Powered by WebAds

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Of course: Israel's biggest corruptocrat ever favors 'Palestinian' unilateralism

Former Prime Minister Ehud K. Olmert will do just about anything to harm the State of Israel's security out of bitterness at the way his political career ended. 'Anything' includes anything that benefits the 'Palestinians.' So it's not very surprising that he has told a reporter for Peter Beinart's 'Open Zion' blog (which I will not link because I will not give the Jewish anti-Zionists the traffic) in a manner 'intended for publication' that he prefers to reward the 'Palestinians' at the United Nations for their refusal to even negotiate with his successor, rather than making them sit down and negotiate with Israel.
"I see no reason to oppose it. Once the United Nations will lay the foundation for this idea, we in Israel will have to engage in a serious process of negotiations, in order to agree on specific borders based on the 1967 lines, and resolve the other issues," the Beast quoted Olmert as saying.
Actually the so-called 'two-state solution' has been very much in vogue since 1993, and it never got anywhere because of the 'Palestinian' refusal to compromise on anything, to stop terrorism, and to stop training their children to be terrorists.
"It is time to give a hand to, and encourage, the moderate forces  amongst the Palestinians. Abu-Mazen [PA President Mahmoud Abbas] and [PA Prime Minister] Salam Fayyad need our help. It's time to give it,” Olmert added, according to the report. 
Moderation is all relative, but what 'moderate' forces among the 'Palestinians'? Abu Mazen, the financier of the Munich Olympic massacre? Abu Mazen, who bragged that he has never made a single compromise about what he views as 'Palestinian rights'? Abu Mazen, who got his 'doctorate' from a Russian university by writing a thesis that claimed that the Holocaust never happened? Abu Mazen, whose term in office expired in January 2009, and who is now going on four years of dictatorship? Abu Mazen, who insists that he will never compromise on the 'right of return' for 'Palestinian refugees' - which is code for destroying the Jewish state (which he doesn't accept) from within?

Or Salam Fayyad, the unelected, powerless bureaucrat, who has no following (and in fact is reviled by most 'Palestinians'), and whose idea of compromise is burning Israeli goods and boycotting Israeli products to make sure that the people for whose economic welfare he is purportedly responsible have nothing? Fayyad, who gives away 60% of his aid money every month to pay Hamas terrorists in Gaza?

So with which 'moderates' are we to 'compromise' and whom are they bringing with them to the table? What 'compromises' are they offering? In 19 years of 'negotiating,' I have never seen a 'Palestinian' concession put on the table - only Israel negotiating against itself.

Meanwhile, there are actually Israeli officials out there who believe that winning his fight in the UN will make Abu Bluff more flexible... or at least flexible enough to come back to the table.
Opinion in Jerusalem was split over whether Abbas would offer to negotiate with Israel after the resolution was passed.
While some diplomatic officials argued that this “victory” would give Abbas the “ladder” to “come off the tree and back to the negotiating table,” others argued that Abbas’s comments to the effect that he would negotiate with Israel after the resolution was passed were made only to win the votes of the Europeans.
They said that PA spokesmen had already repeated their preconditions of a complete settlement freeze before talks can begin, something Israel has long rejected.
Are the Europeans stupid, mendacious or both?

And by the way, Olmert may yet be a Knesset candidate, where he will have at least as much impact as his old friend Tzipi Livni

What could go wrong?

Labels: , , , , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Google