Israel has hit brick wall, and it’s called isolation

[Violet_Crumble]

October 03, 2011 02:19 AM
By Larry Derfner
The Daily Star


Whenever things take a turn for the worse in Israel, whenever I think the country has become too filled with fear and aggression to ever be ready to make peace, I remind myself: The way we’re going leads to a brick wall, and one day we’re going to run into it. After the pain subsides and we dust ourselves off, we will see that the brick wall is still standing. And at that point, we will have no choice but to change direction.

The brick wall up the road is international isolation to the point of pariah status, together with a continual escalation in severe security threats and no reasonable hope of overcoming them by military force.

Two weeks ago at the United Nations, Israel took another giant step toward that wall. At the same time, by enforcing Israel’s opposition to the Palestinian statehood bid, the United States appears to have dealt itself out of influence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and maybe even in the Middle East as a whole.

Backed by the Republican Party, the American Christian right and the American Jewish right, the Israeli government bent U.S. President Barack Obama too far this time. By blocking the Palestinian drive for statehood, he’s no good to Israel anymore. He’s lost the trust of even a moderate Palestinian leader like Mahmoud Abbas. So he can’t pressure the Palestinians to be more conciliatory, like he could before.

It’s questionable whether he has much sway left with Egypt, Turkey and Jordan, either, whom Israel used to count on as bulwarks against its radical enemies.


http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Commentary/2011/Oct-03/150308-israel-has-hit-brick-wall-and-its-called-isolation.ashx#axzz1ZuERFaKY

[xchrom]

1. interesting. nt

[madrchsod]

2. the israelis have no one to blame but themselves

they voted in their paranoid leadership to protect them from an "enemy" that has laid down their weapons.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mosby]

5. there is a lot wrong with derfners article

But I would like to point out that saying the israelis "voted in their paraniod leadership" is a oversimplification of the election. Fact is livni won the popular vote but the president at the time felt she could not put together a majority coalition so he requested netanyahu to try to put together a majority coalition which he did.

[shira]

7. A Livni/Kadima government (or Labour) wouldn't have recognized Palestine at the UN either...

However, they would have had more leverage than Netanyahu, considering they offered credible peace deals that the PA rejected without countering. Unlike Netanyahu, they're able to genuinely ask what more they could offer for peace. Given the PA's refusal to counter their 2000 and 2008 offers, they'd have good reason to reject statehood.

Then again, that's all Netanyahu needs to point to. Just bring up the past offers that were rejected without a response. I'm pretty certain he wouldn't want to go as far as those proposals but he couldn't lose by going public and demanding why the PA rejected those offers. Get the PA to explain itself on the world stage as to WHY they rejected those offers and be crystal clear as to WHAT they're still expecting Israel to give them...

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Are you going to say what you think is wrong with Derfner's article? n/t

[shira]

9. For one, it's not just rightwing extremists influencing Obama. J-Street opposes the UN bid too. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Are you referring to this sentence?

'Backed by the Republican Party, the American Christian right and the American Jewish right, the Israeli government bent U.S. President Barack Obama too far this time.'

The Israeli government has no time for J-Street. Or have things changed because for once J-Street took a stance they agreed with? What Derfner is saying in that sentence is that the Israeli government pushed Obama too far, not the Republicans, Religious Right, and the American Jewish right did....

[shira]

11. Derfner's wrong. The PA pushed Obama too far....

Obama knows very well the PA is trying to avoid negotiations.

It's why they refused even during the 10 month settlement freeze.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. No, he wasn't wrong. I explained how you misread that sentence...

And the PA holds no influence at all over Obama...

Also, Abbas has said very clearly that he's willing to negotiate. It's a shame he doesn't have an honest partner to negotiate with...

[shira]

13. If Abbas were willing to negotiate, he would have done so at the beginning of the 10 month freeze.

As to having a partner to negotiate with, the fact remains the Israeli right is the only party that can pull off a major deal (Egypt/Sadat, Gaza withdrawal, 10 month freeze).

Lastly, Abbas' PA turned down 2 credible offers in 2000 and 2008 without making any counter-offer whatsoever. Abbas knows he wants more than Israel is willing to give. So for Abbas, negotiations are a dead end. He can't come out publicly and explain very clearly what he wants because he realizes full well that what he wants (including full RoR) will be viewed as unrealistic and that his PA will be seen as the real barrier to a peace deal, not Netanyahu.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. The flaw in that argument is that the same should be applied to Israel...

If Israel were willing to negotiate, it would have done so back in 2005. The fact is that Abbas has stated very clearly and correctly that the PA is willing to enter into good faith negotiations. The current extreme RW Israeli government which continues to expand settlements while bullshitting away about just wanting to talk about peace is not a negotiating partner. It's kind of ironic that the boot's on the other foot now. For years Israel complained and refused to negotiate claiming it had no partner to negotiate with...

I'm not sure how anyone could claim that the '10 month freeze' was a major deal. A major deal with who?

It appears we have a major disagreement on what constitutes a credible offer. In a recent thread you told me that you think it's acceptable for the Palestinians to have merely autonomy over the West Bank and Gaza. I, on the other hand, believe strongly that the Palestinian people have the same right to an independent and viable state of their own as the Israelis have to theirs...

Abbas knows he wants more than Israel is willing to give.

Well, clearly Israel wants to annex large chunks of the West Bank and retain control over other parts. Abbas wants the entire West Bank and Gaza for the Palestinian people. I can see how that can be seen as an utterly selfish move ;)

Speaking of unrealistic, it doesn't seem to bother Israel that them wanting all of Jerusalem as well as taking whatever they want of the West Bank is viewed as unrealistic. Those settlements that Nutty and his gang of RW thugs support are seen as one of the real barriers to any chance of peace or of two viable and independent states emerging...

[azurnoir]

3. So it appears there can indeed be too much of a 'good' thing

the US's pointed moves such as blocking aid including food and medical aid to the Palestinians as punishment for seeking statehood while at the same time murmuring 'gosh your being naughty' to Israel for building yet more settlements, has delegitimized the US's role in the ME as anything but Israel's defender

[Jefferson23]

6. United States neocons have done a great deal of damage, and I'm not discounting the

lobby efforts, not at all, sealing more Congressional Democratic votes in support of the status quo. But their crazy fucking ideas that a military solution will work forever until you attain your goal, along with refusing to see a changing ME surpasses arrogance and stupidity.

I don't expect governments to do the right thing for the right reasons, but maybe finally, this disgraceful occupation will
end sooner than later.