Norwegian foreign minister says world won't bankroll 'Palestinian state building' forever
Does the 'international community' seriously believe that the morning after - God forbid - there is a 'Palestinian state,' that 'state' will be economically viable? It sure sounds like it from this interview with Norwegian Foreign Minister
Espen Barth Eide, who currently chairs the 'Palestinian donor conference.'
Both the Palestinians and Israel should know that the world will not bankroll
Palestinian Authority state-building forever, and that if progress is not made
the donations will stop, Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide told The
Jerusalem Post Tuesday.
“The donors will not be ready to keep funding
Palestinian state-building much longer if we are not seeing a political
horizon,” said Eide.
Norway heads the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee, which is
the international group of donors scheduled to meet next month in New York on
the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting.
Eide said it was
important for both sides to know – as they have just restarted negotiations –
that the world was not willing to provide a blank check.
“I think this is
important for the Palestinians to know, because if anyone there thought they
could sort of just fall back to the comfort of an internationally subsidized
state-building endeavor, that may be wrong,” he said in an interview. “And I
think that it is important for some people on the Israeli side – living in
reasonable comfort [given] that cooperation with the pseudo-state in the West
Bank is quite good – to know that this cannot continue forever.”
So if the 'international community' decides that there is no hope of there ever being a 'Palestinian state,' they will cut off all their financial support? Then why are we at the table?
And if 'international community' believes they're not going to have to support the 'Palestinians' forever (as they have done for the last 65 years) once there is a 'Palestinian state,' why are the 'Palestinians' at the table? After all, in the 20 years since Oslo, the 'Palestinians' have shown absolutely zero interest in economic development or the kinds of activities that go into running a state on a day-to-day basis like roads, sewers, water supply etc.
The 'international community' has to understand that just like the United States has been propping Egypt up economically for the 36 years since Camp David - because otherwise why would they keep to the peace treaty - the 'international community' is signing on to support the 'Palestinians' in perpetuity. The day that the 'Palestinians' stop being bribed to live in peace will be the day that they stop living in peace.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Espen Barth Eide, Norway, Palestinian Authority donors, two-state solution
Barry Rubin responds to Norway
In Sunday's JPost,
Barry Rubin responds to the attacks on him by Norway's
Foreign Minister and
Deputy Foreign Minister.
The Norwegian government and media establishment is not ready to have an honest discussion of these issues. Instead, my article was misrepresented in order to stir up a frenzy that closed ears and shut eyes to what I was saying. Indeed, the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet falsely claimed that I had endorsed the terrorist attack there. Not a single Norwegian reporter or editor made any attempt to contact me since the beginning of this issue to hear my side or to ask my views.
How’s that for constructive dialogue and healing? The blog Israel Matzav sums up my position very well: “Rubin said that this terror attack, committed by a ‘normal Norwegian boy’ [not my words] ought to make Norwegians do some introspection about their government’s support for terror organizations like Hamas. Is Norway giving its youth the wrong message through its support for Hamas? Why is Norway not even willing to ask itself that question?” And the Norwegian reaction is to reiterate – as its ambassador to Israel portrayed his country’s view – that there is a rational reason to murder Israeli children (“occupation,” despite the fact that Israel has withdrawn from all of the Gaza Strip and much of the West Bank, and indicated its readiness to accept a Palestinian state 11 years ago), but not to murder Norwegian children. In other words, one can only discuss the evil Norwegian terrorist in the parameters laid down by the Norwegian Left. One can talk endlessly about how his specific ideology – right-wing, allegedly Christian, and Islamophobic – but not the way he fits into a much wider pattern of rising terrorism in general.
Read the whole thing.
UPDATE 1:59 AMA fuller, unedited version of this article appears
here.
Labels: Anders Behring Brievik, Barry Rubin, Espen Barth Eide, Jonas Gahr Store, Oslo bombing, Oslo syndrome, Utoya massacre
Norway's Deputy Foreign Minister appeals for 'healing'... by attacking Rubin and Glick
In a comment in Friday's JPost, Norway's Deputy Foreign Minister, Espen Barth Eide, has appealed for 'healing' in the aftermath of Norway's terror attacks two weeks ago. But he has done so with a
vicious attack on Barry Rubin (mostly) and Caroline Glick.
Many Norwegians, however, have been astonished by assertions recently made in The Jerusalem Post by two of its regular columnists, Barry Rubin and Caroline Glick.
For example, Barry Rubin wrote on Monday that “...the youth camp he attacked was engaged in what was essentially... a pro-terrorist program.”
According to Rubin, the camp was “justifying forces that had committed terrorism against Israel” by advocating an end to the blockade of Gaza and recognition of a Palestinian state.
Barry sounds exactly right to me. Of course, Barth Eide omits the fact that Fatah terrorists have participated in the Utoya camp for the last fifteen years. But leaving that aside, how else does one characterize the advocacy at Utoya camp of
employing BDS against Israel in a bid to 'convince' it to remove its lawful blockade of an area from which thousands of rockets have been fired at it over the last ten years? Is that not supporting free access (and free access to weapons) for terrorists?
Rubin even implicitly blamed Norway’s Middle East policy for the attacks in Norway. He wrote, “If terrorist murders by Hamas and Islamists did not stop well-intentioned future leaders of Norway from considering them heroic underdogs, an evil local man could think his act of terrorism would gain sympathy and change Europe’s politics.”
This was, Rubin claimed, an example of the “Oslo Syndrome” whereby rewarding terrorists with political gains promotes more terrorism.
In other words, Rubin said that this terror attack, committed by a '
normal Norwegian boy' ought to make Norwegians do some introspection about their government's support for terror organizations like Hamas. Is Norway giving its youth the wrong message through its support for Hamas? Why is Norway not even willing to ask itself that question?
Rubin and Glick have also made much of the supposed statements by Norwegian Ambassador Svein Sevje to Ma’ariv, according to which he distinguished between the motivation behind terrorism in Israel and in Norway. Glick and Rubin are not alone in doing so. Several other Israeli media have latched on to this as well.
On this point, of course, it was not Glick or Rubin who was at fault. The ambassador was incorrectly quoted by Ma’ariv. He did not compare the motivation behind different terrorist attacks; he simply tried to answer a question about whether the terrorist attacks in Norway would change perceptions of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. He stated that many Norwegians see the conflict in Israel and the Palestinian territory in the context of the occupation and religious extremism, and that this view would probably not change after the events in Oslo and on Utoeya.
Funny that he hasn't quoted Glick yet. But let's look at what the Norwegian ambassador to Israel
actually said:
Svein Sevje said in an Israeli newspaper interview Tuesday that while the Norwergian bomb and gun rampages that killed 76 people and Palestinian attacks should both be considered morally unacceptable, he wanted to "outline the similarity and the difference in the two cases."
Palestinians, the ambassador told Maariv, "are doing this because of a defined goal that is related to the Israeli occupation. There are elements of revenge against Israel and hatred of Israel. To this you can add the religious element to their actions."
"In the case of the terror attack in Norway, the murderer had an ideology that says that Norway, particularly the Labor Party, is forgoing Norwegian culture," Sevje said, referring to suspect Anders Breivik, a Christian nativist who is opently anti-Islam and anti-immigration.
Whether the Maariv reporter (and I hope the reporter will come forward with a recording of the interview) misquoted Norwegian ambassador to Israel Svein Sevje, remains to be seen. But if the ambassador was misquoted, isn't it odd that it has taken from Tuesday, July 26 (the date of the interview) to Friday August 5 for someone to claim that he was misquoted? If he was misquoted, why was this allowed to stew for ten days? Maybe because it took the Norwegian Foreign Ministry ten days to think of that excuse?
But Barth Eide's gloss shows that he completely does not get what offended Israelis about Sevje's statements. Let's look at Barth Eide's explanation again.
He did not compare the motivation behind different terrorist attacks; he simply tried to answer a question about whether the terrorist attacks in Norway would change perceptions of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. He stated that many Norwegians see the conflict in Israel and the Palestinian territory in the context of the occupation and religious extremism, and that this view would probably not change after the events in Oslo and on Utoeya.
In other words, what Sevje really meant is that Norwegians will continue to sympathize with 'Palestinian' terrorism despite the fact that they have now experienced terrorism themselves up close and personal. Are we Israelis supposed to take solace in the fact that this is what Sevje really meant and not that Breivik's motivation differed from Hamas' motivation? Really?
What Barth Eide ought to do is to say that Norway will conduct some self-examination and consider how its own actions might have contributed to the perception of a 'normal Norwegian boy' that terrorism was an okay way to deal with those with whom one disagrees. That introspection ought to start with an examination of Norway's policies of support for Hamas and the 'Palestinian Authority.'
But of course, none of that will happen. Norwegians are holier than we are and they never make mistakes. Just ask any representative of the Norwegian Foreign Ministry.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Anders Behring Brievik, Barry Rubin, Caroline Glick, Espen Barth Eide, Jonas Gahr Store, Svein Sevje
