Abbas says he will not allow a third intifada to break out. In response, Netanyahu said that Abbas’ words were empty. At least that is what I am reading. I try to be objective about Israel but situations like this just make me shake my head. How long have Palestinians been in the West Bank? How long has Abbas been in charge? How many rockets have been launched from the West Bank as opposed to rockets from Gaza in that same timeframe? Would this be true if Hamas was in control of the West Bank? How much easier would life be for Israel if Abbas controlled Gaza and Hamas withdrew? Doesn’t that say something about Abbas and the PA? Perez seems to recognize the distinction.
I’m more than sick of the deceptive ads, especially ones that are part of groundwork for another war. This one comes in two parts. Republicans try to make it sound like Netanyahu is backing Romney Mitt. How? Netanyahu uses the same language regarding Iran that Cheney and Condi Rice used to sell a war in Iraq. Republicans turned it into an ad which is running in Florida and being billed in Israel as Netanyahu saying that what the world doesn’t need are US apologies. That is not what Netanyahu said. Those were the announcer’s words.
What is the rest of the deception? Does Netanyahu want war on Iran? Yes. And republicans are with him on that but won’t say it in that way just now. Maybe Netanyahu thinks Mitt can sell the idea to the country, but doesn’t want to openly back him. It’s also very possible that the message is intended more for hardliners in congress. Either way, it’s underhanded and not in the interest of Israel’s security or ours.
There is a third part to the deception which you’ve only partially heard: ‘We need a show of strength and it will be over quickly.’
In a fundraising speech, Mitt said that the Palestinians don’t want peace. Period. But then he went on with details to explain how the situation with the borders presents a security concern for Israel. see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/mitt-romney-palestine-video_n_1892862.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
Certainly some radical elements don’t want peace and even the mainstream is not going to be for peace while they feel they are victims of occupation. But to make it sound like they don’t want a settlement is to dismiss the Palestinians as another group of people who can’t be dealt with and who he can’t be bothered to worry about. He admits that it’s a complex situation but fails to mention the radicals on the Israeli side who would push to destroy Palestian settlements regardless of where they sit and replace them with Jewish ones – and who would never allow the Palestinians a state, whether the capital was to be in E. Jerusalem or not. He knows that situation it is a tinderbox. He should respect that dealing with the parties involved is like handling a loaded weapon with a light trigger pull. But clearly he does not.
It appears that he did not mention relocating the US embassy in that speech, but it is time someone gets him on record regarding the waiver of the Jerusalem Embassy Act. The rhetoric seems to indicate that he would be the first president to skip the waiver and allow the act to go into force. This would be a catastrophe plain and simple.
So here it is: Yes or no, if you were president, would you waive the Jerusalem Embassy Act, knowing what you know today (that is, barring some hidden obstacle in the security briefs)?