From Aggie:
Here is some good info about why Israel is not bound by Annapolis. Remember how Condi Rice rammed this down Israel's throat and in the most disgraceful manner, requiring Olmert and Israeli negotiators to enter the conference room through the back door ?This was because the Saudis and other Arabs refused to use the same entrance as Israel, and Olmert agreed. What a great start for a peace conference!
Condi decided to shove aside the Road Map because the Palestinians were not fulfilling their obligations in the performance-based document, among them ending terror, arresting and disarming terrorists, and ceasing incitement. I actually recall hearing Condi say during an interview, that the Road Map was not working, so they had to try something else. Well, Condi, it wasn't working because there is no peace partner. If Israel has to give away everything, it is not a compromise but blackmail,, soon to be followed by more intense terror--i.e. Gaza. Avigdor Lieberman's Brilliant Debut
by Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com
April 2, 2009
http://www.danielpipes.org/6258/avigdor-liebermans-brilliant-debut
Avigdor Lieberman became foreign minister of Israel yesterday. He celebrated his inauguration with a maiden speech that news reports indicate left his listeners grimacing, squirming, and aghast. The BBC, for example, informs us that his words prompted "his predecessor Tzipi Livni to interrupt and diplomats to shift uncomfortably."
Avigdor Lieberman yesterday.
Too bad for them – the speech leaves me elated. Here are some of the topics Lieberman covered in his 1,100-word stem-winder:
The world order: The Westphalia order of states is dead, replaced by a modern system that includes states, semi-states, and irrational international players (e.g., Al-Qaeda, perhaps Iran).
World priorities: These must change. The free world must focus on defeating the countries, forces, and extremist entities "that are trying to violate it." The real problems are coming from "the direction of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq" – and not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Egypt: Lieberman praises Cairo as "a stabilizing factor in the regional system and perhaps even beyond that" but puts the Mubarak government on notice that he will only go there if his counterpart comes to Jerusalem.
Repeating the word "peace": Lieberman poured scorn on prior Israeli governments: "The fact that we say the word 'peace' twenty times a day will not bring peace any closer."
The burden of peace: "I have seen all the proposals made so generously by Ehud Olmert, but I have not seen any result." Now, things have changed: "the other side also bears responsibility" for peace and must ante up.
The Road Map: The speech's most surprising piece of news is Lieberman's focus on and endorsement of the Road Map, a 2003 diplomatic initiative he voted against at the time but which is, as he puts it, "the only document approved by the cabinet and by the Security Council." He calls it "a binding resolution" that the new government must implement. In contrast, he specifically notes that the government is not bound by the Annapolis accord of 2007 ("Neither the cabinet nor the Knesset ever ratified it").
Implementing the Road Map: Lieberman intends to "act exactly" according to the letter of the Road Map, including its Tenet and Zinni sub-documents. Then comes one of his two central statements of the speech:
I will never agree to our waiving all the clauses - I believe there are 48 of them - and going directly to the last clause, negotiations on a permanent settlement. No. These concessions do not achieve anything. We will adhere to it to the letter, exactly as written. Clauses one, two, three, four - dismantling terrorist organizations, establishing an effective government, making a profound constitutional change in the Palestinian Authority. We will proceed exactly according to the clauses. We are also obligated to implement what is required of us in each clause, but so is the other side. They must implement the document in full.
The mistake of making concessions: He notes the "dramatic steps and made far-reaching proposals" of the Sharon and Olmert governments and then concludes, "But I do not see that [they] brought peace. To the contrary. … It is precisely when we made all the concessions" that Israel became more isolated, such as at the Durban Conference in 2001. Then follows his other central statement:
We are also losing ground every day in public opinion. Does anyone think that concessions, and constantly saying "I am prepared to concede," and using the word "peace" will lead to anything? No, that will just invite pressure, and more and more wars. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" - if you want peace, prepare for war, be strong.
Israeli strength: Lieberman concludes with a rousing call to fortitude: "When was Israel at its strongest in terms of public opinion around the world? After the victory of the Six Day War, not after all the concessions in Oslo Accords I, II, III and IV."
Comments:
(1) I have had reservations about Lieberman and still do, but this speech has him off to a great start. Put as briefly as possible, he announced that "Israel is back."
(2) Given that the formal name of the Road Map is "A Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," I confess myself puzzled by the news reports (such as the one headlined in the Los Angeles Times, "Foreign minister says Israel not bound to follow two-state path") declaring that Lieberman has pronounced the end of the two-state solution.
(3) There is much irony in Lieberman now championing the Road Map, an initiative he and many others of his outlook condemned at the time. For an authoritative discussion at the time of its origins, flaws, and implications, see the analysis by Daniel Mandel, "Four-Part Disharmony: The Quartet Maps Peace."
______________________________
http://www.onejerusalem.org/2009/04/avigdor-leiberman-right-messag.php
[04.02.2009]
Avigdor Lieberman: Right Message Wrong Messenger?
Yesterday, Israel's new Foreign Minister made international news. On his first day in office, Avigdor Lieberman declared dead the Annapolis process created by Condeleeza Rice and the Bush Administration. Predictably, Lieberman's announcement caused a media firestorm. Electronic and written news reports covered this story and (generally) concluded that Lieberman had committed the worst kind of offense. Critics of Lieberman included the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, western public officials, editorial boards, and most anyone else involved in foreign affairs.
In the vast majority of the reports Lieberman is depicted as a "racist" who hates Arabs. He is also seen as an international outlaw who is challenging the very foundations of Middle Eastern international relations. The crime being committed is challenging the failed and dubious concept of a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli concept.
Before analyzing these attacks on the policies announced by Avigdor Lieberman take note of this fact. Two days before Lieberman spoke the Arab League applauded and supported the President of Sudan who is a real international criminal responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Darfur and who is wanted by an international court of justice. The world did not condemn the Butcher of Darfur and his Arab League supporters -- in fact this story did not cause a stir.
Avigdor Lieberman is not a politician we admire but he is not guilty of capital crimes and it is hypocritical for the world to condemn him and his policies while remaining silent about the Arab League siding with a real criminal. Mr. Lieberman's policies should be analyzed and can be criticized but this should be done in a respectful and credible manner.
We do not subscribe to the core policy of Lieberman's Palestinian policy. For years, Lieberman has campaigned for reducing the Israeli Arab population by ceding parts of Israel that house Israeli Arabs in exchange for some Palestinians lands. This policy actually calls for the establishment of a Palestinian State. It is his version of the two-state construct.
Lieberman's pronouncements yesterday do not differ in any substantial way from the Annapolis framework. If Tzipi Livni had delivered the same message as Lieberman there would probably have been a discussion of its message rather than the fierce dismissive reaction we experienced.
Along with the preconceived notion that Lieberman is evil the reaction to his speech included the bizarre notion that there should be no criticism of the poorly conceived Annapolis process. Annapolis is given more credibility than the Ten Commandments.
Therefore, let us remind ourselves of the origins of Annapolis. Annapolis was the "brainchild" of Condoleeza Rice in the last year of the Bush Administration. It is a very recent policy idea that was roundly questioned when it was unveiled in Annapolis, Maryland. Many of the commentators who are criticizing Lieberman also questioned Annapolis. Many critics questioned the viability of a policy that was based on the unrealistic idea that the Palestinian Authority represented the Palestinian people, especially when they clearly did not control at least half the population.
The policy of Annapolis is not sacrosanct and should be replaced. It is unfortunate that a target like Lieberman is the one who started the debate over Annapolis.
___________
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-israel-lieberman2-2009apr02,0,4948442.story
Foreign minister says Israel not bound to follow two-state path
Avigdor Lieberman's remarks draw criticism from Palestinians and show sharp disagreement between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government and the Obama administration.
By Richard Boudreaux
April 2, 2009
Reporting from Jerusalem — Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman declared Wednesday that his nation's new government would not be bound by a U.S.-backed understanding to work toward establishing a Palestinian state.
His remark outraged Palestinian leaders and highlighted sharp disagreement between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government and the Obama administration.
Netanyahu has long opposed the idea of a sovereign Palestinian state. Taking office late Tuesday, the conservative leader struck a somewhat conciliatory tone, offering instead to work for a permanent agreement on limited Palestinian self-rule.
Lieberman's speech, his first as Israel's top diplomat, was blunt and openly hawkish. The ultranationalist foreign minister warned against broad concessions to the Palestinians, saying they "only bring pressure and more wars."
He dismissed a formal declaration, made at a 2007 Israeli-Palestinian peace conference, that committed both parties to further "the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine." President George W. Bush held the conference in Annapolis, Md., and brokered the statement by then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
"It has no validity," Lieberman said of the declaration. "The Israeli government never ratified Annapolis, nor did parliament."
Nabil abu Rudaineh, a spokesman for Abbas, said Lieberman's statement represents a threat to the region's stability. He said the Obama administration "should take a clear position against this policy before things get worse."
Later, a U.S. official told reporters accompanying President Obama to the G-20 summit in London, "It remains our view that a two-state solution . . . is in our interests and the region's interests." Last week the president said advancement toward that goal is "critical."
At a ceremony hours before Lieberman's speech, Israeli President Shimon Peres reminded Netanyahu and his Cabinet that "the majority of countries in the world" back the Palestinian quest for statehood -- a hint that Israel faces isolation.
Netanyahu has privately assured Western officials that he, not his outspoken foreign minister, will set Israel's foreign policy. Lieberman was given the job because Netanyahu needed his Israel Is Our Home party, which finished strong in Feb. 10 elections, to assemble a majority coalition in parliament.
In Netanyahu's previous stint as prime minister, he showed a willingness to make concessions in dealings with Washington and the Palestinians, and he may do so again as he and the Obama administration seek common ground.
For now, it appears that Lieberman is speaking for his boss.
Zalman Shoval, who advises Netanyahu on foreign policy, said the prime minister also regards the Annapolis declaration as nonbinding.
Shoval said the yearlong peace talks launched at Annapolis were fruitless because they "went straight to the core issues," such as borders and the status of Palestinian refugees, instead of first taking steps to build trust between the two sides.
"That guaranteed disagreement," he said. "What we want to do is say, 'OK, look, let's move forward in stages and we are not, at this point, precluding or excluding any exact definition of what the outcome will be.' "
Lieberman's statement "was simply a message that this is a new government and the policy of this government is going to be different," said Eytan Gilboa, a political scientist at Israel's Bar-Ilan University.
"Neither Obama nor Netanyahu is looking for a confrontation at this point," he said. "Lieberman is Lieberman. This is what they expected from him. He just did it in the style he likes."
Lieberman spoke at the Foreign Ministry during a transfer ceremony attended by his predecessor, Tzipi Livni, Israel's lead negotiator in the post-Annapolis talks. She grimaced throughout his speech and afterward spoke to him privately.
"In spite of everything that you said, there will be a two-state solution," she told him, according to an Israeli official who overhead the conversation and later spoke to Reuters news agency.
boudreaux@latimes.com
Israeli Official Snubs Commitment on Palestinian Statehood
By CHARLES LEVINSON
JERUSALEM -- Sounding a defiant tone on his first day as foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman said Israel wouldn't abide by commitments it made to pursue Palestinian statehood at the U.S.-sponsored Annapolis peace summit in 2007.
The comments suggested a potential early friction point between the newly sworn-in government of Benjamin Netanyahu and the Obama administration, and stood in sharp contrast to a more conciliatory tone struck by Mr. Netanyahu at his swearing-in ceremony Tuesday night.
"There is one document that obligates us -- and that's not the Annapolis conference, it has no validity," Mr. Lieberman said at a news conference Wednesday. He said Israel would instead abide by the so-called "road map" for peace developed in 2002, which delays discussion of Palestinian statehood until after Palestinians clamp down on terror and meet other conditions. "Those who think that through concessions they will gain respect and peace are wrong," he added. "It's the other way around; it will lead to more wars."
View Full Image
Israel's new Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, right, attends a ceremony with his wife, Ela, in Jerusalem on Wednesday.
Associated Press
Israel's new Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, right, attends a ceremony with his wife, Ela, in Jerusalem on Wednesday.
Israel's new Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, right, attends a ceremony with his wife, Ela, in Jerusalem on Wednesday.
Israel's new Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, right, attends a ceremony with his wife, Ela, in Jerusalem on Wednesday.
Many in Mr. Netanyahu's own party share Mr. Lieberman's views, but Mr. Netanyahu has been trying to moderate his image. "Lieberman today closed the door on peace and closed the door in the face of the international community," said Saeb Erekat, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
It was unclear whether Mr. Lieberman had coordinated his statements with Mr. Netanyahu. U.S. State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid avoided responding directly to Mr. Lieberman's comments, instead telling reporters the White House is committed to the two-state solution and "moving forward" from Annapolis, and is awaiting "the final position of the Israeli government."
The Annapolis, Md., conference's chief legacy has been to enshrine the two-state solution as the mutually agreed-upon desired outcome of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It also marked a reversal of the policy laid out in the road map, by no longer requiring Palestinians to meet conditions before entering final-status negotiations to create a Palestinian state. But its declared goal of a Palestinian state by the end of 2008 has already failed. The joint declaration signed at the end of the conference was short on specifics and never submitted to the Israeli government or parliament for approval.
An Israeli foreign ministry official said he believes the Obama administration is uninterested in reviving the Annapolis agreement, which is closely associated with the Bush administration's failed peace efforts. "I think basically Annapolis is not their baby, and they are looking to create another framework for negotiations," the official said.
Write to Charles Levinson at charles.levinson@wsj.com
No comments:
Post a Comment