This website is no longer actively maintained
Some material and features may be unavailable

April 22, 2009
Israel demands progress on Iran before peace negotiations

During its first three months in office, the Obama administration has repeatedly stressed how committed it is to a new peace agreement in the Middle East.

Its special envoy to the region, George Mitchell, recently visited Israel and the West Bank. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has traveled to the region as well.

But Israel’s new conservative government is taking an altogether different approach to any peace deal with the Palestinians — an approach that diverges significantly from the Obama administration’s.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has attempted to place Iran ahead of the Palestinian issue, and the new government says Israel will not move ahead with peace talks until the U.S. makes progress in stopping Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Alon Ben-Meir, a senior fellow at New York University’s School of Global Affairs, joins Martin Savidge to discuss what’s behind this shift in Israel’s approach and the challenges it presents for the Obama administration and the Palestinians themselves.

Also, read what Worldfocus editorial consultant Peter Eisner had to say about Israel’s posturing: Israel angles for control in chess-like peace negotiations.

bookmark    print




Mark: before you make all these demands and write these conditions, people have the right to know where you got your PH.D from. I am unaware of any Ph.D holder who knows very littel and asks so much. Once you tell us the school you graduated from, then we will recommend you to Pat Robertson’s Forign Policy chief


This portion equates to a rephrasing of
a certain “fishy” paragraph in #10 below
which will be “edible” after “cooking” at any
good “seafood restaurant”:

“Yes, more than some humans when they swim from one nation to another in schools and from schools where each expensive school teaches every expert fish how to be bringing (by way of professionally dysfunctional democratic thinking to “schools” of “students”) “meals” of fresh “fish”.
(Or, are those “fish”, humans? …I wonder…)

An Idea “swimming” into a Proverb:
“Current after Current of Meaning for Each
Valiantly Vibrant Upstream Swimming Fish.”


I think we should jump (with what’s left of our sane “human” minds) into our lovely “think tanks” and–pretending we are (really) just ordinary fish: Begin to “swim around” for awhile until we get, finally: tired…of endless watery
“bubble-blowings” mingled too often with
needless blood-flowings (from “human” sharks), useless “debatures”, deep (philosphical) “machinations”, endless worrisome news “program-misinfor-mations”, meaningless strifes, vainly toilsome-tiring wars with accompanying rumors of wars, flus, plagues…blah, blah, boom!…blah…and then climb back out of our “thinkery tanks” in cosmically ordained forms of beautiful “fashion show” fish-dishes rather than as (otherwise) frazzled human beings who are, largely unsuccessfully, simply trying to survive this tired “show biz-war documentary-911-commission” world …this! before “evildoer” human fishermen have a chance to catch us climbing up out of our, truly, native element: “watery bubble-thinking”.

“Do fish think?” you might ask.

Yes, more than some humans when they swim from one nation to another in schools and from schools where each expensive school teaches every expert fish to be bringing profeesionally dysfunctional democratic thinking to free meals of fish.
(Or, are those fish, humans? I wonder…)

This way we would, at least, possibly, have a “reason” to be out of our “human” minds (if we are only fish who are attempting to be “thinking” in our lovely “thinkeries” (with heavy tomes, to be sure, after all!)…since fish who are going up onto where dry land seems to be will be as out of their “native element” on that dry land as many humans are presently out of their minds:
dry (martini) or wet…and then, too: fish would, at least, have some good reason to be flopping around vociferously–
flip-flopping about would look far more diplomatically natural in a fish-official than in a human…all this! while the ordinary fish could
–in all innocence–continue wondering (in its deepest heart of hearts) why almost no one around him/her or of those him/hers: why very few nearby
–who still looked “human” with “human-looking” bodies (not fish bodies)–could still be flopping around “humanitarianly” from nation to nation(after each war…never mind preventing wars in the first place) vociferously and vivaciously as any fish might when it is pulled out of its native waters…


To Mark, Dorn and Boris, the three of you are bigots and lack the ABCs of Middle East history and Politics. Mark, and Boris, I have red many stupied blogs on this website and others, but never red such a travesty. Both of you are full of hate and racisism


Israel-Arab Peace Plan Principles

Starting in 1948 from very first day of recreation of the State of Israel on the part of Israel territory, Arab countries waged several wars to eliminate Israel from her historic land. Israel won all wars and now Arab countries propose a peace agreement with Israel under conditions, which they intended to dictate. However, only Israel, who won all the wars and defeated Arab countries, has legal rights to formulate and dictate peace agreement terms and conditions, which, in general, shell include the following provisions:

1. Palestinian muslims must compensate Jews for damages caused by Jews massacres (actually, it was Holocaust) conducted in Palestine in 1920s-1930s under British administration supervision, for providing Hitler with idea of Final Solution and for taking active part in implementing the idea in Europe.
2. Arab countries must compensate Israel for damages inflicted on Israel during wars launched by Arab countries.
3. Arab countries must compensate several million Jews expelled from Arab countries between 1948 and 1953, where they lived for centuries, for violation of international law and stilling Jewish properties.
4. Arab countries must recognize “Article 24 of the 1964 PLO charter addressed to UN, which stipulates: Palestinian muslims do not claim Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza their territories”.
5. Arab countries must comply with Geneva Convention, which recognizes Israel rights on Gaza, Judea and Samaria, historic Jewish land liberated by Israel in 1967 war from Jordan and Egypt occupation.
6. Arab countries must recognize Jerusalem as historic Israel capital.
7. Egypt and Jordan are obligated to relocate Palestinian muslims (their former citizens) from Gaza (Egypt), Judea and Samaria (Jordan) inside their territories within 1 (negotiable) year term.
8. Arab countries have no right to develop or acquire WMD or weapon that can be used against Israel.

If any Arab country denies this peace terms and conditions, Israel has full legal rights for preemptive strike against this country using all available military power. All islamofascism organizations operating on Israel territory occupied by Palestinian muslims, such as PLO&Fatah (created after WWII on the principles of Hitler’s ideology and with close ties to Nazi party), Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Agsa Brigade, must be totally, unconditionally and immediately exterminated. All other Palestinian muslims must be expelled from Israel back to the countries of their origin.

Mark Bernadiner, PH.D.


If 21 Arab states among 56 Muslim states cannot agree to accept one tiny Jewish state, then why is Israel wasting time with any of them? And if the US cannot stop Iran’s nuclear program, then it should not start pushing Israel around. Maybe the US is adopting the idea of “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” and is starting to switch sides. If that is the case, Israel will have to seek out different allies, perhaps India or China. Israel must do what is good for the future security of its own people. America is a big boy. It can do what it wants to. Israel has to defend itself from both erstwhile friends and foes. It has to live in the region; Americans do not.


I wonder if the Jews would have agreed that the Nazi Party had a “right” to exist? I seems a natural fact that things move in circles.

Today Israel keeps pinching off pieces of the “loaf of bread” that is meant to be the future Palestinian state. There is no resolution when only crumbs remain to be are offered to occupied human beings, sometimes called “grasshoppers” by the occupiers. There lies the problem — the loss of humanity and cardinal human values. Where does compassion hide? Why do we complain when all is lost.


Worldfocus producer Mohammad Al-Kassim reports on Palestinians watching popular Turkish television soap opera:
Report show reality of Palestinian life under “Israeli occupation”, it show how “they struggle to survive” in nice house with expensive furniture, sitting on leather sofas and eating good food.
Then it show well dressed Palestinians youth in big stylish design cafe with flat screen TV’s and trying to “escape from hard daily realities of life”. After this report, it’s really hard to imagine how they’ll be able “to survive Israeli occupation”??


Dear World Focus,
Tonight’s lead story (Wed. 22 April) on diverging Israeli and US views was typical in its
attempt to suggest division between Israel and the US, and to question US policies. To
support that, you used Daniel Levy, who you introduced as a former adviser to the Israeli
government, and Alon Ben Meir. Levy is and always was a marginal figure. At least Ben
Meir made a good point or two.

However, as usual, the effect was to place all onus on Israel, and ignore the
rejectionist role of the Palestinians and the broader Arab world. And then, at the end of
the program there was a puff piece about Palestinians enjoying Turkish soap operas. As
always, World Focus personalizes and humanizes Palestinians, but not Israelis.

The only context in which Israelis are ever shown sympathetically is in relation to the
Holocaust. The millions of Israelis whose parents were Jewish refugees from Arab lands,
yet rebuilt their lives in Israel, might as well exist on another planet.

How long will it take for World Focus to point out that:
(1) It would not matter if Israel withdrew to the 1948 boundaries, the Arab world
including the Palestinian Authority, still rejects Israel’s right to exist as a permanent
Jewish state. Israel accepted a two-state solution repeatedly; the Arab world has yet to
genuinely accept Israel in any shape or form.

(2) While Abbas demands that the West Bank be made Judenrein, he simultaneously demands
that offspring of Arab refugees immigrate be resettled in pre-1967 Israel. This denies
the rights of the similar number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands. It sidesteps Arab
responsibility for starting the wars that led to BOTH refugee issues.

(3) Across the Arab world, the “peace process” is widely seen as a means to dismantle
Israel politically, after military means failed. This is clear from what is taught in the
schools, and frequently reflected in official media.

(4) Israel is expected to make suicidal concessions to countries that have repeatedly
attacked her, in exchange for a piece of paper that later dictators could tear up.


In fact western democracy has no picture but CARICATURE after Durban 2 summit. What your guest is talking about sounds -Oxymoran – (word contradict word before )


Come on Nilla, we care a little bit.


How can there be progress? The “walk out” on Iranian president said 5 words about peace in Middle East: “We don’t care about Palestinians”.
So much for the depth of Western ethics.

Facebook Twitter YouTube

Produced by Creative News Group LLC     ©2020 WNET.ORG     All rights reserved

Distributed by American Public Television