Arabs' response Netanyahu ?

Comments - ICEJ

Washington upbeat, Arabs irate over Netanyahu speech

Reactions were swift to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s landmark speech on Sunday night, with US President Barak Obama calling it a “step forward,” but the Palestinian Authority complaining that it had “destroyed” all hopes for peace. Commenting on Netanyahu’s acceptance of a two-state solution, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, “[President Obama] believes this solution can and must ensure both Israel's security and the fulfillment of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations for a viable state.” Netanyahu's speech was welcomed by European foreign ministers on Monday, but they said it was “not sufficient” to justify an upgrade in Israel’s relations with the EU.

Meantime, PA officials dismissed the speech as unacceptable and threatened that it would trigger a new intifada. "It's obvious, in the aftermath of this speech, that we are headed toward another round of violence and bloodshed," an aide to PA President Mahmoud Abbas said. "The speech has destroyed all initiatives and expectations," read an official statement from Abbas’s office. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak also blasted the speech, saying "Netanyahu's demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state is ruining the chance for peace. Not Egypt, nor any other Arab country would support Netanyahu's approach." Within Israel, hawkish Likud MK Danny Danon responded that the acceptance of Palestinian aspirations for statehood was "one unnecessary sentence in a brilliant speech… added as a result of American pressure." Kadima MK Otniel Schneller of the opposition noted that “most of the Israeli public on the right, left and center understand that the solution to save Israel as a Jewish state will only come with the establishment of a Palestinian state” and that Netanyahu had ably expressed "the perspective of the majority of the Israeli public."

Over to you, Mr. Abbas
David Horovitz, The Jerusalem Post

On Sunday night, Benjamin Netanyahu reminded a local and international audience of his articulacy with an address aimed at satisfying the Israeli consensus and the Obama administration, and in that, he is likely to have largely succeeded. His hawkish critics will accuse him of capitulation and of selling out on the two-state solution, but he set out two critical caveats. Israel, he made plain, could countenance Palestinian statehood only if, philosophically, the Palestinians publicly acknowledged Israel's essence as the homeland of the Jewish nation and, practically, if Palestine were demilitarized. The demand can hardly strike Washington as unreasonable, and at a nuanced stroke Netanyahu lobbed the peacemaking ball back into the Palestinian court…  Read More

Palestinian response to Netanyahu speech - panic or delusion?

Avi Issacharoff, Ha'aretz

The Palestinian reaction to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address Sunday can been seen as an indication of panic or alternately as proof that they are drunk with power. One by one the Palestinian Authority officials criticized Netanyahu's speech over the air waves following his much anticipated policy speech at Bar-Ilan University on Sunday. Netanyahu's speech did not surprise anyone in the Palestinian Authority. The PA officials have already heard the statements before - a demilitarized Palestinian state, objection to the right of return of Palestinian refugees, and even the slogan "a united Jerusalem," which has been used by all Israeli premiers. But dubbing the Israeli Prime Minister a "conman" mere moments after he agreed to a two-state solution was not an appropriate reaction...  Read More

David Parsons - ICEJ

Writing about the Palestinian reaction to Netanyahu's speech .......

But while most observers were busy analyzing Netanyahu’s sober address in comparison to Obama’s lofty oratory in Cairo, the real focus should have been on contrasting his text and tone with the policy statements of his predecessor-in-office, Ehud Olmert. For herein lies the real source of Palestinian consternation.

They had grown accustomed to an Israeli leader who maintained, “We are tired of fighting. We are tired of winning.” Last summer, Olmert insisted, “Israel’s problem is that it has no borders.” He told his cabinet, "The vision of a 'Greater Israel' is over.” In a farewell interview at Rosh Hashanna last fall, Olmert conceded, “we have no choice but to… withdraw” from the West Bank. And in one of his final official comments before stepping down, Olmert went further than any Israeli leader before him in expressing “sorrow” for the “suffering” and displacement of Palestinian refugees. His critics had summed up such public rhetoric as “defeatism.”

Meanwhile in private talks with PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas, Olmert had offered 97% of the West Bank for a Palestinian state and reportedly opened the door to a ‘symbolic’ return of thousands of refugees. His proposals went well beyond the generous offer of Ehud Barak at the failed Camp David summit of July 2000. Once again, the Palestinians said “No!”

Yet now, in one fell swoop, Netanyahu had cleared the air of the defeatist approach, restored Israel’s red lines, deflected American pressure, and thrown the ball back into the Palestinians’ court. It swiftly sunk in that they were indeed facing a much tougher bargainer, and in a thousand years will never get a sweeter deal out of Netanyahu than they could have wrested from other recent prime ministers.

The onus is now on Abbas and his PA colleagues to not only answer why they are unwilling to sit down for talks with Netanyahu. They must also explain why they are always the ones saying “No” to a Palestinian state whenever it is within reach.

Why was the PA reaction so harsh?

Khaled Abu Tomeh - Jerusalem Post

The harsh response of the PA is the direct result of high hopes that its leaders have pinned on the administration of US President Barack Obama.

Reports about a looming crisis between the administration and Netanyahu over the future of the Middle East peace process, com­ bined with Obama's conciliatory approach toward the Arab and Muslim worlds, created the impression in Ramallah that the Israeli government had no choice but to accept all the Palestinian demands. Briefing reporters on the eve of Netanyahu's speech, some of PA President Mahmoud Abbas's top aides predicted that, in the wake of increased US pressure, Netanyahu would he forced to give in, freez­ing settlement construction and accepting the two-state solution. That's why most of these aides expressed surprise when they heard the prime minister's uncompromising position on most of the sticking issues.

By completely rejecting Netanyahu's offer of a demilitarized state and his demand to recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, the PA leadership has climbed a high tree from which it will find it difficult to climb down.

 

wildolive reaction

Notice these quotes

"It's obvious, in the aftermath of this speech, that we are headed toward another round of violence and bloodshed," from the Palestinian Authority.

"Netanyahu's demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state is ruining the chance for peace." From President Mubarak of Egypt.

It is clear that Netanyahu has forced the Arabs to reveal their true nature and intentions.

Israel's supposed partners for peace are not willing to concede even a recognition of Israel's right to exist in exchange for a gaining a Palestinian state.

Nothing has changed from the days of Arafat, who launched his bloody intifada after offered nearly everything he asked for !

Fatah Conference reafirms old style, hard line approach to Israel

ICEJ report

Results will be announced on Tuesday as the historic week-long gathering concludes. Meantime, Lieberman insisted today that Fatah’s new political platform "has buried any chance of coming to an agreement with the Palestinians in the next few years." His comments came after some 2,000 Fatah delegates adopted a series of uncompromising resolutions, including a charge that Israel conspired to poison the late PLO chief Yasser Arafat, as well as an extremist statement on Jerusalem, which they defined as the "eternal capital of Palestine, the Arab world and the Islamic and Christian worlds." Fatah members pledged to continue to make sacrifices "until Jerusalem returns to the Palestinians void of settlers and settlements." The conference also endorsed the Aksa Martyrs Brigades as Fatah's official armed wing, contradicting Fatah’s Roadmap commitments to dismantle such terror militias.