Powered by WebAds

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Netanyahu to insist on right to invade 'Palestinian state' if it is not demilitarized

This is incredible.
IMRA has learned that during the course of a telephone conference briefing today for the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his top political advisor, Ron Dermer, Dermer told the group that Israel would insist it be guaranteed the right to invade the Palestinian state in the even that the state is not demilitarized.

Dermer did not explain either which body Israel would insist grant Israel this right (UN?) nor the mechanism for establishing that the Palestinian state is not demilitarized.

It should be noted that the United States has a long tradition of declining to recognize or certify Arab agreement violations when recognizing the violation would not serve American interests.

During the early years of Oslo, for example, when Congress made PA funding contingent on the issuing of a periodic report that the Palestinians were in compliance, the White House simply lied - in writing - solemnly notifying Congress that the Palestinians were in full compliance.

As Henry Kissinger said to President Richard Nixon back in 1970: "Israel, with her survival at stake, cannot afford to take chances.... The nature of the Israeli's situation is bound to influence their interpretation of ambiguous events. We, on the other hand, have an incentive to minimize such evidence, since the consequences of finding violations are so unpleasant. Violations force us to choose between doing something about them and thus risk the blowup of our initiative; or doing nothing and thus renege on our promises to Israel, posing the threat of her taking military action. Accordingly, we tend to lean over backwards to avoid the conclusion that the Arabs are violating the cease-fire unless the evidence is unambiguous." [Henry Kissinger "White House Years", page 587]
But of course. And you thought declaring that the 'Palestinian' state reichlet would be demilitarized would be the end of the game and not the beginning?

7 Comments:

At 1:20 AM, Blogger Mitchell Wyle said...

Not so incredible. The last time he was in power, Bibi empowered Clinton to judge whether the PLO changed its charter so as not to call for the destruction of the Jewish state. Clinton lied and said the PLO had changed their charter when in fact the PLO had not (and to prove it, they attacked after signing the deal). This time, Bibi said that the USA should guarantee that the new PLO state be demilitarized. the USA would, of course, lie and protect the US-trained and supplied military in the nascent PLO state. The only way to measure if the neighboring state is demilitarized is to have the IDF go in to demilitarize it when they start shooting at Israeli civilians. It makes sense.

 
At 1:36 AM, Blogger Carl in Jerusalem said...

Mitchell,

Well, yes. But what about 'Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.'

What's incredible is that Bibi would even consider doing something like this... again.

 
At 2:46 AM, Blogger Shtuey said...

This is how the game is played, and we all know it. If Bibi says, "no Palestinian state," it becomes a constant distraction from dealing with Iran, and strengthening ties with the Russians, etc. So what has he done? He's laid down restrictions that the Arabs will never accept, and if they did, would never fulfill. This is simply part of that.

If they had a state and attacked Israel, under international law Israel can engage them militarily and blow them back to the Stone Age, or across the Jordan.

He has said no to a Palestinian state without having to say it. In fact, the head banging Arabs, already shouting that they will never accept Israel as a Jewish state, and Abbas predicting a third intifada, are saying no to a Pal state for him.

Let him make more demands I say. Here's a good one. In order to prove he is sincere about peace, Abbas must go on Palestinian TV wearing leiderhosen and sing "I'm a Little Teapot," followed by "Tradition" from "Fiddler on the Roof."

All Bibi has to do is go on TV, like he did today, and say that all Israel wants is to be recognized as a Jewish state, the reason it was founded, created by the UN, and declared as such previously by the League of Nations. He has established the moral argument in Israel's favor. When the Arabs come again with violence it only bolsters Bibi's argument. How can Israel allow for the creation of a state that behaves this way, he will ask?

This has largely been a public relations war and Israel has never been very good at it. Bibi's doing it better than anyone in the past 30 years.

Now he must address this US trained Pal force in Jordan, and make it clear that if it is unleashed against Israel in an attempt to force the creation of a Pal state in Judea and Samaria, the IDF will destroy it.

 
At 4:00 AM, Blogger NormanF said...

That he would empower Obama to decide if the Palestinians broke their agreement?

Oy vey! That's all the reason one needs to see to it a Palestinian state is never established in the first place.

 
At 5:22 AM, Blogger mrzee said...

According to a professor of International Law at Purdue

"International law would not necessarily require Palestinian compliance with pre-state agreements concerning the use of armed force. From the standpoint of relevant norms, enforcing demilitarization upon a state of Palestine would be very problematic. As a fully sovereign state, any preindependence compacts would not legally bind Palestine, even if these agreements were to include fully codified Quartet assurances. Because treaties can be binding only upon states, an agreement between a non-state Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and an authentic sovereign state (Israel) would have little real effectiveness."

http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-palestinian-demilitarization-wont.html

 
At 7:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Words that will come back to haunt us:

"The question is whether in a future settlement, the Palestinians would indeed enjoy self-rule. I, for one, have no desire whatever to rule over even a single Palestinian.

The question is whether we can agree that they have sovereign authority, power that goes beyond self-rule, which every country has. This power would include:"

the right to have full control over borders, through which they could import unlimited arms and solders. States control their own air space – a Palestinian state would have the right to shoot down any Israeli plane overflying it without permission. States have the right to make military alliances with other countries – a Palestinian state would have the right to make such alliances with Syria, Iraq, Libya, ets. States control the water sources underground – a Palestinian state would have the right to control the mountain aquifer which supplies about 30 percent of Israel’s water and most of our drinking water. Even those who support the establishment of a Palestinian state are unwilling under any circumstances to give this power to the Palestinians. But the moment we agree to give them a state, that is exactly what we would be giving them!"

It must be understood that sovereignty has its own power. Even if an agreement limiting certain sovereign rights were signed, within a short time, this Palestinian state would demand to have all these rights and would realize them, whether we agreed or not.

The world would not stand in the way of allowing the Palestinian state to appropriate all this authority, which would give it the power to destroy the State of Israel, but it would stand in our way if we tried to prevent it from realizing these rights."


Who am I quoting? Katzeleh? Moshe Feiglin? Avigdor Lieberman?

No. Guess again.

Eizeh Hu Chacham? Ha'roeh et Ha'nolad. Stupid Jews!

 
At 9:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That "right" was a part of the Oslo debacle, on condition that if the Arabs didn't live up to their agreements, we would have the "right" to renege on ours, and that's in writing. But, when the Arabs didn't live up to their agreements (they haven't adhered to a single one), and we rightly took them to task, the World sided with them every time.

So, what makes anyone, especially Bibi who was a part of that whole fiasco, think that the future will be any different?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google