Powered by WebAds

Monday, May 11, 2009

Abdullah: 'Peace now... or war next year'

Abdullah II, the King of Palestine, threatens Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu through a front page article in Monday's Times of London: 'Peace now (on the Arabs' terms) or war next year.'
“What we are talking about is not Israelis and Palestinians sitting at the table, but Israelis sitting with Palestinians, Israelis sitting with Syrians, Israelis sitting with Lebanese,” said the King, who hatched the plan with Mr Obama in Washington last month. He added that, if Mr Obama did not make good his promise for peace, then his credibility would evaporate overnight.

The Israeli Government has so far rejected any moves that would lead to a two-state solution, the creation of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel, but the King insisted that what was being proposed was a “57-state solution”, whereby the Arab and entire Muslim world would recognise the Jewish state as part of the deal.

“We are offering a third of the world to meet them with open arms,” said the King. “The future is not the Jordan river or the Golan Heights or the Sinai, the future is Morocco in the Atlantic and Indonesia in the Pacific. That is the prize.”

As an incentive to Israel to freeze the building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, a key step in any peace process, Arab parties may offer incentives, such as the right for El Al, the Israeli airline, to fly over Arab air space and visas for Israeli tourists to Arab states. Mr Netanyahu told the Israeli Cabinet yesterday, however, that he had no intention of leaving the Golan Heights, which Israel seized from Syria in 1967.

Syria, which only last week was accused by Washington of being a state sponsor of terrorism, presents a huge challenge. The King, who is visiting Damascus today, insisted that the Syrians could be brought in from the cold.
The Obama administration is also ratcheting up the pressure on Netanyahu.

In an interview with ABC television, [National Security Adviser James] Jones [pictured. CiJ] said that the US government agrees with Jerusalem that Teheran's nuclear ambitions pose an "existential threat" to Israel.
"We understand Israel's preoccupation with Iran as an existential threat. We agree with that," the senior official was quoted as saying by AFP.

However, Jones went on to stress that the Iranian threat only reinforces the need for peace in the region.

"By the same token, there are a lot of things that you can do to diminish that existential threat by working hard towards achieving a two-state solution," he reportedly said.

"This is a very strategic issue. It's extremely important. And we're looking forward to having a good, constructive dialogue with our Israeli friends when they visit Washington in the next seven or eight days," Jones said in response to a question about Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's upcoming visit to Washington on May 18.
I want to make sure you understand the total lack of logic here. Jordan may be the last party with an interest in a 'Palestinian state' because the royal family fears that it would lead their own 70% 'Palestinian' population to revolt. The 'Palestinians' ultimate ambition is to take over the entire original 'Palestine mandate,' which includes both Israel and Jordan. Is Abdullah saying this for show?

And the Iranians care not a whit whether or not there is a 'Palestinian' state. They want to destroy Israel regardless. And they have said so. Explicitly.
I've heard that one of them [PM Olmert] recently said that the idea of Greater Israel is dead. I would like to declare that the idea of "smaller Israel" is also dead. The very notion of Israel is dead, but they are lagging behind the times. Just like the idea of Greater Israel died 30 years ago, and they did not realize this, and have continued to perpetrate crimes for 30 years... Today, I say to them: The idea of smaller Israel is dead.
And the 'Palestinians' themselves don't want a state either. First, because their real goal is to destroy the Jewish state. And second because if they had a 'state' they would have to govern it and a revolution has no interest in things like roads and sewers and schools and trash collection.

Other than Obama, who wants a 'Palestinian' state?


At 8:02 AM, Blogger LB said...

"the future is Morocco in the Atlantic and Indonesia in the Pacific. That is the prize."And why do we want that? Israel is far better off than any of those places. They just utilize the backward logic that demonizing Israel in order to keep their people down is better than cooperating with a state from which they will benefit far more than they can give back.

"I want to make sure you understand the total lack of logic here. Jordan may be the last party with an interest in a 'Palestinian state'"It seems like he is repeating his father's mistake in 1967. Fear of his image throughout the world pressures him to confront Israel in a manner that will only cause him to lose.

At 9:20 AM, Blogger NormanF said...

No one. And the terms offered are not worth Israel giving up control over its ancient heartland.

Now, I should mention that with regards to the link I sent Carl on the two-state solution, that I disagree with the author's preferred alternative of a bi-national state. I do not think it would work and the Arabs are not interested in sharing power and land with the Jews. I'm more inclined to favor a Cypriot solution, which is basically swapping land and population to create two ethnically homogeneous entities in the same country. Its about as far as one can get from a two state solution and it requires the Palestinians to understand an Israeli retreat to the 1967 lines will never happen.

The sooner the world comes to terms with reality, the better all sides to the conflict will stand to benefit. And apart from Obama, no serious person thinks a Palestinian state is going to ever be created - certainly not in our lifetime.

At 10:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What? Hussy needs to be cut down to size even more????

At 2:59 PM, Blogger R-MEW Editors said...

Jordan may be the last party with an interest in a 'Palestinian state' because the royal family fears that it would lead their own 70% 'Palestinian' population to revolt.While this is asserted repeatedly on this blog and elsewhere (including presumably by officials in the GOI), I see that the little sand scorpion from TransJordan continues to collect frequent flyer miles traveling around the world with threats and ultimatums if Israel does not yield to a Palestinian state.

It appears that he is very much on board with the notion of deploying a second Palestinian state to ratchet a Jewish state out of the Middle East.

At 4:20 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

The only reason Jordan exists is that the British decided to give a consolation prize (that is, a piece of the post-WW1 Palestine Mandate) to the loser of an Arab power struggle in Arabia.

At 8:40 PM, Blogger NormanF said...

Robert Kaplan thinks Israel needs to be pressured for its own good but then he admits in the same sentence that the conflict would never end even if Israel did compromise with the Palestinians! Talk about a non-sequitur and he is so blinded by his antipathy to Israel that he does not see the contradiction in his own argument.

But that is not the issue I want to address today. Kaplan makes the important point that the Palestinians don't want a state and that is why the two state solution is going to go nowhere. For terrorist groups, its easier to justify statelessness and all its attendant grievances and the benefits that follow from perpetual victimhood than building a state and being held accountable for providing one's own people with a normal life. In other words as Kaplan writes, statelessness is not a means; its perpetuation is the objective.

Do The Palestinians Really Want A State?

Again, ignore the author's antipathy to Israel, for his answer to his own question makes it apparent why a Palestinian state is not in the offing any time soon.


Post a Comment

<< Home