Barak to Clinton: Proximity talks won't help
Yitzhak Benhorin
Published: 23.06.10, 23:58
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
9 Talkbacks for this article
1. Hillary.. Finding out just how Useless she is.
RJBH ,   Methil   (06.24.10)
2. Israel can only lose by talks with P.A.
Chaim ,   Israel   (06.24.10)
Israel has nothing to gain by talks with the P.A. for the same reason the U.S. has nothing to gain by talks with Al Quaeda. Al Quaeda not only has nothing to offer the U.S. It has no intention of offering the U.S. anything. Same with the P.A. It has absolutely nothing of value to offer Israel. It's only purpose is to take everything from Israel. Israel can only lose by talks with the P.A. Lose Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, defensible borders, freedom from rocket attacks, freedom from inundation by hostile Arabs. There is no sane reason for Israel to talk to the P.A.
3. A better solution
Ron B. ,   Lod   (06.24.10)
Instead of counting the daily dead and injured Arab as a result of the terrorist war they declared on Israel and rivalry of their leaders, it would be wiser for the Arabs to abandon politics and terrorism, and search for a better future for themselves and their children, to choose well-being instead of politics and understand that a “Palestinian state” is not the solution to their misery. Huge amounts have already been paid by the international community in order to help these people but the only beneficiary were the Arab politiciens. Even if there will be a “Palestinian state” the conditions of the population will not improve. The solution to their misery is elsewere : they should think about emigrating, discretely, to other Arab countries before it is too late, (most of these countries are not very populated and can easily integrate them). That is the real solution as explained at :
4. Why is Israeli Defense minister talking to Clinton
AK   (06.24.10)
He can talk to Gates, when Netanyahu sends him. As far as I know, Lieberman is still Israel's Foreign Minister. Today McChristol was sacked for far less than what Barak is doing. An excellent commander at the time of war, yet everybody agrees that his staying would make Obama appear weak. If Israel is to survive, Quislings must go, before they undermine Israel's security even more. Israel has only one PM and Barak is not him. Neither is he FM. If Netanyahu wanted him as FM, he would have made him one. Barak must be kicked out of the government, or Netanyahu appears powerless as an Israeli leader, since Clinton's warm complements are very personal to Barak and not her appreciation of Netanyahu's administration, as such . Do Israelis want their elected leader appear powerless and a DM treated like a lap dog of a foreign country?
5. So direct talks with Roadmap as framework for them?
Bloodyscot ,   Dallas, Texas   (06.24.10)
There is a wide gap in ideals of what final agreement will be. The US plan close to Saudi Plan but with land swap. Israel plan now is "A" areas only for PA state with all of Jerusalem as part of Israel. Direct talks will likely go now where unless Roadmap or some framework it used to get both sides close enough to start with.
6.  won't help what?!!
Salma ,   Palestine   (06.24.10)
Oh,yea...Direct talks help more in building more illega settlements!
7. What does it matter DIRECT or INDIRECT?
Michael ,   USA   (06.24.10)
Why does Israel clamor for direct talks so much? Why can't they offer their positions in indirect talks? Is it because they seek to use "direct talks" as political cover to give the facade that they are interested in peace? I think that is the case.
8. Why is Clinton fawning over Barak?
Topsy Turvy ,   US   (06.24.10)
and bigging him up? Because he is a malleable idiot who will comply with everything that Barak O demands even if it is to the detriment of Israel. Ditto for Livni.
9. #3 Ron B, I have a better solution than yours
Salma ,   Palestine   (06.24.10)
Keep Silent, okay baby :(
Back to article