Lieberman Meets Clinton « Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Lieberman Meets Clinton

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Lieberman Meets Clinton”.

Tags: avigdor-lieberman, dennis ross, iran, iran sanctions, separation-wall

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 18th, 2009 at 12:31 AM and is filed under Mideast Peace, Politics & Society. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 Responses to “Lieberman Meets Clinton”

Nathan [Sydney, Australia] says:

June 18, 2009 at 6:14 AM

Hi richard, love your work and almost agree with the way you put things, but need to take you up on a little point
you say

“If I agree to rent you a house for $3,000 per month but refuse to sign a lease or rental agreement does that mean that my descendants must honor the agreement with you after I die”

Couple of points
a) This may well be an equitable lease, and if a subsequent purchaser has notice of my equitable right to lease the property, then they will be bound by it. My contract to lease gives me an interest in the Land itself, so that the death of a contracting party does not in and of itself destroy the contract

b) more importantly you’re comparing a property law concept to one of international law, which is rhetorically convient, but legally invalid.

still i get your point, and I strongly support a settlement freeze…

Reply
- Richard Silverstein says:
  
  June 18, 2009 at 2:58 PM
  
  Of course if someone has a written, signed lease it must be honored by someone who inherits my property. But I’m talking about a situation in which there is no written agreement at all. I think in that situation it would be difficult for the renter to refuse to reopen discussion on the amt. of rent they would pay.
  
  But yes, I’m neither an expert in property or international law. I just meant this as a general analogy.
  
  Reply
Arie Brand says:

June 18, 2009 at 2:31 PM

” … because there were alleged unwritten agreements between Bush and Sharon …”

What keeps baffling me is that they can, with a straight face, demand that the present administration sticks to these (alleged) informal agreements, whereas they have announced, at the same time, that Israel is not bound by the FORMAL agreements that its earlier governments have entered into. How is that for puerile egotism?

Reply
DICKERSON3870 says:

June 18, 2009 at 3:21 PM

RE: “A little birdy and the Wall Street Journal told us so.”

MY COMMENT: The ‘little birdy’ is by far the more reliable source!

Reply