Now that the midterms are approaching their conclusion, the Obama Administration is stepping up pressure on Israel, as I predicted.
The latest outrage? The US is pushing Israel to lease parts of Jerusalem from the 'Palestinians' - who don't own it!
According to Asharq al-Awsat the US wants Israel to lease the Jerusalem neighborhoods of French Hill, Ramat Eshkol and other Jerusalem neighborhoods from the Palestinian Authority for 60 to 99 years, thus recognizing 'Palestinian ownership' of half of Jerusalem.
This is reportedly a US response to Israeli insistence that Obama honor US guarantees made by George W. Bush to Israel the Obama Adminsitration has so far reneged on. In a letter to Ariel Sharon as a provisio for Sharon signing on to the Roadmap in April 2oo4, Bush stated that a number of long-established Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (AKA the West Bank) would remain part of Israel in any peace settlement with the 'Palestinians'.
Even if the Israelis were stupid enough to knuckle under to this, ( and Netanyahu has no political backing to accept it even if he wanted to) the Palestinians would never accept it, since it would amount to a land swap - which Abbas has already ruled out. Not a single concession, remember?
And what would the Israelis gain anyway? Who would want to live in, build or purchase property that was going to be under the 'Palestinians' thumb in a few years - assuming they actually kept an agreement for once? Would any of the current Jewish residents of East Jerusalem be safe from 'Palestinian' efforts to speed the takeover using terrorism?
And on the Israeli side, not only would Netanyahu lack any political backing for 'leasing' Jerusalem, he doesn't even have any backing for continuing the building freeze.
Meanwhile, the Jews living in Judea and Samaria are continuing to build. And have children.
The world belongs to the stubborn.
Selah.
2 comments:
"The world belongs to the stubborn." I could not have said that better myself.
The opposite truth to this is complete and utter ruin belongs to fools. I've pointed this out before here and elsewhere. The USA faces massive problems right now. Why is energy and resources being wasted on a problem that is literally a world away.
Furthermore there even if the United States could actually play a role in the resolution of this problem, the resolution of this problem does absolutely NOTHING to solve the problems plaguing the United States. In other words, there is nothing of concrete benefit to be gained by the US even if the problem is solved.
By getting involved in this there are significant risks to America, such as being pulled into another military conflict just to name one and valuable resources that could be used to solve America's problems are being squandered and there is nothing for America really to gain here even if could resolve the problem.
Even if it could come up with a workable solution to the problem, the United States does not have sufficient leverage over either party in the dispute to actually do any thing to impose a settlement. The United States gains nothing by solving the problem and the United States faces enormous risks by getting involved in this.
Why are we wasting time, energy, and money on this? The conventional wisdom is the Republicans will gain control of the House, at the very least, in the next election. The House controls the purse right? Is there any thing Congress can do to put a stop to such foolishness on the part of White House or the State Department?!!?
The historic legal purpose of the 99 year lease is to suggest renting land inperpetuity. But that is an anachronism that Hong Kong has taught us. Hong Kong was on a 99 year lease to the British Empire from China. Technically at the time the lease was drawn it was expected that the lease would be renewed.Who would dare say no to the British Empire in the 19th century? Well it wasn't. Obama may not have any idea that Jews do make good lawyers and historians, but they do. He may have met a few at Harvard. He had enough time on his hands there for social discourse considering he was the only editor of the Law Review that never published.
Post a Comment