyone out there know if Lieberman speaks English? And if he does, is it fluent enough for talking to diplomats and the international media. I can't find anything on YouTube. We simply can't have bumbling fools like the last 2 - Peretz and Livni.
RE - Livni's uncouth heckling. Keep it classy, sore loser!
@Ashan - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMchwdXh4vo
can't hear too well, but his english is definitely far better than the last FM under Bibi.
I'm curious to how his talks with the Russians, in Russian, might affect the issue of Iran.
Ashan,
Lieberman is fluent in English.
I normally leave Carl with the last word but a important subject has to be introduced into this thread: world expectations of Israel and the odd expectation negotiations must result in a Palestinian state no matter what. What's the point of negotiations if the Palestinians to get what they want, without even having to meet Israel half-way? Paul of Powerline argues that Bibi's first elementary duty is to Israel and not to the international community.
Put Country First
There's lots more. Read it all.
Thanks for the answers about Lieberman's English. I feel a lot better now. >whew<
Post a Comment
<< Home