Ambassador Shapiro puts distance between himself and Kerry
US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro has put distance between himself and his boss - Secretary of State John Kerry - by telling Israel Radio that Israel's reaction to recent 'Palestinian' terror is not excessive.
Shapiro made the statement during an interview Friday on Israel Radio
about indignation by Israeli officials at what they viewed as a
suggestion by a State Department spokesperson that Israel was using
excessive force against Palestinians.
“The United States does not view Israeli actions as excessive,”
Shapiro said. “We recognize the Israeli government’s right and
responsibility to defend its citizens.”
Asked whether the United States considered excessive specifically the
shooting of knife-wielding persons intent on stabbing passersby,
Shapiro said: “We have always supported and continue to support Israel’s
right to defend itself. There is no justification, there is no excuse
whatsoever for these outrageous attacks. They present a difficult
situation to deal with.”
But on Wednesday, U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby said that
although Israel “has a right and responsibility to protect” its
citizens, “we’ve certainly seen some reports of what many would consider
excessive use of force.”
Shapiro added that the United States “never suggested Israel changed
the status quo” at the Temple Mount — a claim which seems to be fueling
some Palestinian violence toward Israelis in the recent spate of
attacks.
In answer to a reporter’s question, Kirby on Wednesday said that the
status quo on the Temple Mount “has not been observed, which has led to a
lot of the violence.” Shortly thereafter, Kirby walked back that
statement, tweeting: “I did not intend to suggest that status quo at Temple Mount/Haram Al-Sharif has been broken.”
Here's hoping Shapiro can put some more distance between himself and Kerry.
Netanyahu: The hell I'll do Obama's dirty work for him
Haaretz reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu has refused to disavow former Ambassador Michael Oren's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week, nor Oren's book which will be published on Tuesday (and will be an instant best-seller at this rate - mine has been ordered). The Times of Israel summarizes what's happened.
The op-ed has drawn unhappy reactions from the
US, including an angry phone call from US Ambassador to Israel Dan
Shapiro to Netanyahu, asking the prime minister to renounce Oren’s ideas
in a public statement, according to a report in Haaretz Thursday.
Netanyahu refused Shapiro’s request and said
he had no intention of publicly addressing the piece, an anonymous
source told the newspaper.
The prime minister said Oren was no longer a
public official but a politician belonging to another party and
therefore he saw no reason he should intervene, Israel’s Army Radio
reported, citing a statement from Netanyahu’s office.
The Prime Minister’s Office refused to share Netanyahu’s views on the issue.
Shapiro’s office also refused to comment on the content of his call with Netanyahu.
...
Shapiro also reached out to Kulanu leader
Moshe Kahlon Wednesday to address the claims made in the opinion piece
and in a book Oren has written about his time as ambassador to the US.
Kahlon, in response, sent a letter to Shapiro
emphasizing that they were Oren’s personal views and did not reflect the
party line of Kulanu.
Oren, according to Kahlon’s letter, wrote his
book before he joined the party. Kahlon, who serves an finance minister,
said he had summoned Oren and made clear his appreciation for the US’s
commitment to Israel.
Speaking to Army Radio Wednesday morning,
Shapiro called Oren’s claims “imaginary” and accused him of creating
drama to sell books.
The sentiment was later echoed by a US State
Department spokesperson, who said Oren’s claims were not accurate and
did not reflect the reality of US-Israeli ties when Oren was a diplomat.
US Secretary of State John Kerry also denied Oren’s statements, saying they were made in order to sell his book.
Obama: 'I am the closest thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this office'
I'm sure you'll all be shocked that the headlines have gone to his head. Yes, he really said that (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Obama’s close advisor David Axelrod was more critical of Netanyahu.
“The world of politics everywhere is
divided into two categories: the first and more common is the people who
run for public office because they want to be somebody,” he explained.
“A smaller group is made of respectable people who run for public office
because they want to do something – something positive. Shape the
future in a positive way. I think Benjamin Netanyahu completely falls in
the first category. He is a great politician. He knows what he needs to
do to get through the next election. But it seems to me that Israel has
to think about what they need to do to get through the next
generation.”
He also recalled Obama venting in a
moment of contemplation, telling him, ‘You know, I think I am the
closest thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this office. For people to
say that I am anti-Israel, or, even worse, anti-Semitic, it hurts.’
Boo. Hoo. If you don't expect any appreciation, you'll never be disappointed. Obama seems to be disappointed all the time.
But he's far from being a Jew. And what he thinks being a Jew means comes from all the wrong places.
Bret Stephens reports that Obama supporter Peter Beinart says that we
have it all wrong. Obama's views on Israel came from a group of far Left
Chicago Jews, who “bred in Obama a specific, and subversive, vision of American Jewish identity and of the Jewish state” (Hat Tip: Herb G). (For those who - like me - do not have online access to the Wall Street Journal, you can find the full article here).
At
the center of this coterie, Mr. Beinart explains, was a Chicago rabbi
named Arnold Jacob Wolf. In 1969, Wolf staged a synagogue protest in
favor of Black Panther Bobby Seale. In the early 1970s, he founded an
organization that met with Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation
Organization—this being some 20 years before Arafat officially renounced
terrorism. In the early 1990s, Wolf denounced the construction of the
Holocaust Museum in Washington.
And, in 1996, the rabbi “was one
of [Mr. Obama's] earliest and most prominent supporters” when he ran for
the Illinois state Senate. Wolf later described Mr. Obama’s views on
Israel as “on the line of Peace Now”—an organization with a long history
of blaming Israel for the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Mr. Obama had
other Jewish mentors, too, according to Mr. Beinart. One was Bettylu
Saltzman, whose father, developer Philip Klutznick, had joined Wolf in
“his break with the Israeli government in the 1970s.” Ms. Saltzman,
writes Mr. Beinart, “still seethes with hostility toward the mainstream
Jewish groups” and later became active in left-wing Jewish political
groups like J Street. Among other things, it was she who “organized the
rally against the Iraq War where Obama proclaimed his opposition to an
American invasion.”
Ms. Saltzman also introduced Mr. Obama to
David Axelrod, himself a longtime donor to a group called the New Israel
Fund. For a flavor of the NIF’s world view, a WikiLeaks cable from 2010
noted that an NIF associate director told U.S. embassy officials in Tel
Aviv that “the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy
that Israelis fear since it would become more democratic.”
What I have to wonder about is the source for the David Axelrod quote and the others (Martin Indyk, Dan Shapiro). This is Eliyahu Berkowitz's opener to the article:
In advance of an exclusive interview with President Barack Obama,
Channel 2’s Ilana Dayan interviewed the people who were most close to
the president in the past years, finding out what happened to the
US-Israel relationship and what was really said behind closed doors.
And then she went around discussing it? This wasn't on background or off the record? You don't think that the White House planted some things it wanted to get out there with the generallysympathetic Yonit Levy and asked her to make sure they made the news in Israel, do you?
'Most pro-Israel administration ever' blocks missile shipment to Israel
In yet another sign of the cool relations between the Obama administration and the State of Israel, the Obama administration has blocked a shipment of hellfire missiles to the Jewish state and has ordered that future requests be approved by the administration and not just by the military.
White House and State Department officials who were leading U.S. efforts to rein in Israel's military campaign in the Gaza Strip were caught off guard last month when they learned that the Israeli military had been quietly securing supplies of ammunition from the Pentagon without their approval.
Since then the Obama administration has tightened its control on arms transfers to Israel. But Israeli and U.S. officials say that the adroit bureaucratic maneuvering made it plain how little influence the White House and State Department have with the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu —and that both sides know it.
The munitions surprise and previously unreported U.S. response added to a string of slights and arguments that have bubbled behind the scenes during the Gaza conflict, according to events related by senior American, Palestinian and Israeli officials involved.
In addition, current and former American officials say, U.S.-Israel ties have been hurt by leaks that they believe were meant to undercut the administration's standing by mischaracterizing its position and delay a cease-fire. The battles have driven U.S.-Israeli relations to the lowest point since President Barack Obama took office.
Now, as Egyptian officials shuttle between representatives of Israel and Hamas seeking a long-term deal to end the fighting, U.S. officials are bystanders instead of in their historic role as mediators. The White House finds itself largely on the outside looking in.
U.S. officials said Mr. Obama had a particularly combative phone call on Wednesday with Mr. Netanyahu, who they say has pushed the administration aside but wants it to provide Israel with security assurances in exchange for signing onto a long-term deal.
As a 72-hour pause in the fighting expired at midnight Wednesday, a senior Hamas official said negotiators agreed to another cease-fire, this one of five days. There was no immediate confirmation from Israel or Egypt.
Hamas already breached
the last 72-hour ceasefire three hours ahead of its conclusion
Wednesday at midnight; on Thursday morning it proved that it does not
intend to honor the newly achieved five-day ceasefire either.
Rocket warning sirens were sounded around 10 a.m. on Thursday in the Eshkol Regional Council and Hof Ashkelon region.
Shortly afterwards reports came in that a rocket fell in open ground
in the Hof Ashkelon region, apparently causing no injuries or damage.
The attack comes after Hamas fired at least one rocket at the Hof Ashkelon region on Wednesday night around 9 p.m., where it hit open ground.
The terrorist organization then continued firing into the night even after the ceasefire extension was announced, with the Iron
Dome anti-missile system intercepting one rocket over the city of
Netivot. Two other rockets exploded in the Sdot Negev region.
Is anyone really surprised that Israel doesn't trust Obama? This is from the first link again.
Today, many administration officials say the Gaza conflict—the third between Israel and Hamas in under six years—has persuaded them that Mr. Netanyahu and his national security team are both reckless and untrustworthy.
Israeli officials, in turn, describe the Obama administration as weak and naive, and are doing as much as they can to bypass the White House in favor of allies in Congress and elsewhere in the administration.
While Israeli officials have privately told their U.S. counterparts the poor state of relations isn't in Israel's interest long term, they also said they believed Mr. Netanyahu wasn't too worried about the tensions. The reason is that he can rely on the firmness of Israeli support in Congress, even if he doesn't have the White House's full approval for his policies. The prime minister thinks he can simply wait out the current administration, they say.
Yeah, 'attacking' Hamas after thousands of rockets is 'reckless and untrustworthy.' I would say that the one who is 'reckless and untrustworthy' is Obama. Is he behaving like an ally?
Of course, the official Israeli response (as opposed to the 'privately' one) is a lot tamer.
"The allegations are unfounded," said Israel's ambassador to the U.S., Ron Dermer. "Israel deeply appreciates the support we have received during the recent conflict in Gaza from both the Obama administration and the Congress for Israel's right to defend itself and for increased funding of Iron Dome."
Blah, blah, blah. Obama is clearly ticked off. It's hard to run a war from a golf course.
A senior Obama administration official said the White House didn't intend to get into a "tit for tat" with the Israelis when the war broke out in Gaza. "We have many, many friends around the world. The United States is their strongest friend," the official said. "The notion that they are playing the United States, or that they're manipulating us publicly, completely miscalculates their place in the world."
American officials say they believe they have been able to exert at least some influence over Mr. Netanyahu during the Gaza conflict. But they admit their influence has been weakened as he has used his sway in Washington, from the Pentagon and Congress to lobby groups, to defuse U.S. diplomatic pressure on his government over the past month.
And for the record, Israel did nothing wrong! It's Obama who's changing the rules in the middle of the game.
On July 20, Israel's defense ministry asked the U.S. military for a range of munitions, including 120-mm mortar shells and 40-mm illuminating rounds, which were already kept stored at a pre-positioned weapons stockpile in Israel.
The request was approved through military channels three days later but not made public. Under the terms of the deal, the Israelis used U.S. financing to pay for $3 million in tank rounds. No presidential approval or signoff by the secretary of state was required or sought, according to officials.
...
A U.S. defense official said the standard review process was properly followed.
"There was no intent to blindside anyone. The process for this transfer was followed precisely along the lines that it should have," another U.S. defense official said.
Then the officials learned that, in addition to asking for tank shells and other munitions, Israel had submitted a request through military-to-military channels for a large number of Hellfire missiles, according to Israeli and American officials.
The Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency, or DSCA, was about to release an initial batch of the Hellfires, according to Israeli and congressional officials. It was immediately put on hold by the Pentagon, and top officials at the White House instructed the DSCA, the U.S. military's European Command and other agencies to consult with policy makers at the White House and the State Department before approving any additional requests.
A senior Obama administration official said the weapons transfers shouldn't have been a routine "check-the-box approval" process, given the context. The official said the decision to scrutinize future transfers at the highest levels amounted to "the United States saying 'The buck stops here. Wait a second… It's not OK anymore.' "
White House and State Department officials were worried about public reaction.
The Palestinians, in particular, were angry, according to U.S. diplomats.
"The U.S. is a partner in this crime," Jibril Rajoub, a leader in Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Western-backed Fatah party, said of the decision to provide arms to Israel during the conflict.
Even as tensions with the White House and the State Department were spilling over, Israeli officials worked to expedite the Iron Dome money on Capitol Hill.
Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona said Israeli officials told lawmakers the money was urgently needed because they were running out of interceptors and couldn't hold out for a month or more.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said Congress's goal in approving the money quickly on Aug. 1 was to send a message to the administration to stop calling Israel out about civilian casualties.
A senior Republican congressional aide said Israeli officials told senators they wanted the money sooner rather than later. He said Israel's main purpose in accelerating the vote in Congress to before legislators' August recess was to provide an overwhelming "show of support" for the military operation.
The last straw for many U.S. diplomats came on Aug. 2 when they say Israeli officials leaked to the media that Mr. Netanyahu had told the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, that the Obama administration was "not to ever second-guess me again" about how to deal with Hamas.
The White House and State Department have sought to regain greater control over U.S.-Israeli policy. They decided to require White House and State Department approval for even routine munitions requests by Israel, officials say.
Instead of being handled as a military-to-military matter, each case is now subject to review—slowing the approval process and signaling to Israel that military assistance once taken for granted is now under closer scrutiny.
A senior U.S. official said the U.S. and Israel clashed mainly because the U.S. wanted a cease-fire before Mr. Netanyahu was ready to accept one. "Now we both want one," one of the officials said.
A top Israeli official said the rift runs deeper than that. "We've been there before with a lot of tension with us and Washington. What we have now, on top of that, is mistrust and a collision of different perspectives on the Middle East," the official said. "It's become very personal."
We have to become more reliant on our defense and weapons capabilities and less on the United States, at least so long as this administration is in power. 'Most pro-Israel administration evah'? You got to be kidding.
The State Department's Jen Psaki told reporters on Tuesday that Prime Minister Netanyahu and US Secretary of State John FN Kerry have not spoken since a phone call ended due to 'communications problems' earlier this week.
Psaki said that Kerry has held discussions over the course of the last day with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, and UN official Robert Serry.
Netanyahu's relations with the Obama administration have historically been rocky, but the disagreements over how to approach the Palestinian issue came into sharper focus during the recent Gaza crisis.
Last week, Netanyahu reportedly reprimanded the US ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, admonishing Washington "not to second-guess him again" over policy toward Hamas.
When asked about the quote during a news conference in Tel Aviv on Saturday night, the premier went out of his way to praise the Obama administration for its condemnation of Hamas' violation of the cease-fire last week as well as Washington's funding of the Iron Dome project.
Nonetheless, the administration has also used strong language to condemn Israeli shelling of UN-run schools in Gaza.
The JPost headlined this story as US-Israel ties at new low after Netanyahu-Kerry phone 'disconnect.' They don't back up the headline and I am not convinced the headline is correct, because Israel's relations in the United States are not solely dependent on its relations with the Obama administration.
There's an unspoken perception in Israel - largely backed up by the US media - that Obama is already a lame duck. His poll numbers in the US keep going from bad to worse, and the Republicans could yet control both of Houses of Congress by next January. Be that as it may, with the midterm elections ahead, the Obama administration can do little to harm Israel, at least until November. Right now, Israel's support in the US is solid, and most Americans seem to understand that Israel had little choice but to do what it did. Clearly, after Kerry forced us into the ceasefire last Friday which lasted only 90 minutes, Netanyahu had grounds to tell Shapiro (who actually was much more pro-Israel than his bosses during the recent war) not to second-guess him again when it comes to Hamas.
Sure, there's a lot of personal animosity between Obama and Netanyahu, but we're still a democracy and so is the US. Netanyahu's poll numbers are much better than Obama's.
Great news: The Americans have a plan to install Guess Who in Gaza
Yes, of course. The Americans want to put 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazenin charge in Gaza.
In an interview with Israel’s Channel 2 news,
Shapiro was asked about the unity government formed last month by
Abbas’s Fatah faction and Hamas. He did not reply directly and instead
noted that Abbas was currently in close contact with Egypt, trying to
broker a ceasefire to end the Hamas-Israel hostilities. Then he
said, “At the end of this conflict, we’ll seek to help the moderate
elements among the Palestinians to become stronger in Gaza,” referring
to Abbas’s PA. “They might be able to run Gaza more effectively than
Hamas, a terror organization.”
Hamas ousted Abbas’s forces in a violent takeover in 2007.
When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?
Somehow the 'international community' is managing to pretend that Hamas is not a member of the Hamas-Fatah unity government. And therefore, it has convinced itself that said 'government' does not constitute a threat to peace. The 'real threat to peace' according to the United States, the European Union and the United Nations, is building homes for Jews. This is from the first link.
The US envoy told Army Radio Thursday, "We oppose construction in the
settlements and this type of announcement about building. This would
happen with or without the disagreement on the new Palestinian
transitional government."
Shapiro responded to Israeli criticism
of Washington's decision to work with the new Palestinian government.
"We have no illusions about Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization. We
have no relations with Hamas, we will not work with them , we will not
give them aid, we will not work with a government in which Hamas sits."
To say that Hamas is not sitting in the new 'technocratic' government is an act of verbal acrobatics that is worthy of a Cirque de Soleil show. Given that Hamas signed off on every minister in this government, to say that Hamas is not part of it is an optical delusion.
Then there are the Euroweenies, who are not and never have been friends of Israel. This is from the second link.
"We are deeply disappointed that the Israeli Land Administration has published new tenders
for 1,466 housing units in settlements in east Jerusalem and the rest of
the West Bank," the statement read. "This move is unhelpful to peace
efforts."
Which peace efforts might those be? Surely not any with which the 'Palestinians' are cooperating.
"We call on the Israeli authorities to reverse this decision and to
direct all their efforts towards an early resumption of the peace
talks," it continued.
Here's Israel's response. Let's go to the videotape.
The Euroweenies added an additional threat:
The EU has been working to clarify its legal economic guidelines
regarding West Bank settlement products, and included what could be seen
as a veiled threat of sanctions in their statement.
"We recall
that the EU Foreign Affairs Council has also reaffirmed its commitment
to fully and effectively implement existing legislation in relation to
settlements," it said.
And of course the United Nations had to pile on. This is from the third link.
While the European Union (EU) stated that it was "deeply disappointed"
by the move and called for Israel to "reverse" the construction
announcements, Ban was "deeply concerned" according to his spokesperson
Stephane Dujarric, reports AFP.
"As the United Nations has reiterated on many occasions, the
building of settlements on occupied territory is illegal under
international law," said Dujarric on behalf of Ban. It is worth noting
that the 2012 Levy Reportfound that Judea and Samaria are not "occupied territory" under international law.
Ban called on both parties "to avoid taking unilateral actions on the ground that would further diminish the chances of reaching a negotiated final peace agreement."
Hey Monkey Moon - is forming a government with a designated terror organization unilateral enough for you?
"The secretary general calls on Israel to heed the calls of the international community to freeze settlement activity and abide by its commitments under international law and the roadmap," Ban added.
When is the 'international community' going to ask the 'Palestinians' to abide by their commitments under the road map?
But a special place in the Hall of Shame goes to State Department mouthpiece Marie Harf:
From Foggy Bottom, State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf
reinforced Shapiro's interview, endorsing his characterization of the
tense exchange between anonymous US and Israeli officials.
"We
have been clear that we will judge this new technocratic government by
its actions," Harf said. "Again, their primary goal is to set up
elections."
She declined to call the Israeli response
hypocritical, given Israel's transfer of aid the day of the unity
government's formation. But Harf reserved harsher words for a rebuke of
Israel's settlement announcement on Thursday, calling the development
"unhelpful and counterproductive," and their ultimate construction
"illegitimate."
"We are deeply disappointed," Harf said. Asked
whether the US would go further, and possibly ask the Israeli government
to reverse the decision, Harf declined to comment.
Hey - you know what? We're 'deeply disappointed' too. Deeply disappointed that the 'most pro-Israel government evah' (or so they claim) would not immediately disavow a junta in which one of the partners is a designated terror organization that's dedicated to murdering all of us.
MK's apologize to Shapiro for recording and leaking meeting contents
A group of MK's had an 'off the record' meeting with US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro on Tuesday. There were two small problems. First, at least one MK recorded the meeting. And second, several MK's leaked the contents of the meeting to the media.
Knesset Land of Israel caucus chair-people Yariv Levin (Likud Beytenu) and Orit Struck (Bayit Yehudi) expressed regret on Wednesday that a recording of the parliamentary group's closed meeting with US Ambassador Dan Shapiro was leaked to the press.
The meeting, which took place on Tuesday,
was closed to the press and was described by attendees as "charged,"
after MKs used harsh language in discussions of Israeli agent Jonathan
Pollard's treatment and accused the US of bias against Israel in talks
with Palestinians.
Shapiro spoke to Levin and Struck, saying that he was upset that the meeting was recorded.
Levin and Struck apologized and said that the participant did not realize the meeting was closed before recording it.
However, sources in the meeting were made aware that it was meant to be closed to press by The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday, but still agreed to divulge extensive information about it.
Struck and Levin thanked Shapiro for taking part in the meeting.
Shapiro accepted their apology and said that, in his opinion, it was a successful and beneficial discussion.
But it's not likely to happen again anytime soon. Only in Israel....
US Ambassador: Framework agreement will insist 'Palestinians' recognize Israel as Jewish state
US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro told Israel Radio's Reshet Bet on Friday that US Secretary of State John FN Kerry's 'framework agreement' would insist that the 'Palestinians' recognize Israel as the Jewish state.
"[The PA] recognizing Israel as Jewish state is a key sign that the conflict is ending," Shapiro stated on Reshet Bet radio. "The United States has always believed that Israel is a Jewish state and that it should stay that way."
He said the two sides will have to make significant decisions, as he
put it, and to discuss among other things the question of what will be
the fate of the communities in Judea and Samaria. Shapiro noted that
"there are several options we can take on the issue" and declined to
elaborate further.
"The US knows that there are people in the government and the Knesset
who oppose the idea of two states, but Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu promised to resolve this, and the majority of the people are
behind him," Shapiro added.
More popcorn needed: 'Palestinians' accuse Kerry of 'appeasing Israel' over Iran
I don't think we're going to see John Kerry hugging Saeb Erekat or Yasser Abed Rabbo any time soon. Abed Rabbo attacked Kerry on Monday for seeking to appease Israel over Iran by his positions in the 'negotiations' with the 'Palestinians.'
But Abed Rabbo
told Voice of Palestine radio that Kerry had plunged the process into
crisis by seeking to "appease Israel through agreeing to its expansion
demands in the (Jordan) Valley under the pretext of security."
US
acquiescence to Israel's security demands was aimed at "silencing the
Israelis over the deal with Iran and achieving a fake progress in the
Palestinian-Israeli track at our expense", he said.
Abed Rabbo
was referring to the Nov. 24 interim accord reached in Geneva between
world powers and Iran, whereby it agreed to some curbs on its disputed
nuclear program in exchange for the easing of international sanctions.
"These
two issues concern both Israel's security and our security and the
interests of all the Middle East, that it be a more quiet and stable
region. But we do not see any linkage in which we seek to give on one
issue and receive on the other," Shapiro told Israel's Army Radio.
Shapiro's comment is pretty ironic given that the Obama administration has tried for the last five years to link Iran to the 'Palestinians,' claiming that Israel would never get the support of the Arab countries for an attack on Iran without their first being a 'Palestinian state.'
Israel
has not commented on the US proposals but cabinet minister Yaakov Peri
said on Sunday the government had not yet agreed to them.
That may well be true. But it's clear that the US position on the security proposals is closer to Israel's than to the 'Palestinians.'
US Ambassador to Israel: US strike on Syria 'certain'
US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro has told Israel Radio that a US strike on Syria is 'certain' and will be 'strong and serious.'
#BREAKINGNEWS: US ambassador to Israel @AmbShapiro tells Israel Radio a US strike on Syria is certain and will be strong and serious.
— Amir Mizroch (@Amirmizroch) August 29, 2013
Here we go again: Claim Arab cameraman was strip-searched at US Ambassador's July 4 party
A cameraman for the US sponsored al-Hura network was allegedly strip-searched by Israeli security before being admitted to the UN Independence Day party on Thursday night. Both US Ambassador Dan Shapiro and Prime Minister Netanyahu have thus far refused to comment about the story.
The Arab satellite channel had coordinated with the Israeli prime
minister's office to cover the event on behalf of the international
media. But when cameraman Samer Jallad arrived, he said he was detained
for questioning, ordered to remove his shoes and sit in the sun for more
than half an hour, and then taken to a room where he was forced to
remove his pants for a body inspection. He said he was held for more
than 90 minutes before he was permitted to enter.
It
was the latest in a string of incidents in which Israeli security have
used heavy-handed tactics against Arab journalists, a practice Israel
has defended as necessary for security. Jallad, who said he has covered
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on many occasions, is a Palestinian from East Jerusalem who holds full Israeli residency rights and has a government-issued press card.
The
Foreign Press Association, which represents international media in
Israel, called on the U.S. Embassy to condemn the incident.
"We
find it especially shameful that a staffer of a U.S.-funded network
would be the victim of racial profiling at an official U.S. event
celebrating American Independence Day," the FPA said. "Such treatment
goes against the core values of freedom and equality that the U.S. seeks
to uphold."
Ambassador
Dan Shapiro refused to comment and only said he had no knowledge of the
incident. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office had no immediate
comment.
I wonder whether this had something to do with the fear of an attack.
The fact that US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro even has to say this speaks volumes about the acrimonious state of US-Israel relations in the Age of Obama.
US President Barack Obama's upcoming visit to Jerusalem
- the first of its kind since he entered the White House in 2009 - will
be without precondition, US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro told
Israel Radio on Wednesday morning.
Obama will discuss three main
issues with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu: restarting the peace
process with the Palestinians, the Iranian nuclear program and the civil
war in Syria and the risks it poses to Israel, Shapiro told Israel
Radio.
"President Obama very much respects the Israeli political process,"
he said. "He won't intervene in elections or coalition talks, and he
will arrive after a new government is formed. They agreed that the start
of his second term and the new Israeli government will be a good time
for him to come and renew the deep connection that is ongoing between
Israel and the US."
Shapiro added that Obama is coming without
preconditions, but rather as in the framework of consultation on all
issues facing both Israel and the United States.
As I wrote last night, I believe that the trip's timing is connected to Passover (Pesach) and the hope that most Israelis will have better things to do with their time than to come out and demonstrate against Obama.
If Obama really wants to repair his relations with Israel, he should drop the 'Palestinians' until they are ready to come to the table without preconditions. But Obama has shown absolutely no willingness to drop the 'Palestinians' to date. He is only interested in pressuring Israel.
And a bold prediction: This will be Obama's last trip to Israel as President. I don't believe he's going to accomplish anything he wants to accomplish.
Our
thoughts are with the residents of southern Israel, who continue to be
bombarded with missile attacks from terrorist organizations in Gaza.
The United States supports Israel's right to defend itself and its
citizens from these attacks.
We Israelis appreciate Ambassador Shapiro's comments. But we wish they were coming from his boss. And from his boss' boss.
It was only when blowback occurred that could hurt his political prospects that he stepped forward and inserted the language to assuage critics.
Furthermore Lasky writes (in agreement with what Shmuel Rosner wrote) that it was likely Robert Wexler who contributed the language about the Middle East.
Rick Richman showed that the administration has a history with Jerusalem:
Initially approving a platform that omitted the prior provisions, and then demonstrating in the process of restoring one of them that the omissions were not inadvertent, is the culmination of a longer process: (1) administration spokespersons who repeatedly refused to identify the capital of Israel; (2) a formal warning to the Supreme Court against even symbolically recognizing Jerusalem as being in Israel on the passports of Americans born there; (c) doctoring pictures on the White House website regarding Vice President Biden’s 2010 visit to “Jerusalem, Israel” (and similar references in State Department documents); and (4) failing to visit Jerusalem despite requests by liberal Israeli columnists, every Jewish Democrat in Congress, friendly rabbis, and the Israeli prime minister.
In support, In Context shows that the omission of Jerusalem from the platform is historically unique:
Since 1968, with the sole exception of the rather odd platform (more like a manifesto) adopted in 1988, every Democratic party platform has included language similar to that quoted above from 2008. Note that recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a point to which every Democratic (or Republican) administration has refused to acquiesce once safely in office, was always explicitly acknowledged.
Seth Mandel observes that what we saw at the convention reflects what is going on in the Democratic Party:
In fact, not only is the Democratic Party divided on Israel, but as Ari Fleischer pointed out on CNN right after the debacle, the Democrats are practically split down the middle on this. He cited a Gallup poll from earlier this year showing that only 53 percent of Democrats—versus 78 percent of Republicans—side with Israel in the Middle East conflict. Which leads to a larger point about the issue and the reason the Democrats went into damage control last night: the Democratic Party’s base is pulling it away from Israel. It’s disturbing that only half of Democrats sympathize with Israel, but as yesterday’s events showed, among the base sympathy for Israel is not nearly that high.
It could be concluded that the Obama administration's disinterest in Israel reflects an unfortunate trend within the Democratic party.
2) Bibi blows his stack
I had originally discounted recent reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu had gotten angry with the American ambassador to Israel, Daniel Shapiro in a meeting. Now a third person who was at the meeting confirmed the story. Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee told his version of the meeting on a recent radio show. Jeffrey Goldberg reports on the comments in Intelligence Committee Chair Describes Explosive Confrontation Between Netanyahu and American Ambassador. (via memeorandum)
Beckmann then asked: "Is it inaccurate to say it was a shouting match?" Rogers answered: "I can say that there were elevated concerns on behalf of the Israelis." When asked if he had "ever seen that sort of thing before," Rogers answered: "No not that directly. We've had sharp exchanges with other heads of state and in intelligence services and other things, but nothing at that level that I've seen in all my time where people were clearly that agitated, clearly that worked up about a particular issue where there was a very sharp exchange." Rogers went on to describe what he understands to be the Israeli frustration, and, apparently, his frustration, with the impact of sanctions: "Here's the problem. ....I support the sanctions. But if you're going to have a hammer you have to have an anvil. You have to have at least a credible threat of a military option. So it's having an effect, yes, it's having an effect on the Iranian economy. It is not impacting their race on enrichment and other things, and that's very very clear." He went on, "I think the Israeli position is, 'Hey, listen, you've got to tell us -- I mean, if you want us to wait' -- and that's what this Administration's been saying, you've gotta wait, you've gotta wait, you've gotta wai -- got that -- 'but then you've gotta tell us when is the red line so we can make our own decisions about should we or shouldn't we stop this particular program." And Rogers had harsh words for the Administration, which he says has made it very clear to the Israelis what they shouldn't do, but hasn't delivered a message to the Iranians with the same clarity: "There's a lot of pieces in play on this. But I think again, their frustration is that the Administration hasn't made it very clea -- they've made it very clear to Israel in a public way that they shouldn't do it, but haven't made it very clear to Iran in a public way that there will be tougher action, which could include -- and I argue peace through strength, so you just need to let them understand that that's an option so we can deter them from their program. And right now the Israelis don't' believe that the Administration is serious when they say that all options are on the table, and more importantly neither do the Iranians. That's why the program is progressing."
There has been a tendency (in the New York Times for example) to portray PM Netanyahu (as well as Defense Minister Barak) as overanxious to attack Iran. While Netanyahu certainly comes off as impatient here or at his "wits' end" it seems it is precisely because he's trying to avoid military action. What seems to be motivating Netanyahu is not aggression, but how best to defend his nation. The lack of a clear commitment form the Obama administration has put Netanyahu in an untenable situation.
In sum, many private agendas are impacting on the Iran debate and not enough people are taking the Iranian threat seriously. Left-wing Israelis eager to isolate Netanyahu and Barak beg to be reassured by the US. Some American Jews seek to distance themselves from Netanyahu and Barak – for fear of being accused again of dragging the US (or of Israel dragging the US) to war, as was the case with Iraq – so they mock Israeli leadership as nuts. Conservatives seek to portray Obama as a weakling for electoral purposes. Obama seeks to deflect attention from the fact that his ineffective diplomacy let the issue slide for the past four years. His defenders are preparing public opinion for a sell-out deal with the Iranians in 2013 that ignores Israel. As I said, everybody is playing kick the can. Meanwhile, the Iranian centrifuges keep spinning…
3) A Kinsleyesque gaffe in Jordan
A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth - Michael Kinsley
Then there are the surviving regimes – notably Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the five Gulf emirates – who know the main threat to them is from Iran and revolutionary Islamists at home, not Israel. In fact, they realize Israel is a kind of protector for them since it is motivated and able to strike against those who also want to put their heads on the chopping block.
The Centre for Jewish and Israeli Affairs recently reported on a meeting its members held with King Abdullah of Jordan (h/t Elder of Ziyon):
King Abdullah engaged in a very open discussion about the challenges in the region – and in particular, those faced by Jordan. He noted that Jordan was carrying the economic brunt of the conflict in Syria. In particular, Jordan has been overwhelmed with almost 200,000 refugees, with an additional 100,000 expected. The cost – housing, food, school and medical care – is enormous and burdens an economy already strapped for cash, energy and water. We were asked to convey the message that Jordan requires immediate and increased foreign aid and investment in order to meet this challenge. Of particular note was the King’s acknowledgment that Israel – which he views as Jordan’s key regional ally – has been highly responsive to his requests in the context of efforts to bring about a resumption of direct talks between Israel and the PA. King Abdullah further expressed the belief that achieving peace on the Israel-Palestinian front will make immeasurably easier the task of confronting other – even existential – challenges facing the region, including the ability to garner support from other Arab nations in relation to the Iranian nuclear threat.
(emphasis added by Elder of Ziyon)
I'm surprised that King Abdullah would acknowledge this. I guess like his father and unlike his Prime Minister, he likes reading Barry Rubin.
4) There's a reason it's not called the Sisterhood
The New York Times recently published a rather negative account of a woman's place in Egypt of the Muslim Brotherhood, Family Life According to the Brotherhood:
Those broader efforts at shaping a conservative religious society, played out over decades by the Brotherhood, were seen as partly responsible for helping elect Mohamed Morsi president in June. At the time, Mr. Morsi, who resigned from the Brotherhood after taking office, gave assurances that he would protect the rights of women and include them in decision making. Less than three months into his presidency, though, Mr. Morsi has not fulfilled a campaign promise to appoint a woman as a vice president. Instead, he named a team of 21 senior aides and advisers last week that included three women. ... Many analysts and critics of the Brotherhood see that kind of philosophy, one that gives women independence so long as they maintain their traditional obligations, as effectively constraining women to established gender roles. “There is an absence of a well-defined vision, so they use words like ‘religious restrictions,’ ” said Ibrahim el-Houdaiby, a researcher of Islamic movements and a former member of the Brotherhood. “O.K., sure, so what exactly are those restrictions, so we can know them and figure out how to deal with them? As long as we don’t define what those limits are, then we can expand them to the point where women, practically speaking, cannot work.”
Rogers description of the meeting directly contradicts repeated Administration assertions that there is "no daylight" on the Iran issue with the Israeli government. Shortly after the meeting took place, Israeli press reports appeared suggesting that Netanyahu and Shapiro had engaged in an argument, but Shapiro soon dismissed those reports, calling them "silly" and saying, "The published account of that meeting did not reflect what actually occurred in the meeting. The conversations were entirely friendly and professional."
Rogers, speaking to WJR radio host Frank Beckmann, painted a very different picture. He said the meeting, originally scheduled to be a discussion of intelligence and technical issues between himself and the prime minister, spun out of control when Netanyahu began lambasting Shapiro over the Administration's Iran policy. When Beckmann asked Rogers to describe the tenor of the meeting, he said: "Very tense. Some very sharp... exchanges and it was very, very clear the Israelis had lost their patience with the (Obama) Administration." He went on, "There was no doubt. You could not walk out of that meeting and think that they had not lost their patience with this Administration."
Rogers said Israeli frustration grows from what they see -- and he sees -- as a refusal by the Obama Administration to outline an endgame: "(I)t was very clear the overarching policy has been frustrating mainly because I think it's not very clear. What we walked out of that meeting knowing is that the Administration was trying to defend itself." By the end, he said, there was a "sharp exchange between the Administration's representative there, our ambassador there, and Mr. Netanyahu, which was unusual to say the least, but I thought at the end of the day maybe productive."
Beckmann then asked: "Is it inaccurate to say it was a shouting match?" Rogers answered: "can say that there were elevated concerns on behalf of the Israelis." When asked if he had "ever seen that sort of thing before," Rogers answered: "No not that directly. We've had sharp exchanges with other heads of state and in intelligence services and other things, but nothing at that level that I've seen in all my time where people were clearly that agitated, clearly that worked up about a particular issue where there was a very sharp exchange."
...
And Rogers had harsh words for the Administration, which he says has made it very clear to the Israelis what they shouldn't do, but hasn't delivered a message to the Iranians with the same clarity: "There's a lot of pieces in play on this. But I think again, their frustration is that the Administration hasn't made it very clea -- they've made it very clear to Israel in a public way that they shouldn't do it, but haven't made it very clear to Iran in a public way that there will be tougher action, which could include -- and I argue peace through strength, so you just need to let them understand that that's an option so we can deter them from their program. And right now the Israelis don't' believe that the Administration is serious when they say that all options are on the table, and more importantly neither do the Iranians. That's why the program is progressing."
...
PART II: When asked by Beckmann at what he believes the Israelis willl say "enough is enough," Rogers answered: "Certainly when you walk out of that meeting you get the feeling that they are finally at wits' end, and that's what concerned me about the meeting."
He went on, "I will say that as a part of their decision point or data point when they go through the process of should we or shouldn't we, it was clear that our American elections have worked its way into one of those data points. I thought, well, maybe that hedges their response until maybe after the election. But what I got out of that, walking out of that, wa,s yeah they're considering it, but at this point they're very frustrated because they don't' know what happens after the election, and their window for impacting the program they believe is starting to close."
...
The Israelis are upset because that dash question seems to be shortening and they already believe they have enough enrichment for more than one nuclear bomb. That's why their anxiety is high and the United States position isn't all that clear." Beckmann then asked Rogers how close the Israelis believe that dash period to be. Rogers: "The Israelis believe it's short. I mean, Netanyahu made it very clear he thought it was a matter of weeks. If they decide to do the dash it could be four weeks to eight weeks, which is a month or two months. Our intelligence analysts believe it would be a little longer than that. But the problem is, nobody really knows for sure. But we do know, and I think everyone agrees, including, you know, our European intelligence allies and other things that they are clearly marching down this road."
So now we can add Dan Shapiro to the list of Democratic liars.
By the way, you will recall that Goldberg wrote a long piece in the Atlantic a year and a half ago arguing that Israel would attack Iran. Hmmm.
Channel 2 interview with US Ambassador Dan Shapiro
Here's an interview in English by Channel 2 television's Yonit Levy with US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, who's talking about Iran and trying to downplay the differences between the US and Israel on the Iranian issue.
Let's go to the videotape.
For those of you who are more comfortable in Hebrew, there's a Hebrew summary here.
Note how hard he works to duck the Dempsey statement (which he never did address). What's necessary here is for Obama to say something about stopping Iran aside from claiming that 'defense cooperation has never been better.' Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
Report: Netanyahu in shouting match with US ambassador Shapiro over Iran
Prime Minister Netanyahu had a shouting match with US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro in front of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mi) last week according to a number of reports. The subject was Iran.
A source that participated in the meeting said that a particularly angry and stressed Netanyahu began a tirade against the US president, attacking him for not doing enough on Iran. "Instead of pressuring Iran in an effective way, Obama and his people are pressuring us not to attack the nuclear facilities," the source quoted Netanyahu as saying.
Angered about continued US rhetoric that diplomacy needs more time to work, Netanyahu said flatly: "Time has run out," Yediot reported.
The American ambassador is said to have responded politely but firmly, telling Netanyahu that he was distorting Obama's position. Obama promised not to allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, he explained, and left all options on the table, including military options.
At that point, diplomatic sources told the paper, "sparks flew" in an escalating shouting match between Netanyahu and Shapiro as the stunned congressman watched.
The next round between Netanyahu and the Obama administration is slated to take place after Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) at the UN General Assembly meeting in New York. However, that meeting is likely to be more low-keyed or, as better known in military jargon, "low intensity." Netanyahu is likely to meet with President Obama, who will be on the last leg of his reelection campaign and would need an all-smiles photo with the Israeli premier.
Obama is likely to reiterate the things he has said before about his resolve to stop Iran. Netanyahu, for his part, will tell reporters that he has been able to get an American promise that will allow Israel to postpone the decision to launch an independent, unilateral strike in Iran.
This, however, is not the end of the story. For every smiley meeting before the elections comes the day after the US vote. Advised of the exchange between Netanyahu and Shapiro, one official opined that if on Nov. 6 Obama remains in the Oval Office, "Netanyahu will have to seek shelter against the revenge of the American President in his second term." [Emphasis mine. CiJ].
Meanwhile, on the sidelines and in the back rooms of this scuffle between Obama and Netanyahu, the prime minister has decided to extend the term of Israel's ambassador to the US Michael Oren by one year. The original plan to dispatch Ron Dermer, Netanyahu's closest political adviser, has been put on hold. This appointment will have to wait for the prime minister's optimistic scenario to materialize – to see the Republican nominee Mitt Romney becoming the next president. After the "brawl" between Netanyahu and Shapiro, it seems that the prime minister has another reason to hope for this scenario to come true.
The US Embassy would not comment.
But the majority of American Jewry will still pull the lever for Obama on November 6. I guess they think they have no need to worry.
Regardless, Israel has no choice. Unless it is clear that Romney is going to win the election (even if Romney wins, it's not likely to become clear that he will do so soon enough), Israel will have to attack Iran before the US elections. It may be our only chance to do so.
US ambassador to Israel: 'It's understandable why Israel would tell the 'human rights council' to buzz off'
US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro told a group of students at Tel Aviv University on Monday that Israel's decision to cut ties with the United Nations 'human rights council' is 'understandable.'
During a meeting with students at Tel Aviv University, Shapiro said that the Council "obsessively focuses" on Israel, while neglecting other human rights issues that are far more important and urgent.
The ambassador explained that the United States continues to sit at the Council in order to try shift the focus away on Israel and put it where it belongs, in Syria or Iran.
Shapiro also noted that the United States was the only member to vote against setting up the commission of inquiry, against ten European countries.
So here's the question: Is Shapiro speaking for himself or also for Obama and Clinton? I'd love to see someone ask Victoria Nuland that question at the State Department later on Tuesday.
Video: How Israel supports US security (from the US Embassy in Tel Aviv)
Kibbutz Sasa saves the lives of countless American troops with its advanced armor technologies. Ambassador Shapiro saw this first hand on January 30 when he visited the Plasan factory in northern Galilee. The Ambassador saw the full range of products, from reactive armor, to purpose built vehicles, to body armor. Plasan has delivered more than 8,000 armor kits to U.S units on active duty.
Israel is a world leader in armor technology and the Ambassador expressed his gratitude for the dedication to quality expressed at Plasan.
Nestled in the forested hills of northern Israel, Kibbutz Sasa does more than just forge armor, they also forge connections. Their unique theater program called Bereshit l'Shalom brings young people together from all sectors of Israeli society. Jews, Arabs, Druze, or Circassian, all use the art of theater and dance to express the importance of working across society's boundaries to interact with others based on similarities, not differences. This successful program has performed throughout Israel and Europe.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
