While reading this post, keep in mind this question: What do the following positions have in common? (There will be a quiz at the end.)
The leaders of Hamas and the Arab world were quick to jump in and acknowledge their willingness to work towards peace with Israel.
“I believe, regardless of who had won in the elections, the Zionist position altogether, particularly that of the three parties (Kadima, Labor and Likud), is hostile toward Palestinian rights and insists on liquidating it and wiping it out,” Khaled Mashaal told The Associated Press in Damascus, Syria.
Mashaal said all the top Israeli parties refuse the following Palestinian demands: to give up Arab parts of Jerusalem, to withdraw to the borders before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, to grant Palestinian refugees the right of return, and to dismantle main Jewish settlements.
“Consequently, the Zionist position, be it that of Kadima or others, is one that buries the peace process, negates its existence and does not give it a chance. That position is a declaration of war against the Palestinian people,” he added.
The Arab League showed its complete willingness to work with the Jewish State:
Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa told reporters at the annual Arab summit in Khartoum, Sudan, that it was doubtful the elections would bring anything new.
“The Arab world must study all its options. Because it is absolutely out of the question to accept … unilateral withdrawals according to Israeli whims. This just doesn’t work, and it can only worsen the situation,” Moussa said.
Mahmoud Abbas, who has managed to become even more irrelevant now than when Yasser Arafat lay dying of AIDS in a French hospital, agrees:
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, also at the summit, said the results would have little effect on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict unless Olmert changes his policies. “We want negotiations and not to dictate unilateral solutions,” he said.
Syria chimes in with its willingness to negotiate with Israel:
“We were expecting (the election results),” Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said in Sudan. “But it’s important to have a comprehensive withdrawal from the lands occupied in 1967.”
Not to be outdone, the Egyptians (is their ambassador back in Israel yet? The one they withdrew in 2002 over the lie of the Jenin “massacre”?) discuss their position on how valuable it is to negotiate with the nations you need to make peace:
“The coming Israeli government must stay away from unilateral measures and move toward peace according to the Arab initiative,” he said.
And of course, Hamas, the newly-elected leaders of the palestinian people, get the last word:
Hamas opposes peace talks and has rejected international calls to renounce violence, recognize Israel and accept previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.
Incoming Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh told Al-Jazeera television that he also opposed Olmert’s withdrawal plan. “Such a plan definitely won’t be accepted by the Palestinian people or the Palestinian government,” he said.
Do we all see the commonality? That’s right, kiddies. All of the Arabs insist that by “negotiations,” they mean, “Israel does what we say, period,” and by “unilateral,” they mean, “Anything that Israel does is unilateral, anything that we do is negotiation.”
What time is it? Yes, it’s Israeli Double Standard Time, that unique phenomenon that exists, well, anytime Israel does just about anything.
Pingback: Soccer Dad