A Leauki's Writings
Published on May 11, 2009 By Leauki In War on Terror

It seems like it:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3711551,00.html

Al-Quds al-Arabi quotes Palestinian sources as saying that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan revising Arab peace plan at Obama's request to make it acceptable to US, Israel; new initiative to call for settling Palestinian refugees in Arab countries, future Palestinian state

Now this sounds promising. It's quote change from the 1940s "kill all the Jews" and the "drive them into the sea" from the decades afterwards. (What did Obama tell them that they suddenly did this???)

It was a few years ago that the so-called "Saudi-Peace-Initiative" finally "offered" what Israel had offered in 1949: Israel within the borders of 1948 with the original population. It took the Arabs a mere 60 years to accept the EXISTENCE of Jews in "Palestine" (never mind the existence of Jews anywhere else in the middle-east which is another issue still).

Settling the "Palestinian" "refugees" in Arab countries should have happened at the same time as Jews were expelled from and murdered in Arab countries. It's a bit late now. The Arabs kept their fellow Arabs in camps for 60 years. Talk about humanitarian issues in this war... but that's a minor point now.

The main point is that the Arabs have FINALLY offered to be civilised. They haven't offered an apology for trying to murder the Jews or reparations or an excuse for all the wars they started. But it's a first step.

Except:

The UN flag will adorn sites in Jerusalem's Old City that are holy to the three major religions.

Agreed. As soon as the UN flag flies over Mecca.

Now, seriously, Jerusalem, the ancient Jewish capital must remain Jewish. If other religions choose to worship the god of the Jewish people, that's fine. If other religions choose to declare holy the holy sites of Judaism, that's fine.

But IN NO WAY does that justify some sort of claim.

They can have East-Jerusalem excluding the Old City.

And I insist on compensation for the refugees, Arab and Jewish.

 

Update:

 

This is potentially big:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE54921D20090511?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Jordan's King Abdullah offers:

"We are offering a third of the world to meet them with open arms," the king said. "The future is not the Jordan River or the Golan Heights or the Sinai, the future is Morocco in the Atlantic and Indonesia in the Pacific. That is the prize."

However, he also threatens war:

But he warned: "If we delay our peace negotiations, then there is going to be another conflict between Arabs or Muslims and Israel in the next 12-18 months."

 

 

As I said before, I don't know how Obama did it. But this is huge. The PLO are apparently sick and tired of Hamas and Syria and Jordan and Saudi-Arabia are looking for a way to survive. If the Arab world's big parties storm forward, the smaller states will have to follow or get left behind. This is very obviously directed against Syria, which together with Libya will be the small anti-peace camp, allowing Jordan and Saudi-Arabia to win influence in both the Muslim world and the west.

George Bush was the first President to speak of a "Palestinian" state. Maybe Obama was smarter. Bush offered them a state (and that wasn't his to offer), Obama apparently didn't offer but demanded.

(However, without the surrender of Saddam's Iraq this could not have been possible. The PLO only caved in and lost to Hamas because their last rich supporter vanished.)

If this was Obama's doing and there will be peace and settlement of Arabs in Arab countries AND Jerusalem remains Jewish, I'll officially admit that Obama is the man.

I have no ideological attachment to George Bush, only to Israel and peace.

 


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on May 19, 2009

Oh, I agree absolutely. Appeasement wouldn't work, and with the people at the other end of the bargaining table no such deal would be satisfactory. I can't forsee the other side being willing to make an offer tantalizing enough to put Jerusalem onto the bargaining table. If it isn't obvious by this point, I'm not making some kind of practical argument, heavens no!

I'm not arguing for a compromise or that Israel SHOULD give up Jerusalem in whole or in part. I'm just saying that retaining it shouldn't be a position written in stone (purely on principle). After all, in the bizarro fantasyland situation where Israel's enemies were completely (and verifiably) willing to hand over every weapon and all move into hippy communes, surely even a holy city could be under consideration!

Yeah, I don't think "stretching credibility" really cuts it with my "example". I think we need a new phrase for my ridiculous arguments... maybe start with "you are out of your #$%^ing mind" and work our way up from there?

on May 20, 2009

After all, in the bizarro fantasyland situation where Israel's enemies were completely (and verifiably) willing to hand over every weapon and all move into hippy communes, surely even a holy city could be under consideration!

It was.

But now we know better, I hope.

 

on May 21, 2009

I think you have taken me far more seriously than I have ANY right to be.

I am talking about ridiculously outlandish hypotheticals. I GET that you'd never be able to verify that however many billion pople are primed and ready to hold hands around a campfire and sing kumbayah. I GET that claims of peaceful intentions from that crowd are rarely meant earnestly. Hence the use of the phrase "bizarro fantasyland situation".

Stop taking me seriously damnit!

On a more serious note, my point was not "oh hey Israel should give up Jerusalem that would be awesome" but "is the value of a holy city infinite?" My argument was wholey academic, and had no bearing on pragmatic realities (again, hence "bizarro fantasyland situation").

2 Pages1 2