When a terrorist is less controversial than a religious shrine

via memeorandum

Barak Ravid of Ha’aretz reports on a report apparently circulating among Israel’s diplomats:

“The recent American statements point to the adoption of wording in line, even if partially and cautiously, with Palestinian demands in regard to the framework and structure of negotiations,” the report stated. “Still, the [U.S.] administration is making sure to avoid commenting on its position on core issues.”

U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell arrived in Israel last night for what is expected to be a final series of talks before the official announcement of the resumption of talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, in an indirect format.

Israel Matzav observes:

While Obama will be subject to a lot of restraints from Congress on domestic policy in the second scenario, there is very little Congress can do to prevent Obama from doing things like convening an Annapolis-type conference and trying to shove a ‘settlement’ down Israel’s throat. A ‘Palestinian state’ would be a wonderful legacy for Obama, especially if (as is likely) creating one results in a second Nobel Peace Prize that could be used to fund his Presidential library and post-Presidential activities.

And indeed, Vice President Biden will snub Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman:

US Vice President Joe Biden, expected to arrive this afternoon, is scheduled to meet with Israel’s most senior leadership during his three-day visit, with the glaring exception of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

But the Palestinians who just took the provocative action of naming a public square in memory of a terrorist, will suffer no such indignity. This leads Dr. Aaron Lerner to ask:

Where are the comments from American officials – and others – that it is “inappropriate” for the PA to do this the same week that V.P. Biden is visiting. That its the “wrong time” and “counterproductive” to celebrate the murder of civilians the same week that the launching of proximity talks with Israel are being finalized?

You’d think that honoring a terrorist bodes less well for peace than expressing a commitment one’s religious shrines wouldn’t you?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

About Soccerdad

I'm a government bureaucrat with delusions of literacy.
This entry was posted in Israel. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to When a terrorist is less controversial than a religious shrine

  1. Elisson says:

    Whatever infantile crap the Pals do, no matter how inimical it is to the possibility of any eventual peace between them and the “Zionist Entity,” the media and Western governments give them a pass. I, for one, am heartily sick of it. For all of Obama’s hopey-changey platitudes, the one thing he seems incapable of doing is changing his own skewed perception of what it will take to create peace. You don’t get peace by holding hands and singing “Kumbaya” with the people who want to kill you. You make it in their interest to want peace… and if they persist in trying to kill you, you have to kill them.

Comments are closed.