Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYTimes: Gilad Shalit's Release

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 10:19 AM
Original message
NYTimes: Gilad Shalit's Release
<snip>

"We share the joy of Israelis over the release of Sgt. First Class Gilad Shalit, who was held by Hamas for five years. We will leave it to the Israeli people to debate whether the deal which includes the release of more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners will make their country safer or lead to more violence or more abductions of Israeli soldiers or other citizens.

We are already concerned that the deal will further thwart an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, the only real guarantee of lasting security for both sides.

Now that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has compromised with Hamas, we fear that to prove his toughness he will be even less willing to make the necessary compromises to restart negotiations. And we fear that the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and his Fatah faction, who were cut out of the swap altogether, will be further weakened.

Both Mr. Netanyahu and Hamas were looking for a political win after Mr. Abbas grabbed the international spotlight and saw his popularity soar when he asked the United Nations last month to grant his undefined country full membership.

Mr. Netanyahu twisted himself in an ideological knot to get this deal. Only five months ago, he wanted to cut off tax remittances to the Palestinian Authority and urged the United States to halt aid because Mr. Abbas tried to forge a unity government with Hamas, which controls Gaza.

One has to ask: If Mr. Netanyahu can negotiate with Hamas which shoots rockets at Israel, refuses to recognize Israels existence and, on Tuesday, vowed to take even more hostages why wont he negotiate seriously with the Palestinian Authority, which Israel relies on to help keep the peace in the West Bank?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/opinion/gilad-shalits-release.html?_r=3&ref=opinion
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
snappyturtle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. Hypocrits....all of them. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
2. This is not the first time that Israel has used Hamas to undercut Fatah
which is in part Netanyahu's purpose also the number of Palestinians released at the present time is 477, yes the deal is for 1027 but really does anyone think Israel will release the other 550? IMO it depends on 2 things Hamas and Gaza's militant groups actions and the progress or lack there of on the UN bid, however that being said the whole thing could play out like a badly scripted action show there are already cracks appearing Hamas claims Israel had said it would 'ease' the blockade Israel now claims it had nothing to do with Schalit and therefor will do no such thing, given the 2 month time frame anything could happen and perhaps OCL2 is on the horizon


love the wording Abbas has an "undefined country" but never mentions that Israel is equally "undefined" and of course stumps for Abbas to drop that UN thingy
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Using Hamas to undercut Fatah?
That's really how you'd characterize this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. you give an explanation then? Perhaps Mr Netanyahu is pure in his intent ? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. I think he wanted to be the PM who was able to bring Shalit home
Makes him sort of a hero to many Israelis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. well that's part of it but his timing says that undercutting Fatah and the PLO/PA
has something to do with it too after all he could have agreed to this at anytime in the past or could wait until a bit closer to elections
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. It's so obviously the outcome that I think it's legitimate to ask if that was intended.
Edited on Wed Oct-19-11 12:59 PM by Donald Ian Rankin
The timing - so soon after the Palestinians UN bid - makes me wonder.

Of course, that's purely circumstantial - I don't have a shred of solid evidence for my suspicions, and freely acknowledge this. And I'm quite certain that that wasn't his only, or even his primary, motivation. But I do wonder if it was a factor - if not, why now rather than sooner? There exist plenty of other possible answers to that question (Egyptian regime change being one). But "because he needed to undercut Fatah" is also a possible answer.


But in some ways it doesn't matter. Whether Netanyahu *meant* to boost Hamas to undercut Fatah, thus making it easier for him to avoid being blamed for the failure to make peace but also making peace (even) more distant, that's what the result of his actions has been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. More obvious to me is that he wanted to be the hero who brought Shalit home to Israel
Having done that, he may have raised his popularity among some who were not all that keen on him before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
King_David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
19. Yea he should of let Shalit die.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. No Schalit should not have had to spend 5 years as a prisoner
perhaps Abbas should have submitted the UN bid sooner
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
3. Netanyahu has repeatedly called for negotiations the past 2 years. The PA has refused.
Edited on Wed Oct-19-11 11:38 AM by shira
Netanyahu even froze settlements in order to get the PA to the table.

But Netanyahu is accused of evading negotiations with the PA?

:shrug:

This article is just more anti-Israel garbage propaganda.

Looks like the NYT hired the PLO to do its editorializing for them.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Once again if Netanyahu is so wanting of negotiations
why does he not freeze settlement building again if only for a few months?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Because he doesn't consider them to be settlements
Especially not in East Jerusalem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. oh is that it? but it seems the Quartet does consider them to be settlements
Edited on Wed Oct-19-11 12:49 PM by azurnoir
Mideast Quartet 'greatly concerned' by Israel's recent settlement plans

The Middle East Quartet said Tuesday that they were alarmed by Israel's latest announcements about new settlement plans in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The so-called quartet, made up of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations, released a statement expressing deep concern regarding Israel's recent announcement to build 277 homes in the Ariel settlement in the West Bank, as well as more than 900 housing units in Har Homa in East Jerusalem.

The Quartet is greatly concerned by Israel's recent announcements to advance planning for new housing units in Ariel and East Jerusalem," the mediating group said in a joint statement.

On Monday, the U.S. said it found reports of fresh Israeli settlement building plans deeply troubling and counterproductive to the U.S. effort to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/mideast-quartet-greatly-concerned-by-israel-s-recent-settlement-plans-1.378948

it would also seem that if Netanyahu is so sure of himself then why not postpone building for a few months the land will still be there

otherwise it could appear that Netanyahu does not want peace that badly but does want thew appearance of righteousness
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Therein lies the problem
Edited on Wed Oct-19-11 12:59 PM by oberliner
Part of why the Quartet isn't going to get very far as long as Netanyahu is PM and Hamas is in charge of Gaza.

He won't postpone building on land that he believes Israelis have the right to build on unless he knows he can get something concrete in return.

He wants peace on his terms - terms he most likely will never get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. according to reports Netanyahu believes all of EJ and at the very least area C as Israel's land
shortly prior to Schalit's release he was looking for way to declare all settlements and outposts as Israeli land even those built on private Palestinian land
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. He's not the only one
That is not an unpopular sentiment in Israel, especially among those to his right (a fairly sizable group).
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. well thank you for confirming that Israel's rightwing is indeed sizable
and that annexation of Palestinian land is quite popular in Israel
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. Needs no confirmation from me
It's a disturbing reality - and it's getting worse, not better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Mosby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. when did bibi say he wants to annex area c?
It's news to me but maybe I'm wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Netanyahu is trying to make all Israeli settlements and outposts
including those built on privately owned Palestinian land legally part of Israel, Bibi has deployed extra troops in the Jordan River valley, Bibi has proclaimed he will never give up any of East Jerusalem

but your right he has never uttered the words Israel will annex area c however some of his Likud Ministers such as Danny Danon have
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. 10 Oct. '11: Civil Administration plans to expel tens of thousands of Bedouins from Area C
The Civil Administration (CA) is planning to expel the Bedouin communities living in Area C in the West Bank, transferring some 27,000 persons from their homes. In the first phase, planned as early as January 2012, some 20 communities, comprising 2,300 persons, will be forcibly transferred to a site near the Abu Dis refuse dump, east of Jerusalem. These communities currently live in the area of the Ma'ale Adummim settlement and nearby settlements; half of them live in 1E, the area designated by Israel for future expansion of Maale Adummim. In the second phase, the CA plans to expel communities from the Jordan Valley. One option being considered is building a new permanent town for these communities next to a-Nabi Musa, west of Jericho. According to the CA's schedule, the plan will be implemented in three to six years.

http://www.btselem.org/settlements/20111010_forced_eviction_of_bedouins
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Mosby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #23
41. so you would prefer that these bedouin live without electricity, water and sewer service?
Edited on Thu Oct-20-11 03:14 PM by Mosby
Obviously btselem doesn't give a shit, these poor people are just another tool to use against israel.

Personally though as a liberal zionist I would like to see a major improvement in their living conditions and that means moving them (with cash and land compensation) to towns with electricity, water and sewer services.

Ps please don't make me post pictures of people in phx living in 6 figure homes next to landfills cuz I can if you want.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
shaayecanaan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
27. Its a bit difficult for the Palestinians to negotiate with him then, isnt it?
given that not only the Palestinians but the vast majority of the international community regard the illegal settlements as precisely that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Not really
The Palestinians have, in past negotiations, demonstrated a willingness to allow for at least some of those settlements to be incorporated into Israel in exchange for land in Israel being ceded to a new Palestinian state.

This is a concept that Netanyahu has also entertained - and it is a compromise that much of the international community has expressed interest in pursuing (if not outright support for).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
King_David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
20. It is East Jerusalem


No Israeli PM is ever going to give up that area.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
25. He already froze settlements and the PA didn't show up for negotiations.
Edited on Wed Oct-19-11 05:32 PM by shira
There's no way Nutty or any other PM can sell another freeze politically - even temporary - after that.

The opposition would simply claim there's no point. The PA didn't come to the table last time, so why would they come next time around?

It's amazing how some folks insist the PA is blameless in this.

-------

There's really no point anyway. As much as Israelis want peace, they aren't getting it anytime soon. If Barak and Olmert's offers weren't good enough, there's no way Bibi will offer anything more preferable to the PA. No Israeli PM could offer anything significantly more to the PA's liking without committing national suicide in order to come to the PA's terms. It's hopeless. But of course, it's Israel's fault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #25
30. ah Olmers offer -If Abbas had accepted would there under Olmert's conditions be a Palestinian state
today?

but you do duck the question with very predictable answers its all the Palestinians fault poor Israel only wants peace yada yada except poor Israel already has it in the West Bank doesn't it, oh yes a few demonstrations ect but really on cost/benefit ratio Israel gains much more than it loses and the uS government helps to see to that
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. The OP's claim is Netanyahu is avoiding negotiations with the PA. That's false, isn't it? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. I did not ask about the OP I asked about Olmerts offer
which you seem to consistently tout so again under Olmerts conditions would there be a Palestinian state today had Abbas accepted Olmerts offer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Way to deflect again. And of course there'd be a Palestinian state today had Abbas accepted. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Really under Olmerts condition there would be a Palestinian state today?
Edited on Thu Oct-20-11 01:05 AM by azurnoir
you'll stand by that statement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. Yeah, there would be. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. No there would not be a Palestinian State today because of this caveat


Nabil Abu Rdainah, Abbas's spokesman, told the official Palestinian news agency WAFA that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's plan showed a "lack of seriousness."

Under the proposal, Israel would return to the Palestinians 93 percent of the West Bank, plus all of the Gaza Strip, when the Palestinian Authority regains control over the Gaza Strip, which the militant group Hamas seized from forces loyal to Abbas in June 2006.

Olmert presented Abbas with the proposal as part of an agreement in principle on borders, refugees and security arrangements between Israel and a future Palestinian state.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/pa-rejects-olmert-s-offer-to-withdraw-from-93-of-west-bank-1.251578
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. That's not Olmert's final offer to Abbas, which came weeks later. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. aha so that changed did it? Olmerts 'final offer' gave up a bit more land
Edited on Thu Oct-20-11 02:00 AM by azurnoir
and some RoR but that's it oh and Olmert did a rather interesting piece in NYT a few weeks back

According to my offer, the territorial dispute would be solved by establishing a Palestinian state on territory equivalent in size to the pre-1967 West Bank and Gaza Strip with mutually agreed-upon land swaps that take into account the new realities on the ground.

The city of Jerusalem would be shared. Its Jewish areas would be the capital of Israel and its Arab neighborhoods would become the Palestinian capital. Neither side would declare sovereignty over the citys holy places; they would be administered jointly with the assistance of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

The Palestinian refugee problem would be addressed within the framework of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. The new Palestinian state would become the home of all the Palestinian refugees just as the state of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. Israel would, however, be prepared to absorb a small number of refugees on humanitarian grounds.

Because ensuring Israels security is vital to the implementation of any agreement, the Palestinian state would be demilitarized and it would not form military alliances with other nations. Both states would cooperate to fight terrorism and violence.

These parameters were never formally rejected by Mr. Abbas, and they should be put on the table again today. Both Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu must then make brave and difficult decisions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/opinion/Olmert-peace-now-or-never.html

eta Mr Olmert never formally withdrew his caveat either
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. delete wrong place n/t
Edited on Thu Oct-20-11 01:06 AM by azurnoir
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
vminfla Donating Member (992 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Agreed
Why didn't Netanyahu negotiate with Abbas? Simple, New York Times, because Abbas refused to negotiate with Netanyahu. Not that hard of a concept to grasp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
26. Why Israel's Netanyahu May Prefer a Waltz With Hamas to a Tango With Abbas
<snip>

"Tuesday's milestone prisoner exchange does not, repeat does not portend a new peace process between Israel and Hamas. Neither side is even seeking that goal: If the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is unable to agree peace terms with the moderate President Mahmoud Abbas, it's hardly about to seek a "grand bargain" to end the conflict with the more intractable leadership of Hamas, which Netanyahu sees as a mortal enemy. Hamas, even though its leadership has come to define its immediate goal as establishing a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines, has no interest in replacing Abbas in a peace process whose terms it has long rejected. Their existential conflict notwithstanding, however, Hamas and Israel may see mutual benefit in a liaison of convenience of the sort seen in the prisoner exchange, in which Abbas was an ineffectual spectator."

Read more: http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/10/19/why-israels-netanyahu-may-prefer-a-waltz-with-hamas-to-a-tango-with-abbas/#ixzz1bHLSKRML
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-11 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. I was thinking MJ Rosenberg or Tony Karon
Edited on Wed Oct-19-11 11:37 PM by oberliner
And the winner is...Tony Karon!

(I guess Time was a bit of a giveaway - oh well)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 02:52 AM
Response to Reply #29
40. you seem to have a problem with Mr Karon
why is that? Is it because he;s South African or is it something else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jun 18th 2021, 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC