Two Chicks in Need of Reality Pills

"Stop treating me as a pariah," Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told Arab delegates at the Annapolis conference on Tuesday, according to The Washington Post.

Livni and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke to the summit's attendees in a closed-door session following the televised addresses by American, Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Many of these represented Arab nations that do not have diplomatic relations with Israel.

"Why doesn't anyone want to shake my hand?" she asked in a dramatic address to the assembled representatives. "Why doesn't anyone want to be seen speaking to me?"

Dutch European Affairs Minister Frans Timmermans, who gave the paper details of the meeting, said the Arab delegates "shun her like she is Count Dracula's younger sister."

Livni had failed in attempts to set up meetings in Annapolis or Washington with colleagues from the Arab world, even though the summit was designed to show international support for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal had stated before the conference that he would not shake the hands of Israeli delegates, dismissing what he called theatric gestures.

Ms. Livni:  Whining is not the correct response.   Tell them to kiss your Jewish ass and walk the hell out.

"Like the Israelis, I know what it is like to go to sleep at night, not knowing if you will be bombed, of being afraid to be in your own neighborhood, of being afraid to go to your church," she said.

She added, however, that as a black child in the South, forbidden to use certain water fountains and shunned from certain restaurants, she was also in a good position to understand the feelings of the Palestinians.

"I know what it is like to hear to that you cannot go on a road or through a checkpoint because you are Palestinian," she said. "I understand the feeling of humiliation and powerlessness."

Ms. Rice: No one gives a rat's rear end about how you "feel" or anything else that more appropriately belongs on Oprah or Dr. Phil.

But putting that aside, the way you are drawing a picture of moral equivalence between the Israelis and the Palestinians just helps demonstrate to the Pals (Who, by the way, are no friends of the US.  Nope, not friends of the US at all.) how well their lies and propaganda  are working.  

Comments

[draftervoi]

It doesn't sound like "whining" to me: it sounds like someone pointing out exactly what's going on, that the Arab side will not even go through the rote motions of routine diplomatic courtesy. There are those who like to view the conflict as 50/50, that is, whatever the problem is in the Middle East, it's both parties fault, and a pox upon both their houses. I don't think that's true: Israel consistently shows far more willingness to attempt negotiations, and I think it's important the people understand this...because if the negotiations fail, it's important to know that one side DEMONSTRATED bad faith from the very beginning.

I don't see it as crying, "He won't shake my hand, wah wah waaaah!"

I see it as: "Look at that, Mister Opinion: these mooks have NO INTENTION of trying to negotiate a settlement."

[Gail]

You're right. Giving it some thought, maybe whining was a poor choice of words.

But.

The "but" will have to wait until tomorrow.

[DRaftervoi]

The "but" may have to require us digging further, too, as I read that link you put up: The Israeli Foreign Misistry denies that those comments were made at all, so both of our opinions of 'em may be irrelevant.

BTW, I share your scepticism that anything substantive will result from the current talks, but I continue to support such efforts to edge closer to a mutually agreed-upon resolution. And there is one silver lining: Ahmadinejad is adamantly opposed to the talks, so this is a big fat "screw you" to him by all the attending parties.

[Gail]

Gee, that seems to me to be an exceedingly strange misquotation of Livni. Leaves me wondering how it came about. Thanks for pointing it out - I hadn't known that she'd refuted it until reading your comment.

I am very conflicted about criticizing Israeli leaders. On the one hand, I don't live there and I really have no right to say anything - not being on the frontlines of danger as they are. On the other hand, when I see what seems to me to be policies that put Israel in further danger, it feels like I should point it out.

Both Livni and Olmert are on the left side of the spectrum politically. As far as I know and have read, it seems that they push diplomacy and appeasement. I think this makes Israel - as it did/does the US with regard to Iraq - look weak and I think it strengthens the enemy and encourages further attacks. If Netanyahu and the right wing were in charge, the image they would project would be stronger and consequently, the Pals would be less likely to mess with them.

I shouldn't have called it whining on Livni's part - it was disrespectful. As it turns out, she didn't even say what was reported - but if she had, I would continue to think it was wrong.

I don't think the peace conference is going to achieve anything in terms of peace. If it serves any purpose at all, it will be in showing how unreasonable the Palestinian side is. But their unreasonableness has been a variable since moment one. They murdered the Israeli Olympic team, they have blown up buses and civilians and children, they have spiked their bombs with nails, screws and other metal shrapnel to do more damage and laced them with rat poison - which keeps the blood from clotting and makes them that much more lethal.

And Faisal refuses to shake hands with the Israelis? The Israelis who went through considerable trouble withdrawing from Gaza a short time ago? And all the Palestinians have done with this land they've been given is to fight and destroy any infrastructure that was left.

Public opinion on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been formed. Friends are friends, enemies are enemies, and those who don't care are going to continue not to care. There comes a point in time - reached long ago, in my opinion - where paying attention to public opinion becomes a hindrance to doing what really needs to be done. The only time the Israelis have accomplished anything substantive is when they've ignored public opinion and done what they had to do to protect themselves.

[draftervoi]

Yeah, the misquotation is so far off that you wonder about how it could have come about; was it an error in translation? Or a tale that changed in the telling, passed on from person to person? Either way, the reported quote is so different from the released transcripts that one has to wonder what’s going on. And, of course, it’s not fair for us to critique something that wasn’t said, even though I still completely disagree with you in how we interpret the remarks. As much as I enjoy arguing with you, it’s one thing to flog a dead horse, but another thing entirely to flog an IMAGINARY dead horse.

I also disagree somewhat with you about public opinion. Public opinion DOES change, particularly after well-known public events. A state - any state - shouldn’t base it’s policy on public opinion polls, particularly those of foreign countries, but should do what’s best for it’s citizens while following policies that are moral and ethical. Conferences to resolve conflicts give counties a chance to demonstrate their ability to advocate what’s best for themselves AND demonstrate their character. Refusing to shake hands demonstrates that one side, at least, has an asshole representing them.

[Gail]

Sometimes it's hard to tell if you are saying something you really believe or playing devil's advocate and trying to get me going. For example:

"Conferences to resolve conflicts give counties a chance to demonstrate their ability to advocate what’s best for themselves AND demonstrate their character."

Why is the US not meeting with Saddam Hussein today? Did we demonstrate our character to the doubters before doing what we felt we needed to do? When does one stop demonstrating character and decide it's time to rain shock and awe down on the enemy's head?

It is my view that Israel has demonstrated its character over and over and over and over and over etc etc again.

Why must it continue to do so? Why are you expecting Israel to do things that others are not?

Is it because because you view Israel as weak and in need of world protection?

I don't think Israel is weak and based upon battles of the past, I think they can stand up on their own. But even if this were not the case, I think they have to act as if it is because an appearance of weakness only invites further potshots from their enemies (see Netanyahu article above).

But even above and beyond that - I think they could demonstrate character until they are blue in the face and that no other country would lift a finger to help them - unless it was in their own best interest to do so.

It is my view that the US does not want to see Israel wiped out. I don't think it would serve US interests to lose an important and strong ally in the area.

So, enough bowing and scraping. Stand up and be an equal member of the world community - and if they won't shake your hand, tell them to gai cok in yam. (go sh*t in the ocean)

[DRaftervoi]

Me? Devil's Advocate? :)

Good points, all of them, but so many that I can’t address them all right now. As for Hussein, the underlying issue was whether he was meeting the terms of his surrender agreement, which he clearly was not. The underlying issue had been resolved and what was at issue was whether we would enforce the surrender agreement.

No such agreement has been reached in the Middle East, so it's always worth trying to see if anything has changed in anyone's positions...but I don't think it has, and I see this conference as political grandstanding by the lame duck Bush Administration bent coming up with a better legacy and a nice election issue for other Republicans in 2008.

There are so many issues at stake in the Middle East and they’re so intertwined that it’s difficult to break them down and deal with them separately, but no, it’s not just a matter of “demonstrating character.” That’s not why Israel is there, but it’s what I recommend ANY NATION should do while in negotiations. Please understand that “any nation” means just that; this is what I advocate every bit as much for Syria or Saudi Arabia as I do for Israel. And again to be clear, I also advocate that Israel (AND Syria and Saudi Arabia et al.) vigorously advance their agenda at such negotiations.

And again: I don’t think that this round will produce much of substance as there hasn’t been enough change “on the ground” yet. If a two state solution is possible, it will REQUIRE IN ADVANCE OF ANY AGREEMENT that Israel’s right to exist be recognized by the Palestinians forming the new, second state. We can debate what borders Israel has, or ought to have, but the fundamental existence of Israel as a state has to be acknowledged before any second state can be formed. It is not reasonable to believe that Israel would or should allow the creation of a new, hostile power on it’s border. I don’t think that precondition has been met, so I don’t think the talks will go anywhere. However, there are other issues NOT connected with the Palestinians that should be discussed….such as Iran….

And Gail, consider this: two months ago, Israel bombed what most suspect was a Syrian nuclear facility, and here the Syrians are at the negotiating table. That alone is….unusual. I don’t pretend to know what it means, but it is NOT standard operating procedure for the dictators in Damascus to meet with Israel at all, much less after suffering the humiliation of such an attack…and yet, the Syrians showed up.

As usual, we're all over the place in this discussion, and I apologize for the lack of focus...as I said: many issues, many good points to address....

[Jack]

Ahmadinejad is adamantly opposed to the talks, so this is a big fat "screw you" to him by all the attending parties.

That is not necessarily true. For all we know they're all in on some big PR ploy to try and fool the world into thinking that they went there in good faith.

[Gail]

"Me? Devil's Advocate?"

lol.

Out of time. More comments later.

[DRaftervoi]

You're right, it's not nessarily true, and it may not mean anything even if it is true. However, don't think that I think these mooks are there to negotiate in good faith; I don't, and I think the lack of a handshake obviates any chance of them turning this into a PR grandstand, particularly as 10,000 rioters are demanding the death of a middle-aged British teacher for insulting the Prophet over in the Sudan. In terms of showing the world what the West is up against, timing couldn't be better.

But I do also advocate trying to negotiate mutually agreed-upon settlements, and I advocate working to split Syria from their Iranian ally, but at no time do I advocate imperiling Israel's security. And to be clear with Gail, I'm not advocating being meek, either.

[Gail]

More to say here - haven't forgotten - back to the conversation asap!

[draftervoi]

In the meanwhile...here's some food for thought:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/873/fr1.htm

I'm no fan of Al-Ahram, but they're calling Annapolis a win for the Israelis...as is Tishrin, over in Damascus.

I don't agree, but I'm still sorting it out. It doesn't look good for Lebanon, for one thing.

[Gail]

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. Was suddenly overrun by the season and torn in too many directions. Anyway:

I think what bothers me most is the way the Israeli situation is being used - for purposes of grandstanding, to make veiled statements from one government to another (governments other than Israeli or Palestinian), to help make people feel good and appear pious, to sell political agendas, and for every purpose under the sun that suits anyone wants to make a statement about one thing or other.

On the surface, these highly publicized conferences are meant for peace, and each time, this is going to be the one that does it. But when you examine what happens in the wake of these talk fests (or even leading up to them,)it is not peace that they bring, but more fighting and death.

The Palestinians made demands for concessions before even sitting down to talk. They once again were given an opportunity to focus world attention on their agenda, their narrative, their propaganda and lies. The Arabs would not shake hands with the Israelis and arrangements had to be made for them to even arrive through a separate door. God forbid they should come in contact with jewish cooties. The entire exercise made the Israeli leadership come across as being weak. This encourages the Pals to redouble their efforts because they remain convinced they will win.

My feeling is, the only way to peace is going to be through a crushing defeat of the Palestinians and their defenders. I believe there will be a big war sooner or later whether anyone wants it or not. I think the Israelis can/will win. In the meantime, peace conferences just seem to be a humiliating, counterproductive and deadly exercise for the Israelis.

Aside from this - it seems that things are going one behind closed doors of which we only get to see glimpses. Who knows who is strong-arming who, who is making deals, who has something to hide, who is being framed, who is being blackmailed. The hush-hush nature of Israel's bombing in Syria, the strange delay in the reporting about Iran's nuclear weapons program having been stopped in 2003 - it's all very puzzling.