Groundhog Friday
September 1997...
Netanyahu wanted Palestinians to accept just half of the disputed West Bank, along with the continued existence of most of the controversial Israeli settlements. He now believed that the Palestinian Authority should be no more than a quasi-state, like Puerto Rico or Andorra; that it should have neither arms nor an army; and that Israel should retain control of its borders, air space, and precious water resources. Finally, on the volatile issue of Arab control of Jerusalem, Netanyahu believed Palestinians should be grateful if he permitted a new entity whereby they might be allowed to look after the Muslim holy places in the disputed city.
- Paul McGeough, Kill Khalid, Ch 10
June 2009...
Netanyahu threw down the gauntlet to the US last night, grudgingly agreeing to a limited Palestinian state that would be demilitarised and not in control of its airspace or borders. The hawkish Prime Minister insisted that Israel would never give up a united Jerusalem as its capital, and said that established Jewish settlements in the West Bank would continue to expand...
Labels: Middle East, Paul McGeough, Strange things
posted by Jacob A. Stam at 7/03/2009 12:15:00 AM
4 Comments:
Nothing changes Jacob. Pretty much as I observed on t'other site.
How much stock does one put in Netanyahu's "grudging" agreement?? The Likud clearly has not abandoned its claim of the "unassailable right of the Jewish people to The Land of Israel". This claim is anchored to and expressed in terms of the continuation of the Jewish settlements on the West Bank.
Can the Likud abandon its expressed stance on this? Can it do an ALP when it abandoned the "White Australia" policy or bank centralisation??
Surely a statement above is in drastic error? By rights, it should more accurately read:
"unassailable (until brought to justice) right of the Jewish people to steal Palestinian land and call it The Land of Israel, stolen by actual murdering force of arms from the rightful & legal Palestinian owners".
Tip: There is only one state, and it's called Palestine; the current illegal Zionist occupiers should a) give it *all* back, after b) paying 61+ years' fair rent. If deemed (by what competent authority?) that (a) is not possible (why not?) - then, c) pay full, fair and complete reparations, including and continuing b) a fair rent.
If no rent then why not? Who said anyone, especially Zionists, should have a free lunch? They, the Zionists themselves, wouldn't even need to pay; they'd just pass the bill on to the US taxpayers.
The original UN 'gift' was invalid, full stop. As there simply can never be peace without justice, any so-called 'solution' which does not fully acknowledge Palestinian rights and 'roll-back' that original gift/sin is *NO* solution. No ifs, ands or buts.
And further: playing *any* part of the Zionist game at all, even the tiniest 'concession,' is nothing other than surrender - so, ready? Roll over, you puppies.
Either that, or get some guts. There's only one 'just' way forward: call the Zionists the filthy criminals that they are, and call for true justice - which means giving the Zionists the boot - or at the very least, a proper bill. Cost you personally total-SFA, and could restore your integrity.
Final tip: Get real, or get off the pot.
Oh, shoot! It's that fool Phil Kendall.. AGAIN!
Or I(diot) D Holm as is his prefered moniker these days.
Still, suppose it's an improvement on the previous, Friedham & eggs! Ha!!!
The style is unmistakeable..
Ah yes: the fatuous full of himself prat "Anonymous" Phil Kendall. Have we given up communicating in a Cubist version of Morse code Phil?
Perhaps it's just too time consuming to keep up the quasi-artistic crap?
Post a Comment
<< Home