First of all, does Barack Obama really want to cast aspersions on anybody else's "credibility"? Particularly on any aspect of Middle East policy? And second, does anybody seriously believe that he gives one leaf off Isaiah's fig tree about Bibi's or Israel's credibility after six and a half years of relentlessly, ferociously maligning it?:
Barack Obama criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's stance on establishing a Palestinian state, saying that it hurts Israel's credibility.
Obama made his comments during an interview that aired Tuesday on Israel's Channel 2 TV station, saying that Netanyahu has "so many caveats, so many conditions, that it is not realistic to think that those conditions would be met any time in the near future."
The president added that "the danger here is that Israel as a whole loses credibility."
Well, now, Barry, that depends on who's judging that credibility, doesn't it? Where's the "credibility" in a "peace process" that has been going on for a quarter of a century without any peace? Where one side is expected to make all the concessions and take all the risks while the other side gets to make blustering threats and launch missile and terrorist attacks with impunity without any accountability or cessation of Western diplomatic and financial support? Where the one side is bitterly condemned and vilified for defending itself from said attacks? This is the most stacked, one-sided, lopsided, ludicrously unfair screwjob in modern history, Barry. Hardly "credible".
But then he did call himself "the first Jewish president," so I guess he's the "credibility" authority.
Mr. Netanyahu, by gaping contrast, is overflowing with that particular commodity precisely by virtue of calling the "peace process" the mockery of justice it's always been:
At the end of Netanyahu's March campaign, the Israeli prime minister said that he would not allow for a Palestinian state to be established if he were re-elected.
However, he seemed to walk back those comments later that month, after winning re-election, saying that he is open to new peace talks with Palestine, but it would require recognizing a "Jewish state and real security in order to have a realistic two-state solution."
Netanyahu added that "to make it achievable, then you have to have real negotiations with people committed to peace ... it's time we saw the pressure on the Palestinians to show that they are committed too."
That's not "walking back" anything; it's stating a self-evident fact. The Israelis are perfectly willing to live in peace next to neighbors that are willing to live in peace with them - the Camp David peace accords with Egypt and the stable relationship they have with Jordan are two indelible examples of it. What they are not willing to do is commit national suicide to play their part in an "international" pro-Islamist fantasy - or, as Golda Meir once said, "Israel will not die so that the world will speak well of it" - and then phonily and pompously cluck that discredited phrase, "Never again".
There can be a "two-state solution" with a "Palestine" that wants to live in peace. There is no such "Palestine," not because the Israelis are blocking it, but because the "Palestinians" don't want to live in peace, they want to eradicate Israel. Until there is such a "Palestine," there can be no "two-state solution". It's as simple as that.
Something the "international community" would understand, if it, or "the first Jewish president," had any....credibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment