Obama pulled letter because 'Palestinians' wouldn't go along?
You will note that in the bait and switch post, someone commented that President Obama pulled the deal, because he believed Secretary of State Clinton had been too generous to Israel.During the night, someone emailed me an even more plausible explanation: Obama pulled the deal because the 'Palestinians' were going to say 'no' anyway. That actually makes sense. The administration would not want to negotiate and sign a deal for the 'Palestinians' benefit, and then have them say 'no.'
So does this mean it's over (for now)? Maybe. But Israel ought to be building as much as possible at least in the places and ways we built before the ten-month freeze. (I'd go further and say to go ahead and establish new Jewish towns, but that might tick the Americans off too much if they're not too busy with North Korea).
Heh.
Labels: bait and switch, Jerusalem construction, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Judea and Samaria construction, Palestinian intransigence, settlement freeze extension
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:13 AM
2 Comments:
If the US cannot keep its promises to Israel, let's count our blessings: no deal is far better than a bad deal for Israel. Can we say Hashem works in strange ways? Then we need to offer Him even more thanks for all His help on behalf of Israel, whether its deserving of it or not!
The Arutz 7 story didn't say that the letter had been pulled--halavei--but that the assurances Bibi expected it in had been modified (to de facto conform to Palestinian demands). The theoretical danger is that a letter does come through that calls for an indefinite freeze on building east of the Green line until a deal can be reached on Palestinian terms (with some argy bargy about the planes). Far better that report was wrong and the letter dies a quiet death.
Post a Comment
<< Home