Vad säger Lieberman, vad säger Obama? Liebermans tal.

Vad säger Obama? Two states for two people.
Vad säger Lieberman? Two states for two people.
Vad MENAR Obama? Att Västbanken ska vara Judenrein,  kemiskt fri från judar, medan Israel ska bestå av 20% araber, det är hans "two states for two people", men den svenska pressen vrålar emot Liebermans uttalande, inte Obamas. Förklara det den som kan.
Hur gör man Västbanken Judenrein? Tja, hur var det när Sharon gjorde Gaza judenrein? Skulle man göra på samma sätt hade det krävts mer än 2 miljoner soldater för att göra jobbet, att flytta på 300.000 judar och var skulle de placeras?
Lieberman är partiledare för det tredje största partiet i Israel och 394577 israeler röstade på honom i valet i februari  2009.  Fler än som röstade för Arbetarpartiet och Barak. Vid nya gallupundrsökningar har han ungefär behållit sin plats.
Ändå tycks han reta de flesta utanför Israel - varför? För att han säger vad som gäller i stället för att linda in det i fläsksvålar med en tandpetare igenom?
Genast efter att ha blivit utrikesminister sa han att han accepterade Vägplanen - och alla blev rasande. Den slutar med en palestinsk stat, men inte förrän araberna har uppfyllt alla de krav som Vägplanen ställde upp på dom, och världen är så förtvivlat van vid att araberna aldrig ska ha några krav ställda på sig.
Vad är det DN har emot Liebermans uttalande nu i FN? Att israels araber, liksom Obama säger, ska ställas under PA:s styre, Palestinian Authority, just nu ledd av ingen eftersom Abbas tjänst gick ut i januari 2009, vilket han tydligen inte har märkt. Arafat sket ju i sådana petitesser.
Lieberman har också sagt att en lojalitetsförklaring ska krävas av ALLA israeler, och hade du sett alla fall av attacker från israeliska araber, de utan dödlig utgång som ett antal i Jerusalem som rapporterats, hade du förstått varför, liksom alla israeliska araber som tagits för spioneri, här det senaste fallet. Ett annat här.Ett här. Mera.
Obama och DN och en massa andra anser att israels araber både ska äta kakan och behålla den. Tydligen skulle de hata att styras av en arabisk regering i stället för en judisk, o ve och fasa. Precis som många araber i Jerusalem har de senaste åren sökt israeliskt medborgarskap.
Vad vill ungdomarna bland palestinaaraberna? En intressant undersökning på denna länk.
Israels araber har ett dussin medlemmar i Knesset, deras Riksdag. En, en drus, är med i Knesset i Liebermans parti. Jag har för mej att ca 10% av hans röstare är araber.  Det tråkiga är, att inte en enda arab i Knesset arbetar aktivt för fred med grannstaterna, en del är precis tvärtom, arbetar väldigt aktivt emot den judiska staten som betalar deras enorma löner. En av dem var till och med i den turkiska båtflottan som mänsklig sköld. En del arbetar mycket aktivt mot den israeliska staten. Nya arabiska uppror i Jerusalem, se x och x.
Obamas skrik och skrän och övertygelse att HAN, till skillnad från en lång rad andra amerikanska presidenter, utan någon som helst kunskap om Mellanöstern, ska lyckas lösa alla problem på ett år efter att inte ha lyckats lösa ett enda problem under 1½ år, är inte så lite absurt. Han har fortfarande inte fått Abbas att uppfylla ett enda av de 17-åriga löftena från Osloöverenskommelserna, som att stoppa terrorn, stoppa incitament emot Israel/judar i media och skolböcker och moskéer. Varför klarar han inte av en sån trivial sak som att stoppa hatpropagandan, som intensifierats under Abbas? Vem hade förlorat något på det?
Gamle Moshe Arens, fortfarande skarp - född 1925, två år yngre än Peres, skriver fortfarande kristallklart, om Obamas fånerier på "Obama chasing rainbows with two-state solution". Som artikeln säger har Obama erkänt, i en intervju, att han inte hade en aning om problemets svårighet när han körde igång.
Det är lätt att att inse varför USA helt har tröttnat på Obama. Nästan hela senaten har sagt till karln att börja pressa Abbas, inte Israel. Om 2 år vill Obama väljas om, men bara 38% av amerikanarna tänker rösta på honom.

Liebermans tal.

Speech at the UN General Assembly
September 28 2010
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Liberman
http://gadebate.un.org/Portals/1/statements/634212616881718750IL_en.pdf

Speech at the UN General Assembly
September 28 2010
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Liberman

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues, ladies and gentlemen: when I
arrived yesterday in New York, I received a telephone call from a member of
one of the Jewish organizations who asked me how I am coping with all the
pressure which is being placed on Israel; surely, he said, it must be very
difficult. I recalled an old joke which speaks of five Jews who changed the
way we see the world: Moses, law is everything; Jesus, love is everything;
Marx, money is everything; Freud, sex is everything; Einstein, everything is
relative.

So I told him that everything is relative. On one hand, it's really
difficult. On the other hand, it is easier than before, because now we have
a stable coalition, stable government and we have the support of a majority
of Israel's citizens.

We are ready for a fair solution and we are ready to cooperate with the
international community. However, we are not ready to compromise our
national security or the vital interests of the State of Israel.

At the outset, I want to emphasize that contrary to what is often shown in
the international media, the political arena in Israel is not divided
between those who seek peace and those who seek war. Everyone wants peace
and the controversy in Israel centers on the specific question of how to
achieve this peace; how to reach security and stability in the region.
And the question is: why, during the seventeen years since we signed the
Oslo Accords, have we not arrived at a comprehensive agreement signifying
the end of the conflict and the removal of future mutual claims?

Despite all of the efforts of all the good people with the best of
intentions, including Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud
Barak, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, despite the summit meetings at Camp
David between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat with the presence of former
President Bill Clinton, and despite the Annapolis Summit between Ehud Olmert
and Mahmoud Abbas, we are today still in deadlock.

In fact, contrary to the prevalent view that the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict is the heart of the instability in the Middle East or is the main
reason for the region's numerous conflicts, the reality is entirely
different. More than ninety percent of the wars and war victims of the
Middle East since the Second World War did not result from the Israeli
Palestinian conflict and are in no way connected to Israel, stemming rather,
from conflicts involving Moslems or conflicts between Arab States. The
Iran-Iraq war, the Gulf war, the wars between North and South Yemen, the
Hamma atrocities in Syria, and the wars in Algeria and Lebanon, are just a
few examples of a list that goes on and on.

The second flawed explanation for the longstanding conflict between Israel
and the Palestinians which has gained popularity is that the root of the
problem is the so-called "occupation", the settlements in Judea and Samaria
and the settlers themselves. Only the establishment of an independent
Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, so the argument goes, will
ensure peace in the region.

It is sufficient to state a number of well-known facts in order to refute
this claim: firstly, all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza were under Arab control
for 19 years, between 1948 and 1967. During these 19 years, no-one tried to
create a Palestinian state.

Peace agreements were achieved with Egypt and Jordan despite the presence of
settlements. And the opposite is also true: we evacuated twenty-one
flourishing settlements in Gush Katif, and we transferred more than 10,000
Jews and in return, we have Hamas in power and thousands of missiles on
Sderot and southern Israel.

The other misguided argument is the claim that the Palestinian issue
prevents a determined international front against Iran. This argument is not
only flawed, it is completely irresponsible: the same argument could be made
that the Palestinian issue prevents action on North Korea, piracy in
Somalia, the humanitarian crisis in Sudan or the challenge of Afghanistan.

Just as the Khomeini Revolution had nothing to do with the Palestinian
issue, so too is the Iranian decision to develop nuclear weapons unrelated.

In truth, the connection between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
is precisely reversed. Iran can exist without Hamas, Islamic Jihad and
Hezbollah, but the terrorist organizations cannot exist without Iran.
Relying on these proxies, Iran can at any given time foil any agreement
between Israel and the Palestinians or with Lebanon. Thus, in searching for
a durable agreement with the Palestinians, one which will deal with the true
roots of the conflict and which will endure for many years, one must
understand that first, the Iranian issue must be resolved.

One must deal first with the root of the problem and not its symptoms. There
are of course other problems as well which must be solved and this is not a
sufficient condition. But it is nevertheless a necessary one.

In trying to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, we
are dealing with two types of problems: emotional problems and practical
problems. This is why the solution must also be a two-staged one.

The emotional problems are first and foremost the utter lack of confidence
between the sides and issues such as Jerusalem, recognition of Israel as the
nation-state of the Jewish People and refugees.

Under these conditions, we should focus on coming up with a long-term
intermediate agreement, something that could take a few decades. We need to
raise an entire new generation that will have mutual trust and will not be
influenced by incitement and extremist messages.

To achieve a final status agreement, we must understand that the primary
practical obstacle is the friction between the two nations.

As is true everywhere, where there are two nations, two religions and two
languages with competing claims to the same land, there is friction and
conflict. Countless examples of ethnic conflict around the world confirm
this, whether in the Balkans, the Caucuses, Africa, the Far East or the
Middle East.

Where effective separation has been achieved, conflict has either been
avoided, or has been dramatically reduced or resolved. Consider the cases of
the former Yugoslav republics, the split-up of Czechoslovakia and the
independence of East Timor, as cases in point.

Thus, the guiding principle for a final status agreement must not be
land-for-peace but rather, exchange of populated territory. Let me be very
clear: I am not speaking about moving populations, but rather about moving
borders to better reflect demographic realities.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is not an extraordinary insight, and is far less
controversial than some may seek to claim. In fact, precisely this notion -
that a mismatch between borders and nationalities is a recipe for conflict -
has long been accepted as a virtual truism in the academic community.

Leading scholars and highly respected research institutions have even coined
the term "Right-Sizing the State" to capture the idea that states and
nations must be in balance in order to ensure peace. This is not a
controversial political policy. It is an empirical truth.

But beyond empirical truth, there is historical truth: almost 4000 years
during which the Jewish People were born in the Land of Israel, while
developing the corpus of ethical and intellectual treasures that have been
instrumental in giving rise to Western Civilization. 2000 years of forced
exile, and interim conquest by Byzantines, Arabs, Mamelukes, Ottomans and
others, cannot, and never will, impair the unbreakable bonds of the Jewish
People to its homeland. Israel is not only where we are. It is who we are.

In closing, let me remind everyone in this hall about the quote that adorns
the United Nations plaza outside, spoken in Jerusalem almost 3000 years ago
by the Jewish prophet Isaiah:

"They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into
pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall
they learn war any more. "
Inspired by the deep wisdom embodied in these words, let us hope that the
path to true peace prophesied by Isaiah, will guide our two peoples, in two
nation-states, living in peace and security.

Thank You.

Den sure Barak, boss för Arbetarpartiet som förlorade många röster i senaste valet, gnällde över Liebermans tal "representerar inte regeringen", d.v.s. sa inte vad Barak hade sagt, han som har sett till att Hamas sitter söder om och Hizbollah norr om, som vill ge bort hela Judéen/Samarien till araberna så de kan sätta upp raketer där också. Han är försvarsminister som försöker agera som utrikesminister eftersom Obama finner honom medgörligare.
SvD tycker Lieberman är "hårdför" för att han säger vad Obama säger, men utan att dölja sina avsikter. Är det tidningars uppgifter?  Och sen gör SvD som vanligt, vandrar ikring i nejden för att hitta nån tant eller farbror med samma åsikter som Bitte Hammargren.
.

SvD907 DN113 DN226 HD SDS117 ALL241 D113 LTZ025 GP715 SvD853 DN668 GP104 SP897 DN226 DN393      



Bitte Hammargren