Friday, September 23, 2011
Reflections on the UN General Assembly Circus
Israel's path to victory -Caroline B. Glick
By Thursday, it appeared that the most likely outcome of the [Palestinian] statehood bid will not be a quick US veto in the Security Council, but rather something much worse for Israel. Talk had already begun of a long drawn out period of deliberation at the Security Council which could last weeks or months or even longer.
The idea is that during that time, the US and the Europeans will place massive pressure on Israel to make more concessions to the Palestinians in order to restart stillborn negotiations. And the specter of a Security Council endorsement of Palestinian statehood will loom over Israel's head the entire time like the Sword of Damocles.
[Jewish World Review]
Netanyahu Readies for Showdown with Abbas at UN -Tovah Lazaroff
An Israeli official said countries have begun to realize that approving the UN membership bid of a state that is in the midst of a conflict sets a dangerous precedent for negotiated solutions in any conflict worldwide.
A Losing Battle -Aaron David Miller
The gaps on the core issues, particularly Jerusalem and refugees, have been unbridgeable for more than a decade now. The current PA lacks a monopoly over the forces of violence, political strategy, resources, even people. And no Israeli government will be willing to make a deal with a partner that doesn't control and silence all of the guns of Palestine.
Palestinian State Is Wishful Thinking -Jordan Sekulow & Brett Joshpe
[T]he Palestinians lack the stability of a state. Of the PA's $4 billion annual budget, more than $500 million comes directly from the U.S. European countries also provide hundreds of millions of dollars, and nearly half of the remaining budget requires Israeli assistance.
Jordan Sekulow is the executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice. Brett Joshpe is a lawyer with the ACLJ.
Without Guarantees of Peace, Palestinian State Is a Bad Idea -Editorial
Israel encompasses about one-tenth of 1 percent of the Middle East – leaving the remaining 99.9 percent to Arabs. And yet, Arabs carry on as if Israel was about to crowd all of them into the Mediterranean.
When Israel was established in 1948, the notion of "Palestinianism" was more than a little fuzzy. As Arab Christian writer Joseph Farah notes, "There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc."
How is it that the world, and the United Nations, has managed to ignore all the rockets that Palestinians have rained down on Israel's civilian society all these years? Not to mention all the suicide bombers. Now the reward is to be statehood? The truth is, there would be a Palestine already today if Palestinians had been more concerned with peaceful coexistence and statehood and their own well-being and less bent on killing Jews and trying to win the PR war.
Showdown in the Middle East -David Warren
The habit of throwing money at international whiners has become the preferred method of keeping peace in the world.
Let us take Palestine for our example. Neither the West Bank nor Gaza now needs an economy. Rather than face down the root problem of violence, the "international community" opted to buy the Palestinians off.
In the course of the last two decades, extraordinary amounts have been delivered to the West Bank, then Gaza, in a slew of bilateral and multilateral programs, mostly from the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Israel. So much that the food markets of Palestine are well-stocked, and there are many examples of conspicuous affluence. This hardly means everyone is thriving, however, for much of this money is corruptly appropriated.
The reduction of tensions in the West Bank can be attributed entirely to Israeli security measures, in combination with the PA's simply desisting from direct sponsorship of violence, as a tactical measure to collect the aid. In other words, money buys love only temporarily. On both sides of the Atlantic, the strategy remains: "How much must we pay to buy you off this time?"
The alternative, tough-love option being: "What if we cut you off?"