The
only demand Bibi has made is that Palestine recognize a Jewish state.
Outside of this he has agreed to everything before sitting and meeting
with Abbas. He is the only party that wants to meet. Abbas does not.
Because of this the NYTimes knows there will never be a deal... and all
the generous offers Bibi makes will not be a reality. Since the Times
knows that the Palestinians are not capable of being fair they are
asking Obama and the West to force an unfair position through military
force. Bibi has his hand out saying recognize me and we will give you
what you want and the NYTimes is in fact saying force Bibi to give
everything and don't recognize him at all because being fair is not
enough... the Palestinians don't want fair and will end up losing it
all. Read the details at Carl's blog.
He worked so hard on dissecting the NYTimes position I didn't think it
would be fair to repost completely his complete work like I usually do...In an editorial that says that 'all share the blame' for the Middle East impasse - and then conveniently forgets Barack Hussein Obama's role in the impasse - the New York Times concludes that the United States 'and its partners' must impose a 'solution.'
Let's look at what Israel's Prime Minister has done since he took office in March 2009. He accepted the 'two-state solution,' the first time any Likud Prime Minister had ever openly done so. He imposed a ten-month 'settlement freeze' in Judea and Samaria. That 'settlement freeze' has continued de facto beyond that ten-month deadline and has included 'east' Jerusalem. Netanyahu has continuously repeated the mantra that he will meet with Abu Bluff anytime and anywhere without preconditions - but Abu Bluff won't meet unless he is first assured of the outcome. And now, despite the fact that most Israelis are opposed, Netanyahu is apparently on the verge of accepting a negotiating framework in which the default position would be going back to the '
