Powered by WebAds

Thursday, January 16, 2014

Indyk orchestrating campaign of former generals to 'convince' Israel it can give up Jordan Valley

It's no coincidence that we've been seeing stories all week that one former IDF general after another is suddenly claiming that we can give up the Jordan Valley. Former US ambassador to Israel and 'peace process' babysitter Martin Indyk is orchestrating an organized campaign using former IDF generals to pressure Prime Minister Netanyahu to give the Jordan Valley to the 'Palestinians.'
A report in Maariv Thursday said the the State Department had drafted many military officials who have worked with IDF officers, at various levels, in an orchestrated campaign to pressure the Israelis that there is no danger in surrendering the region in order to sign a deal with the Palestinian Authority.
The report said that the effort was being orchestrated by former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk. The plan is to build a lobby among Israeli security officials to support a major American push for Israel to agree to surrender the Jordan Valley. Between external pressure from the U.S. and internal pressure from the Israeli lobby and the media, Kerry hopes to be able to push Israel into making the decision, without which the Palestinian Authority will not agree to the peace framework he is pushing.
That pressure campaign was allegedly behind Defense Minister Moshe 'Boogie' Yaalon calling US Secretary of State John FN Kerry an 'obsessive messianic' on Tuesday. Yaalon made his comments in a private setting and apparently did not expect them to be quoted in the media. Yedioth Aharonoth, which broke the story, is the second most Leftist newspaper in Israel after the Hebrew 'Palestinian' daily Haaretz. 

Meanwhile, military historian Aryeh Yitzhcaki argues that substantively, Indyk's generals are wrong.
A storm of Arab unrest is raging to the east,” said Yitzchaki, as just one look at the situation in Iraq shows. Muslim radicals have made great advances there, and the country is on the verge of being turned into a terrorist state. In the past, Israel was concerned that a strong Iraqi army could join with Jordan and Syria in attacking Israel. That danger still exists – as does the danger that Iraq could export its radical revolution to those countries as well, he added.
Rebels in Syria are working with their comrades in Iraq, with the aim to build a united Arab nation, called “A-Sham.” If they succeed, there is little chance Jordan could survive in its current form, and Israel will be facing on its eastern border a huge, and very hostile, Arab terror state, he said.
We are headed for a very 'hot summer' on our eastern border,” Yitzchaki said. “Those in charge of our defense must look at the situation from all angles, and understand that without a presence in the gateway to the Land of Israel, the Jordan Valley, Israel's security will be compromised. Immediately to the east things look calm, but 100 kilometers beyond a monster is being built.”
And perhaps this is the place to deal with the substance of Yaalon's comments on Tuesday. After a  detailed explanation of how the media work in Israel, why Yedioth published the story and how it got out of hand, JPost's Herb Keinon writes that there are an awful lot of Israelis who agree with Yaalon (including yours truly).
Through it all, what was lost was what Ya’alon said: that Kerry is obsessed with the Israeli-Palestinian issue; that he approaches it like someone on a messianic mission; that the negotiations are being conducted not between Israel and the Palestinians, but by each side with the Americans, not a healthy way to negotiate; and that the security arrangements the US is recommending are simply not acceptable.
Save the characterization of Kerry as being motivated by a messianic sentiment, and that he should just “take his Nobel Prize and leave us alone,” Ya’alon’s sentiments are neither illegitimate nor crazy. Nor are they his alone.
Many have asked why Kerry seems to be focusing like a laser beam on the Israel-Palestinian situation, when there are so many other, even more pressing issues, in the region. As Fouad Ajami wrote last week in The Wall Street Journal: “The ground burns in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Borders are being contested, and militant Islamists have all but overwhelmed secular authorities.
Yet America’s chief diplomat, Secretary of State John Kerry, was in the neighborhood this week, for the 10th time, on an expedition to Israel and the Palestinian territories.”
Ya’alon’s comment that it was unwise to run the negotiations through the Americans, rather than directly between the sides, is not outlandish, nor is his claim that Israel seems to have made all the concessions up until this point. Is a pledge not to wage diplomatic war with Israel in diplomatic forums around the world – what the Palestinians “gave” to enter the talks – equal to Israel’s release of 104 convicted terrorists? And as to Ya’alon’s remark about the unacceptability of a US security plan for the day after an agreement is signed, is it not his job, as defense minister, to voice his reservations? His problem is that he voiced them in the wrong way, and in the wrong forum.
But no one should be mistaken: What Ya’alon said rather inelegantly, many other Israelis – both inside and outside the corridors of power – are thinking.
Read the whole thing. We all know why this is happening (which Keinon does not discuss): The Obama administration needs an 'achievement,' Israel is the Middle Eastern country most susceptible to American pressure, and if the parties negotiated directly they would never reach an agreement. And you thought an international conference was a bad idea?

Over the last few weeks, my daily Talmud class has been learning about the scapegoat, the goat that was pushed off a cliff each year on Yom Kippur to atone for the Jewish people's sins. I'm identifying more and more with the scapegoat these days. 

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

6 Comments:

At 5:06 PM, Blogger JG said...

Indyk in Yiddish is a turkey.
Why must he act out his name?

 
At 5:08 PM, Blogger JG said...

Indik in Yiddish is a turkey.
Why must he act like his name?
כשמו כן הוא

 
At 6:54 PM, Blogger Dan Livni said...

Read this article which talks in detail how Indyk did everything to appease this mass murderer Arafat after the terror war he started in 2000 and how Indyk was trying to get Israel to give away Jerusalem and surrender to Fatah terrorists.

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/martin-indyk-the-objective-mediator

MARTIN INDYK: THE “OBJECTIVE MEDIATOR”
David Bedein
July 23, 2013,

 
At 7:02 PM, Blogger Dan Livni said...

Thank you for posting this about Indyk.
Considering he was hired by John Kerry who supported the Flotilla Jihadists, can we be surprised?
I hope these IDF generals know how radical Indyk is.
Another which goes into detail about about this.
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=4748&cpage=1#comment-49

When President Obama was elected, Indyk aligned himself with the new leader, and enthusiastically participated in Obama’s Israel-bashing and Netanyahu-snubbing. He was unsparing and, at times, vicious in his criticism of our Prime Minister, and laid the bulk of the blame on Netanyahu for the breakdown in Israeli-Palestinian relations.

He has moved further and further to the left as his career unfolded. He served as International Chair of the New Israel Fund, an organization that has repeatedly been castigated for funding rabid anti-Zionist and anti-Israel NGOs, including several organizations that compiled distorted and false information for the notorious Goldstone Report accusing the IDF of engaging in war crimes.

Aside from occasional lip service to their failings, Indyk became an aggressive apologist for the Palestinians and at one stage even identified himself with those defending Arafat’s rebuff of Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s extreme concessions at Camp David.

Indyk has made outrageous claims about Israel’s de-stabilizing effect on the Middle East, and the need for Israel’s to bend to the will of the United States, threatening, “If Israel is a superpower and does not need $3 billion in military assistance and protection, and [does not require] the efforts of the US to isolate and pressure Iran, then go ahead and do what you like. If you need the US, then you need to take American interests into account… Israel has to adjust its policy to the interest of the United States or there will be serious consequences.”

He has also made the obscene charge that it was Israeli intransigence that contributed to US military casualties in Afghanistan, accusing Israel of endangering “a vital security interest of the United States.” The “intransigence” he was alluding to was the settlement construction then taking place in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.

 
At 8:27 AM, Blogger Loyal Opposition said...

"'Peace Process' Babysitter"

ROFL!!!

 
At 8:37 AM, Blogger Loyal Opposition said...

Of course, there are two ways to interpret Yaalon's comments about negotiating with America.

One is a criticism of indirect negotiations.

The other is an observation that neither party is interested in negotiating with the other, but both are negotiating with the U.S.: "What do we need to do to stay in your favor?"

I almost believed in the second interpretation, until I remembered that Netanyahu is really a leftist.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Google