Powered by WebAds

Monday, January 11, 2010

Contiguous?

Some reporter has been reading my blog.

You may recall that about two weeks ago, Rick Richman and I went back and forth about the the absence of the word 'contiguous' from the Clinton formulation of the 'Palestinian' side of the US terms of reference.
The reference to an 'independent and viable' state [in Clinton's November 25, 2009 statement] is also less troublesome than it could have been. 'Independent' doesn't equate with militarized (see Andorra). Moreover, there's a key word missing here: contiguous. I have argued many times on this blog that if a 'Palestinian' state is contiguous, then by definition the Jewish state would be neither contiguous nor secure. Thus Clinton's omission of the word contiguous from her formulation, if tracked in the letter to the 'Palestinians,' is significant.
Someone read the exchange between Rick and me, and the question got asked at a State Department press briefing on Friday.
QUESTION: The [Jordanian] foreign minister also used the word, when he talked about the creation of a separate Palestinian state, one that is contiguous. I noticed the Secretary did not use that word. Where is the – what is the U.S.’s position on contiguous in terms of somehow uniting the West Bank and Gaza?

CROWLEY: This is a – this is the fundamental challenge of a negotiation, which is to determine the borders of a state. We recognize that any state that would be formed for the Palestinians has to be viable and it has to be based on agreed upon borders. So the foreign minister at his formulation, the Secretary at her formulation – what we really want to do is get the parties back into a negotiation where you can actually put these questions before them.
Rick notes in a new post that once negotiations start (if they ever start), the US may well have a lot to say about the question of contiguity, and indeed that may well be the case. Rick also notes that it will be important to see what's in the 'Palestinian' letter, and whether it includes a US guarantee that the 'Palestinian state's borders will be contiguous, which I also noted here would be important.

But will each side see what the US promised the other? Will there be secret side letters that one side or the other will not see? Based on the way that the Obama administration trying to conduct 'negotiations' on its health care plan in the US out of the public view, the answers to those questions are not too promising. Given that a 'Palestinian state' that has contiguity between the 'West Bank' and Gaza means - almost by definition - a Jewish state that is insecure and not contiguous, one would hope that the Netanyahu government will take a strong and clear stance on this issue as soon as negotiations begin.

In Monday's JPost, Barry Rubin analyzes another Clinton press conference, this one with Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani, and doesn't like what he finds. Here's what Clinton had to say about the 'Palestinians' in that press conference.
BUT ANOTHER thing Clinton said is more disturbing and has become an Obama administration talking point. She said the Palestinians "deserve" a state. In this approach, having a state isn't something earned by ending terrorism and incitement, truly accepting Israel's existence, providing strong security guarantees and resettling refugees in your own country. According to the US government, Palestinian statehood is an entitlement, a prize they get no matter how they behave.

So why shouldn't the Palestinians demand they get everything and give nothing? The world owes them a state. By such policies the Obama administration undermines its own leverage on the issue. One more nail in the already studded coffin of the peace process.
It reminds you of how the administration keeps saying that Iran is entitled to nuclear energy. That takes all the air out of imposing sanctions, doesn't it?

Barry has lots more to say about this press conference - read the whole thing. The sanctions aren't really going to do much to stop Iran anyway.

Regarding the 'Palestinians,' we've gone 180 degrees from President Bush's statement in June 2002 that a 'Palestinian state' could only happen when the 'Palestinians' abandoned terror. In the Obama administration's eyes, the 'Palestinians' get their state reichlet no matter what. What could go wrong?

3 Comments:

At 3:58 PM, Blogger nomatter said...

"Regarding the 'Palestinians,' we've gone 180 degrees from President Bush's statement in June 2002 that a 'Palestinian state' could only happen when the 'Palestinians' abandoned terror. In the Obama administration's eyes, the 'Palestinians' get their state reichlet no matter what."

We can knit pick all we want Carl. The fact remains that Bush laid the "foundation" for the Obama and company insanity/antisemitic behavior. I am not saying Bush was the cause of it all but right now I see a bit of selective amnesia and this does not help us keep our vision on the mark when it comes to laying blame and trust.

One can not build a house without a solid foundation no matter if the house ends up being built extreme or to the norm of how houses look like.

At the heart of the intifada while Israelis were being peeled off walls, sidewalks and seats of buses the "best friend to Israel," George Bush set out to sanitize Fatah. He formed the US LED quartet for peace made up of arch enemies to the state of Israel. From that moment forth the train never returned to the station.

Carl, Bush used smoke and mirrors when saying Palestinians must abandon terror before they get a state for billions of dollars and all the sanitizing in the world were given to the Palestinians during the time we were burying the dead. Face it, the Palestinians were greatly rewarded for killing Jews during the watch of George Bush.

In conclusion to prove my point there are hundreds of examples in the archives of ZOA where they laid Bush and company on the carpet for his (their) willful hypocrisy and bias against Israel during one of the worst times of suffering in history.

As for a contiguous state that is the dream work of Ms. Rice and her boss.

For certain Obama and company are fulfilling their desires to further demonize the Jewish State so much so it both nauseates and scares me to death. Having said that things progressed to this point because the flood gates opened long before we were inflicted by Obama!

Hate,ignorance, gross appeasement and willful blindness do not happen overnight! I suggest one might look at the "chronological mistakes" by our best friend right before our eyes to understand Obama simply picked up the gauntlet at mach speed and his co-partners in crime are running as fast as they can with it.

 
At 5:23 PM, Blogger nomatter said...

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/01/bush-calls-for-contiguous-palestinian-state-to-be-established-within-the-year.html

Beyond the oblivious BS about a contiguous pal state and occupation was a quote I will never forgive:
"I know Jerusalem is a tough issue," Bush said. "Both sides have deeply felt political and religious concerns."

This was 2008 after Bush axed the Embassy ACT more times then I can count. The basis of why I trust no one came when I realized Bush made a campaign promise that in his first month of office he would sign the embassy act. 2 terms latter Bush was still called the best friend of Israel.

We are fools. It is not just the obvious enemies of Israel like Obama we should be wary of but those who cloak themselves in sheep's clothing. In those 8 years we deluded ourselves in blind trust. For that we now have Obama. (G-d help us)

 
At 7:23 PM, Blogger NormanF said...

Negotiations are not going to happen any time soon. But Israel should reject any negotiations that assume Israel is not entitled to be a contiguous country with secure borders and should hopefully make that clear to the Obama Administration. So there are no surprises later in the event talks do start.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Google