Jeffrey Goldberg admits what Obama and Kerry still don't get
You walk away from reading this piece by Jeffrey Goldberg - in which he asks President Hussein Obama and Secretary of State Kerry about their views on Iranian anti-Semitism - thinking that
Obama and Kerry are naive fools.
A few days ago, I spoke with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry about the politics of the Iran deal (you can find the full interview here),
and at one point in our conversation I put to Kerry what I thought
was—to be honest—something of a gimme question: “Do you believe that
Iranian leaders sincerely seek the elimination of the Jewish state?”
Kerry responded provocatively—provocatively, that is, if you
understand Iranian leaders, and in particular the supreme leader,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the way I understand them: as people
theologically committed to the destruction of Israel. Quotes such as this one
from Khamenei help lead me to this conclusion: “This barbaric,
wolflike, and infanticidal regime of Israel which spares no crime has no
cure but to be annihilated.” The supreme leader does not specialize in
nuance. (Here
is a long list of statements made by Iranian leaders concerning their
desire to bring about an end to Jewish sovereignty in any part of the
ancestral Jewish homeland.)
Kerry’s
stated understanding of the regime’s anti-Semitism is somewhat
different from mine. He told me, “I think they have a fundamental
ideological confrontation with Israel at this particular moment. Whether
or not that translates into active steps, to quote, ‘Wipe it,’ you know
…”
He paused, and so I filled in the blank: “Wipe it off the map.”
Kerry continued, “I don’t know the answer to that. I haven’t seen
anything that says to me—they’ve got 80,000 rockets in Hezbollah pointed
at Israel, and any number of choices could have been made. They didn’t
make the bomb when they had enough material for 10 to 12. They’ve signed
on to an agreement where they say they’ll never try and make one and we
have a mechanism in place where we can prove that. So I don’t want to
get locked into that debate. I think it’s a waste of time here.”
Kerry’s understanding, in shorthand: Iran is dangerous to Israel at
this moment (he repeated the term “at this moment” in his next
statement, in fact); Iran has had plenty of opportunity to hurt Israel
but has chosen not to; and, finally, the answer to the question
concerning the true intentions of Iran’s leaders when it comes to Israel
is unknowable, and also irrelevant to the current discussion.
And Kerry almost looks clairvoyant compared with what Obama told Goldberg.
“Well, we’ve discussed this before,
Jeffrey,” the president said. “I take what the supreme leader says
seriously. I think his ideology is steeped with anti-Semitism, and if he
could, without catastrophic costs, inflict great harm on Israel, I’m
confident that he would. But as I said, I think, the last time we spoke,
it is possible for leaders or regimes to be cruel, bigoted, twisted in
their worldviews and still make rational calculations with respect to
their limits and their self-preservation.”
In the May interview, I asked him to help me understand a seemingly
contradictory set of ideas he has advanced relating to Iran. I noted
that he himself has stated publicly that the regime is infected with an
anti-Semitic worldview, and that those who are infected with such a
worldview generally do not grapple well with cause-and-effect in
international politics and economics, and cannot be counted on to
interpret reality correctly. I then asked how he squares these two
observations with a third observation he has made: that the regime in
Tehran is in many ways capable of behaving according to its rational
self-interest, as American politicians understand the notion of rational
self-interest.
His answer: “Well, the fact that you are anti-Semitic, or racist,
doesn’t preclude you from being interested in survival. It doesn’t
preclude you from being rational about the need to keep your economy
afloat; it doesn’t preclude you from making strategic decisions about
how you stay in power; and so the fact that the supreme leader is
anti-Semitic doesn’t mean that this overrides all of his other
considerations. You know, if you look at the history of anti-Semitism,
Jeff, there were a whole lot of European leaders—and there were deep
strains of anti-Semitism in this country—”
Here I interrupted him: “And they make irrational decisions.”
He continued: “They may make irrational decisions with respect to
discrimination, with respect to trying to use anti-Semitic rhetoric as
an organizing tool. At the margins, where the costs are low, they may
pursue policies based on hatred as opposed to self-interest. But the
costs here are not low, and what we’ve been very clear [about] to the
Iranian regime over the past six years is that we will continue to
ratchet up the costs, not simply for their anti-Semitism, but also for
whatever expansionist ambitions they may have. That’s what the sanctions
represent. That’s what the military option I’ve made clear I preserve
represents. And so I think it is not at all contradictory to say that
there are deep strains of anti-Semitism in the core regime, but that
they also are interested in maintaining power, having some semblance of
legitimacy inside their own country, which requires that they get
themselves out of what is a deep economic rut that we’ve put them in,
and on that basis they are then willing and prepared potentially to
strike an agreement on their nuclear program.”
Except that there is no 'military option' (and no one ever believed Obama would be the one to employ it anyway) and if Obama gets his way there will be no sanctions. And by the way, what was Hitler - a 'community organizer'?
I made a decision on the spot—later partially regretted—not to deploy the H-bomb just then because I am a) very mindful of Godwin’s Law;
b) I don’t believe the Iranian regime is the modern-day equivalent of
the Nazi regime, in part because the Nazi regime is without peer; and c)
the invocation of Hitler’s name in these matters tends to set teeth too
much on edge. In retrospect, though, I should have raised it, because
Hitler is the perfect, but not singular, example of a world leader who
made decisions that seemed, to his adversaries, deeply irrational except
if you understood his desire to wipe out the Jews of Europe as an
actual overriding policy goal, a raison d’etre of his rule.
Anti-Semitism was not simply an “organizing tool” for him. And if you’re
paying attention, you will see that bringing about the end of the
sovereign Jewish state in the Middle East is a paramount political and
theological mission of the Iranian regime.
And so I was glad that Obama acknowledged the supreme leader’s
heartfelt anti-Semitism, and I’m glad that he understands that the
supreme leader seeks to do great harm to Israel. I suppose I part with
the president’s analysis on the question of exactly how much pain the
supreme leader believes Iran should absorb on behalf of this goal. Obama
believes the Iranian leadership will check its behavior in order to
avoid potentially catastrophic fallout. He may be right, but I would
like to see his administration place slightly less faith in the idea of
regime rationality.
Of course, there's a more cynical view of this - which I have alluded to many times, but with which I believe that Goldberg himself would take issue. That view holds that Obama is an anti-Semite (you can tell a
man by the
company that he
keeps) and that Kerry
may well
be one as well. It's already been stated in polite society that Obama at least has a
blind spot for anti-Semitism. In that view, Obama and Kerry are lulling much of the United States into complacency when they know full well Iran's desire to destroy the Jewish state.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Adolph Hitler, anti-Semitism, Ayatollah Ali Khameni, Barack Hussein Obama, Islamic anti-Semitism, Jeffrey Goldberg, John Kerry
ICYMI: Kerry tells Jeffrey Goldberg 'If Congress rejects Iran sellout, Iran won't play role in Middle East peace'
From Jeffrey Goldberg's
interview with John Kerry, which I have
discussed previously.
Kerry also said that his chief Iranian interlocutor, the foreign
minister, Javad Zarif, and Zarif’s boss, the (relatively) reformist
president, Hassan Rouhani, would be in “serious trouble” at home if the
deal falls through. Zarif, Kerry told me, explicitly promised him that
Iran will engage with the United States and its Arab allies on a range
of regional issues, should Congress approve the deal. “Zarif
specifically said to me in the last two weeks, ‘If we get this finished,
I am now empowered to work with and talk to you about regional
issues.’” Kerry went on, “This is in Congress’s hands. If Congress says
no, Congress will shut that down, shut off that conversation, set this
back, and set in motion a series of inevitables about what would happen
with respect to Iranian behavior, and, by the way, the sanctions will be
over.”
You mean that if Congress says yes to the Iran sellout, Iran will want a seat at the table on the 'peace process,' and if Congress says no, Iran will stay away. Sounds to me like another reason to say no.
Labels: Hassan Rohani, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Jeffrey Goldberg, John Kerry, Middle East peace process, Mohammad Javad Zarif, United States Congress
Comedy gold: Obama's favorite reporter interviews John Kerry
It doesn't get much sillier than this. @JeffreyGoldberg interviews @JohnKerry, who describes the deal that guarantees that Iran will be a nuclear armed state as '
pro-Israel.'
Kerry rejected criticism from Israel,
and from many in the American Jewish community, that by publicly
warning Israel that it will be further isolated internationally if the
deal should be rejected, he has encouraged scapegoating of the Jewish
state: “If you’ve ever played golf, you know that you yell ‘fore’
off the tee,” he explained. “You’re not threatening somebody, you’re
warning them: ‘Look, don’t get hit by the ball, it’s coming.’”
Kerry believes that a congressional rejection of the deal will lead
to war—he explains his theory of his case in detail below—and he finds
the “visceral” and “emotional” criticism of the deal in Israel, and
among many of Israel’s supporters, flummoxing. “I’ve gone through this
backwards and forwards a hundred times and I’m telling you, this deal is
as pro-Israel, as pro-Israel’s security, as it gets,” Kerry said. “And I
believe that just saying no to this is, in fact, reckless.” When I
asked him how he interprets Israeli criticism of the deal, he said there
is a “a huge level of fear and mistrust and, frankly, there’s an
inherent sense that, given Iran’s gains and avoidance in the past, that
somehow they’re going to avoid something again. It’s a visceral feeling,
it’s very emotional and visceral and I’m very in tune with that and
very sensitive to that.”
Though he says he is in tune with this set of Israeli fears, he does
not endorse a view widely shared by Israelis—and by many Americans—that
Iran’s leaders, who have often said that they seek the destruction of Israel,
mean what they say. “I think they have a fundamental ideological
confrontation with Israel at this particular moment. Whether or not that
translates into active steps to, quote, ‘Wipe it,’ you know ...” Here I
interjected: “Wipe it off the map.”
Kerry continued: “I don’t
know the answer to that. I haven’t seen anything that says to me—they’ve
got 80,000 rockets in Hezbollah pointed at Israel, and any number of
choices could have been made. They didn’t make the bomb when they had
enough material for 10 to 12. They’ve signed on to an agreement where
they say they’ll never try and make one and we have a mechanism in place
where we can prove that. So I don’t want to get locked into that
debate. I think it’s a waste of time here.”
They didn't make the bomb when they had enough material for 10-12 (which only happened during the Obama administration by the way), because they figured why become a pariah when a little bit of patience will let you do it with the 'international community's approval.
In the meantime, three senior Jewish Democrats - including the highest ranking Jew in the House - have all come out against the deal (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
The highest-ranking Jewish Democrat in the House announced his
opposition to the nuclear accord with Iran on Tuesday, in a blow to the
Obama administration’s lobbying efforts.
"I'm going to vote
against the Iran deal," Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) — the former head of
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — told Newsday.
"I
tried very hard to get to yes. But at the end of the day, despite some
positive elements in the deal, the totality compelled me to oppose it.”
In
addition to Rep. Israel, Reps. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) and Ted Deutch
(D-Fla.) also came out against the deal on Tuesday, saying that the
multinational agreement did not include enough safeguards to prevent
Iran from cheating on its commitments or limit it from supporting
extremist groups such as Hezbollah.
“After a decade in public life
working to stop Iran from ever acquiring nuclear weapons, I cannot
support a deal giving Iran billions of dollars in sanctions relief — in
return for letting it maintain an advanced nuclear program and the
infrastructure of a threshold nuclear state,” Deutch wrote in the
Broward County Sun Sentinel.
So it's not just the Israelis who are opposed.
Kerry's flippant attitude toward this really grates. In a lot of ways, he's even more irritating than Obama.
“The ayatollah constantly believed that we are untrustworthy, that
you can’t negotiate with us, that we will screw them,” Kerry said.
“This”—a congressional rejection—“will be the ultimate
screwing.” He went on to argue that “the United States Congress will
prove the ayatollah’s suspicion, and there’s no way he’s ever coming
back. He will not come back to negotiate. Out of dignity, out of a
suspicion that you can’t trust America. America is not going to
negotiate in good faith. It didn’t negotiate in good faith now, would be
his point.”
Unbelievable.
Labels: American Jews, Barack Hussein Obama, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Jeffrey Goldberg, John Kerry, Nita Lowey, Steve Israel, Ted Deutch
@JeffreyGoldberg agrees with 'only 46%' of this mainstream Israeli viewpoint
@JeffreyGoldberg publishes a lengthy critique of his recent interview with, and
a speech by President Obama. The critique was written by Yossi Kuperwasser, who until recently was the director general of Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs and was formerly a special security consultant to the Prime Minister's office. Goldberg describes it - legitimately - as a mainstream Israeli viewpoint, which has to make me wonder with which 54% of what Kuperwasser writes, self-proclaimed Israel supporter Goldberg disagrees. A few
highlights.
During the recent Israeli elections, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s
statements regarding the possibility of a Palestinian state and Arab
Israeli voters triggered a global uproar, leading the prime minister to
quickly issue the necessary clarifications. Nevertheless, the president
accused the prime minister of betraying Israel’s core values, which he
attributed to the likes of the kibbutzim and Moshe Dayan. The
president’s statements betray a lack of understanding of both the past
and present. Moshe Dayan and Netanyahu, for one, were not that
different. Both were eager for peace, but at the same time realistic
about the need for security due to the Palestinian refusal to accept the
Jewish state. Dayan opposed a retreat to the 1967 borders, and in his
famous eulogy for Roi Rotberg, he warned against making dangerous
concessions. Obama also referenced Golda Meir, who famously denied the
existence of the Palestinian people.
President Obama’s anger toward Netanyahu is misplaced, especially
given his extraordinary lack of criticism of Palestinians for far more
egregious behavior. The Palestinians, after all, are the ones who
refused to accept the president’s formula for extending the peace
negotiations. It is Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) who
have called for “popular resistance,” which has led in recent years to
stabbings, stonings, and attacks with cars and Molotov cocktails against
Israelis. Since the PA ended the peace negotiations, there has been a
sharp increase in attacks and casualties in Israel. Hamas, for its part,
openly calls for the extermination of Israelis and sacrifices a
generation of children towards that goal.
In response to these threats, all the president had to say at Adas
Israel was that “the Palestinians are not the easiest of partners.”
Rather than recognizing how fundamentally different Palestinian
political culture is, the president offered slogans about how
Palestinian youth are just like any other in the world. This is a
classic example of the mirror-imaging—the projection of his own values
onto another culture—that has plagued most of his foreign policy.
...
So why does Obama pick on Netanyahu and not on Abbas? The most likely
reason is directly related to a conflict in the West between two
schools of thought, both dedicated to defending democratic and
Judeo-Christian values: Optimism and realism. Obama is a remarkable
proponent for the optimist approach—he fundamentally believes in human
decency, and therefore in dialogue and engagement as the best way to
overcome conflict. He is also motivated by guilt over the West’s
collective sins, which led, he believes, to the current impoverishment
of Muslims in general and Palestinians in particular. He believes that
humility and concessions can salve the wound, and Islamists can be
convinced to accept a global civil society. “If we’re nice to them,
they’ll be nice to us,” Obama thinks.
Netanyahu, on the other hand, is a realist. Due in part to Israel’s
tumultuous neighborhood, he has a much more skeptical attitude of
Islamists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Iranian President
Rouhani’s government. Netanyahu does not see these groups as potential
moderates, willing to play by the international community’s rules;
instead, he acknowledges their radicalism, and their intent to undermine
a world order they consider a humiliating insult to Islam. The major
difference between the Islamists and the extremists, according to
Netanyahu, is one of timing. The Islamists are willing to wait until the
time is ripe to overthrow the existing world order.
Western realists worry that optimists are actively aiding Islamists
in the naïve hope that they will block out the extremists. The realists
believe that a resolute stance, with the use of military force as an
option, is the best way to achieve agreed-upon Western goals. Obama both
prefers the optimist approach and believes that his hopeful dialogues
will achieve the best possible outcome. Netanyahu, on the other hand,
whose nation would feel the most immediate consequences from Western
concessions, does not have the luxury of optimism.
This helps explain why Obama targets Netanyahu for criticism. The
prime minister’s insistence on the dangers of the optimist approach
threatens to expose the inherent weakness of Obama’s worldview and
challenge the president’s assumption that his policy necessarily leads
to the best possible solutions. For Netanyahu and almost everybody in
Israel, as well as pragmatic Arabs, the president’s readiness to assume
responsibility for Iran’s future nuclear weapons, as he told Jeffrey
Goldberg, is no comfort. The realists are not playing a blame game; they
are trying to save their lives and their civilization. To those who
face an existential threat, Obama’s argument sounds appalling.
...
Should Israel at this moment aid in the creation of a Palestinian
state, half of which is already controlled by extremists who last summer
rained down thousands of rockets on Israel, while its leaders urge
their people to reject Israel as the sovereign nation-state of the
Jewish people? Should it aid a movement that follows these five pillars:
1) There is no such thing as the Jewish people; 2) The Jews have no
history of sovereignty in the land of Israel, so the Jewish state’s
demise is inevitable and justified; 3) The struggle against Israel by all
means is legitimate, and the means should be based simply on
cost-benefit analysis; 4) The Jews in general, and Zionists in
particular, are the worst creatures ever created; And 5) because the
Palestinians are victims, they should not be held responsible or
accountable for any obstacles they may throw up to peace?
In short, even though Israel, under Prime Minister Netanyahu, remains
committed to the formula of “two states for two peoples, with mutual
recognition,” the implementation of this idea at this point is
irrelevant. The PA’s poor governance and the general turmoil in the
Middle East render any establishment of a Palestinian state right now
unviable. President Obama admitted as much, reluctantly, but continued
to criticize Netanyahu instead of betraying his optimist paradigm.
Netanyahu’s realism would stray too far from the path Obama, and other
Western leaders, have set in front of them. But while Obama and the
optimists offer their critiques, Netanyahu and the realists will be on
the ground, living with the consequences the optimists have wrought.
Read the whole thing.
Kuperwasser's view is very definitely mainstream Israeli. While not all Israelis have reached the conclusion that I have - that there will never be peace with the 'Palestinians' - a poll before our recent elections showed that
two thirds of Israelis believe that there will be no peace with the 'Palestinians' now regardless of who heads the government. That doesn't comport with Obama's timetable, which comes to an end on January 20, 2017, but it's reality.
Most Israelis don't trust the 'Palestinians' and haven't since Yasser Arafat orchestrated his 'second intifada' in September 2000 (you'd be amazed how trusting Israelis were in the '90's). We don't trust Iran either. We've heard too many people say that they want to kill us, and we know that we have to take such threats seriously. Some Arab commentators refer to that as a '
bunker mentality.' But they've never lived with random suicide bombers and rocket attacks as we have. They've never sent their kids off to school in the morning wondering how, when and if they would return home. They've never had 15 or 30 or 60 seconds to reach a bomb shelter.
And neither has Obama. At least, that's the charitable view of Obama. The harsher view - and one which is apparently still outside the Israeli mainstream but is within the realm of things I find to be at least possible if not likely - is that Obama is determined to destroy '
post-colonialism,' and sees Israel as its most obvious manifestation.
Still wondering which 54% of 'mainstream Israeli' views Goldberg rejects....
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Iranian nuclear threat, Jeffrey Goldberg, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, realism, two-state solution, Yossi Kuperwasser
Really Jeffrey?
If you're wondering, the caption of the photo is 'We believe the children are our future.' But Jeffrey Goldberg
almost seems surprised by this behavior (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
This is how a Hamas spokesman reacted to the massacre of Jews at
prayer: "The new operation is heroic and a natural reaction to Zionist
criminality against our people and our holy places. We have the full
right to revenge for the blood of our martyrs in all possible means."
Twenty years ago, shortly after the Jewish fanatic Baruch Goldstein
massacred Muslims at prayer in Hebron, the then-prime minister of
Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, said of the killer, "You are not part of the
community of Israel. ... You are a foreign implant. You are an errant
weed. Sensible Judaism spits you out."
Hamas's endorsement of the massacre of Jews at prayer in their holy
city confirms—as if we needed confirming—that its goal is the
eradication of Israel and its Jews. We should pray for the day when the
leaders of Gaza react to this sort of massacre in the manner of Yitzhak
Rabin.
Even Jeffrey admits it's not just Hamas.
The Palestinian Authority leader, the more moderate Mahmoud Abbas,
has condemned the attack, but it is also fair to say that he helped
create the atmosphere in which attacks like this one become more likely.
As the Times reports, the attackers "were described as being
motivated by what they saw as threats to the revered plateau [the Temple
Mount] that contains Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. Although
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has repeatedly asserted that
he will not alter the status quo at the site, where non-Muslims can
visit but not openly pray, President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian
Authority has called on his people to protect the area and has warned of
a 'holy war' if it is 'contaminated' by Jews."
The Temple Mount,
of course, is the holiest place in Judaism. Abbas's belief that the
presence of Jews "contaminates" the Mount speaks to his own smallness,
and to his susceptibility to Muslim supremacist ideology. The status quo
should absolutely be preserved, for the sake of peace, and those
Israeli politicians currently calling for a change in the status quo
should put away their gasoline cans. But the events of the past couple
of weeks in Jerusalem suggest that a core issue of the conflict remains
the unwillingness of many Palestinian Muslims to accept the idea that
Jews have rights in their ancestral homeland. And in the case of Hamas
and like-minded groups, that Jews have a right to live.
Somehow, Jeffrey missed
this.
Following the Palestinian Authority's condemnation of this morning's
terror attack in which 4 Jews were murdered while praying in a Jerusalem
synagogue, Abbas' Fatah showed on its official Facebook page that
Abbas' condemnation is not sincere.
Fatah explained Abbas' condemnation of the murders by using Palestinian
Media Watch documentation showing Arafat's bodyguard explaining that
Arafat would lie and condemn terror attacks due to international
pressure to do so, but that "it wasn't true."
...
Fatah posted this text with the video: "For those who argue with Fatah:
Why the PA condemns self-sacrifice operations!" [Facebook, "Fatah - The
Main Page", Nov. 18, 2014]
This shows that Fatah needed to justify the fact that Abbas, heading
both the PA and Fatah, issued a condemnation in the name of the PA.
Arguing that the reason Abbas issued the condemnation is the same reason
Arafat condemned the killing of civilians - namely international
pressure - Fatah states that Abbas' condemnation is not sincere.
Shortly after this post appeared on the Fatah Facebook page the content became unavailable.
Until Goldberg and his friends in the media are willing to be honest about all the 'Palestinian' leadership's genocidal intentions, those who depend on the media for their news will not understand the true nature of the threat facing us. The Temple Mount is just a sideshow. If it weren't that, it would be something else.
It's our very presence in the Jewish homeland. That's what this is all about.
Labels: Fatah, Hamas, Jeffrey Goldberg, Jerusalem, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian terrorism, Temple Mount
There he goes again
President Hussein Obama's mouthpiece seizes upon an
editorial in
The Jewish Week to
bash Israel yet again.
When future historians write about this period in U.S.-Israel relations,
this editorial will warrant serious mention. The unease felt by some
American Jews about Israel's direction is moving into the mainstream.
Over the past few months, I've spoken with lay leaders of many of the
largest Jewish organizations (organizations that would very much prefer
not to be affiliated with such left-wing outfits as J Street), and the
question they ask is this: Just what is Bibi doing? If American Jews are
forced to choose between their liberal values (and most American Jews
are liberal) and support for a Jewish state that seems to be growing
increasingly illiberal, these leaders say that Israel -- and not the
Democratic Party -- will be the one to suffer.
Do those unelected 'American Jews' speak for American Jewry? Does American Jewry still back the Democratic party (Goldberg's holy grail) to the extent that he thinks they do? Given the poll numbers in the upcoming midterm election, one has to wonder.
The Israeli government doesn't seem to understand that the status quo is
unsustainable. As I've written (over and over again), I am not arguing
for an immediate pullout from the West Bank; the times are too
dangerous, and the Palestinian Authority too weak and corrupt and
cowardly, for such a move. But in the meantime, Israel could help create
conditions so that a Palestinian state could one day be born. What this
means is simple: Netanyahu should take no steps that further entangle
Israel in the lives of Palestinians. It also means that Israel should
try to negotiate in good faith with President Mahmoud Abbas, who is the
best interlocutor Israel is going to have, despite his many obvious
flaws. If nothing else, Netanyahu should call his bluff.
Netanyahu and his predecessors have called Abu Mazen's and his predecessor's bluff numerous times. There was Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat (2000), Ehud Olmert and Abu Mazen (2008) and Netanyahu and Abu Bluff (2010). How many more times does it have to be called? What incentive do the 'Palestinians' have to negotiate seriously if everything is going to be frozen forever anyway? Why should they ever compromise?
And yes, the status quo
is sustainable. It's been 47 years since 1967. The 'Palestinians' have shown no indication that they are ready to accept Israel's 'right to exist' in any borders. What alternative do we have but to sustain the status quo?
It also means understanding that while most settlement expansion that is
now taking place in the West Bank is happening in areas that will most
likely come under Israeli control in the event of a final peace deal, the Palestinians haven't agreed to this division yet.
Unilateral moves do not help. They certainly don't help Israel's
international standing, which is lower than it has ever been, and they
certainly don't help maintain Israel as a cause that garners bipartisan
support in the U.S.
So let's make sure the 'Palestinians' have nothing to lose by not compromising? That's going to get them just
rushing to the table. /sarc.
There really is no alternative to the status quo.
Shabbat Shalom.
Labels: Abu Mazen, American Jewish support for Israel, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Jeffrey Goldberg, settlement freeze, two-state solution
Netanyahu hits back at the chickensh*t comments
Speaking at the Knesset on Wednesday, Prime Minister Netanyahu hit back at the chickensh*t comments emanating from an anonymous official in the Obama administration.
Let's go to the videotape.
You don't think he's trying to drive a wedge between President Hussein Obama and the American people do you? As if such a wedge doesn't exist already....
Would love to see some real polling numbers as to what the American people think about what Obama's mouthpiece published last night. I suspect that most Americans would side with Netanyahu rather than with the chickensh*t occupant of the White House.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Jeffrey Goldberg
Just whom are you calling 'chickensh*t', Mr. President?
Simon Wiesenthal Center founder and director Rabbi Marvin Hier is demanding that President Hussein Obama '
name, apologize for and repudiate,' the anonymous official who called Prime Minister Netanyahu '
chickenshi*t.' This is from the first link.
In a telephone call with The Algemeiner from his Los Angeles
office, an incensed Rabbi Hier declared: “It is rather ironic that a
senior American official is prepared to curse his friends, yet when it
comes to the mortal enemies of the United States – as the Iranians
discovered during the recent nuclear negotiation – praise is heaped on
them.”
Goldberg’s piece extensively quoted an anonymous “senior Obama
administration official” who showered Netanyahu with invective, saying,
“The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit.”
Goldberg then observed:
“Over the years, Obama administration officials have described Netanyahu
to me as recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering,
pompous, and ‘Aspergery.’ (These are verbatim descriptions; I keep a
running list.)”
The word “Aspergery” is a derogatory term for individuals with
Asperger Syndrome, a form of autism that affects the part of the brain
that processes emotions.
The same official is quoted as saying: “The good thing about
Netanyahu is that he’s scared to launch wars. The bad thing about him is
that he won’t do anything to reach an accommodation with the
Palestinians or with the Sunni Arab states. The only thing he’s
interested in is protecting himself from political defeat.”
Another senior official, Goldberg wrote, “agreed that Netanyahu is a
‘chickenshit’ on matters related to the comatose peace process, but
added that he’s also a ‘coward’ on the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat.”
Commenting on the remarks of this second official, Hier asserted: “He
said Netanyahu is a coward for not taking pre-emptive action against
Iran, but I suppose this anonymous official who is hiding behind his
desk is very brave.”
Asked whether he thought Obama should fire the officials who made
these comments, Hier said “that’s up to the president.” However, he
added, “a senior American official who doesn’t name himself and then
hurls curse words at one of our strongest allies should be repudiated by
the president. President Obama needs to make it clear that these
officials don’t speak for him.
Most of all, an apology is in order: That
is not the way a senior American official should speak to the Prime
Minister of Israel, that is not the way to conduct foreign policy.”
But what if the 'senior official' is Obama himself? Could he repudiate himself? (He wouldn't - nor would he apologize or name himself because Obama is as yellow-bellied as they come, so the second question is almost beside the point). Goldberg is known to be close to Obama, and to allow himself to be used as a mouthpiece when
Obama wants to get something out there. It's definitely not beyond Obama to make that kind of comment and to use Goldberg to spread the word.
In the meantime, Jewish Home party leader Naftali Bennett has
rushed to Netanyahu's defense.
“The United States administration is planning to throw Israel under
the bus,” Jewish Home chairman Naftali Bennett said on Tuesday night,
responding to harsh words against Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu which were attributed to senior officials in the Obama administration.
“Israel is stronger than all those who curse it,” said Bennett, after Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic quoted officials in Washington as having described Netanyahu as “chickens**t”, among other things.
“The prime minister is not a private individual, but the leader of
the Jewish State and the Jewish world as a whole. Serious curses such as
these against the Israeli Prime Minister are harmful to millions of
citizens of Israel and Jews worldwide,” added Bennett.
“Neither the leader of Syria, who has slaughtered 150,000 of his
citizens, nor the leader of Saudi Arabia, who stones women and gays,
have been called ‘chickens**t. If what is written is true, then the
current administration intends to throw Israel under the wheels of the
bus,” he said.
...
“Instead of attacking Israel and forcing suicide conditions upon it,
it should be strengthened. I call upon the U.S. administration to
renounce these abusive remarks and reject them outright,” he concluded.
Fat chance. I honestly believe that comment was made by Obama himself. In fact, the second 'anonymous official' who agreed is likely John Kerry. Anyone want to argue with me? Anyone looking at the picture above have any doubts about who is 'chickensh*t' and who is not?
UPDATE 8:44 AM
Now that I think about it, one of the officials is likely Martin Indyk, who is known for
blaming Israel and for his
foul mouth.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Jeffrey Goldberg, John Kerry, Naftali Bennett
Time to shoot the messenger: Jeffrey Goldberg's chickensh*t article
Since I started writing this blog, I have not often agreed with Jeffrey Goldberg except when he was discussing his former colleague Andrew Sullivan. But at least he generally seemed capable of independent thought. No more.
Goldberg has become a tool of the lame duck Obama administration. He's become the kind of Jew we should all love to hate.
The other day I was talking to a senior Obama administration official
about the foreign leader who seems to frustrate the White House and the
State Department the most. “The thing about Bibi is, he’s a
chickenshit,” this official said, referring to the Israeli prime
minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, by his nickname.
This comment is representative of the gloves-off manner in which
American and Israeli officials now talk about each other behind closed
doors, and is yet another sign that relations between the Obama and
Netanyahu governments have moved toward a full-blown crisis. The
relationship between these two administrations— dual guarantors of the
putatively “unbreakable” bond between the U.S. and Israel—is now the
worst it's ever been, and it stands to get significantly worse after the
November midterm elections. By next year, the Obama administration may
actually withdraw diplomatic cover for Israel at the United Nations, but
even before that, both sides are expecting a showdown over Iran, should
an agreement be reached about the future of its nuclear program.
The fault for this breakdown in relations can be assigned in good
part to the junior partner in the relationship, Netanyahu, and in
particular, to the behavior of his cabinet. Netanyahu has told several
people I’ve spoken to in recent days that he has “written off” the Obama
administration, and plans to speak directly to Congress and to the
American people should an Iran nuclear deal be reached. For their part,
Obama administration officials express, in the words of one official, a
“red-hot anger” at Netanyahu for pursuing settlement policies on the
West Bank, and building policies in Jerusalem, that they believe have
fatally undermined Secretary of State John Kerry’s peace process.
...
“The good thing about Netanyahu is that he’s scared to launch wars,”
the official said, expanding the definition of what a chickenshit
Israeli prime minister looks like. “The bad thing about him is that he
won’t do anything to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians or
with the Sunni Arab states. The only thing he’s interested in is
protecting himself from political defeat. He’s not [Yitzhak] Rabin, he’s
not [Ariel] Sharon, he’s certainly no [Menachem] Begin. He’s got no
guts.”
I ran this notion by another senior official who deals with the
Israel file regularly. This official agreed that Netanyahu is a
“chickenshit” on matters related to the comatose peace process, but
added that he’s also a “coward” on the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat.
The official said the Obama administration no longer believes that
Netanyahu would launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities
in order to keep the regime in Tehran from building an atomic arsenal.
“It’s too late for him to do anything. Two, three years ago, this was a
possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the
trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness
to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.”
...
Israel and the U.S., like all close allies, have disagreed from time to
time on important issues. But I don’t remember such a period of
sustained and mutual contempt. Much of the anger felt by Obama
administration officials is rooted in the Netanyahu government’s
periodic explosions of anti-American condescension. The Israeli defense
minister, Moshe Ya’alon, in particular, has publicly castigated the
Obama administration as naive, or worse, on matters related to U.S.
policy in the Middle East. Last week, senior officials including Kerry
(who was labeled as “obsessive” and “messianic” by Ya’alon) and Susan
Rice, the national security advisor, refused to meet with Ya’alon on his
trip to Washington, and it’s hard to blame them. (Kerry, the U.S.
official most often targeted for criticism by right-wing Israeli
politicians, is the only remaining figure of importance in the Obama
administration who still believes that Netanyahu is capable of making
bold compromises, which might explain why he’s been targeted.)
And then... OOPS!
One of the more notable aspects of the current tension between Israel
and the U.S. is the unease felt by mainstream American Jewish leaders
about recent Israeli government behavior. “The Israelis do not show
sufficient appreciation for America’s role in backing Israel,
economically, militarily and politically,” Abraham Foxman, the head of
the Anti-Defamation League, told me. (UPDATE: Foxman just e-mailed me
this statement: "The quote is accurate, but the context is wrong. I was
referring to what troubles this administration about Israel, not what
troubles leaders in the American Jewish community.")
And then Goldberg passes along Obama's threats.
What does all this unhappiness mean for the near future? For one
thing, it means that Netanyahu—who has preemptively “written off” the
Obama administration—will almost certainly have a harder time than usual
making his case against a potentially weak Iran nuclear deal, once he
realizes that writing off the administration was an unwise thing to do.
This also means that the post-November White House will be much less
interested in defending Israel from hostile resolutions at the United
Nations, where Israel is regularly scapegoated. The Obama administration
may be looking to make Israel pay direct costs for its settlement
policies.
Next year, the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas,
will quite possibly seek full UN recognition for Palestine. I imagine
that the U.S. will still try to block such a move in the Security
Council, but it might do so by helping to craft a stridently
anti-settlement resolution in its place. Such a resolution would isolate
Israel from the international community.
It would also be unsurprising, post-November, to see the Obama
administration take a step Netanyahu is loath to see it take: a public,
full lay-down of the administration’s vision for a two-state solution,
including maps delineating Israel’s borders. These borders, to
Netanyahu's horror, would be based on 1967 lines, with significant West
Bank settlement blocs attached to Israel in exchange for swapped land
elsewhere. Such a lay-down would make explicit to Israel what the U.S.
expects of it.
Let Hussein Obama lay down his 'vision.' After 2016, Obama's vision would have about as much meaning as George W.
Bush's 2004 letter had after 2008. That letter was
endorsed by Congress. The odds of any 'vision' Obama lays down for the Middle East being endorsed by what is almost certainly going to be a Republican-controlled House and Senate come January is somewhere between 'slim' and none.
Joel Pollak
rips Goldberg some new body parts.
Nowhere in Goldberg's article is there any acknowledgment that Gaza
rockets, Hamas tunnels, and Fatah/PA incitement are what have made a
Palestinian state in the West Bank unthinkable, for the moment, to the vast majority
of Israelis. Nor is there any admission that Obama--and Vice President
Joe Biden, and Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry--have
inflamed relations by publicly berating Israel on various occasions.
Goldberg also omits Obama's Cairo speech in 2009, which cast Israel in the Arab mould, as a post-Holocaust sop; his disastrous display of contempt
for Bibi at the White House in 2010; or his attempt to sandbag Bibi in
2011 with a proposal for peace on the 1967 lines (which Goldberg says
today would be a new idea). Obama did some work last year to undo the
damage--then re-did it by cozying up to Qatar and Turkey in the recent
war.
The list goes on: Obama's repeated leaks to forestall any Israeli
preemptive strike on Iran (which Goldberg omits, preferring the White
House narrative that Bibi was afraid to act), Obama's decision to join
the Durban II conference and the UN Human Rights Council long after both
had been established to be anti-Israel farces; and on and on. There are
no equivalents on the Israeli side, and few precedents in any prior
U.S. administration.
It would be a refreshing change if Goldberg were to stop acting as Obama-Kerry's mouthpiece. Don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Jeffrey Goldberg, Joel Pollak, US-Israel relationship
Jeffrey Goldberg blasts Human Rights Watch's Ken Roth
Jeffrey Goldberg has blasted 'human rights watch' director Ken Roth for
blaming Jews for anti-Semitism.
A few days ago, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, tweeted
the following statement: “Germans rally against anti-Semitism that
flared in Europe in response to Israel’s conduct in Gaza war. Merkel
joins.” Roth provided a link to a New York Times article about the rally, which took place in Berlin.
Roth’s framing of this issue is very odd and obtuse. Anti-Semitism in
Europe did not flare “in response to Israel’s conduct in Gaza,” or
anywhere else. Anti-Semitic violence and invective are not responses to
events in the Middle East, just as anti-Semitism does not erupt “in
response” to the policies of banks owned by Jews, or in response to
editorial positions taken by The New York Times. This is for the simple reason that Jews do not cause anti-Semitism.
It is a universal and immutable rule that the targets of prejudice
are not the cause of prejudice.
Just as Jews (or Jewish organizations,
or the Jewish state) do not cause anti-Semitism to flare, or intensify,
or even to exist, neither do black people cause racism, nor gay people
homophobia, nor Muslims Islamophobia. Like all prejudices, anti-Semitism
is not a rational response to observable events; it is a manifestation
of irrational hatred. Its proponents justify their anti-Semitism by
pointing to the (putatively offensive or repulsive) behavior of their
targets, but this does not mean that major figures in the world of
human-rights advocacy should accept these pathetic excuses as
legitimate.
A question: If a mosque in Europe or in the U.S. were to be attacked
(God forbid) by Islamophobic arsonists, would Ken Roth describe such an
attack as a manifestation of “anti-Muslim hatred that flared in response
to the conduct of Muslim groups in the Middle East?”
...
I don’t know what motivated Ken Roth to blame the Jewish state for the
violent acts of anti-Semites. I do hope that he reconsiders his position
on the root cause of anti-Jewish prejudice.
Read the whole thing. Goldberg is spot-on.
Labels: Angela Merkel, anti-Semitism, Germany, Human Rights Watch, Jeffrey Goldberg, Kenneth Roth
Clinton tries to put distance between herself and Obama on the Middle East
In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg published in the Atlantic (homecoming time?), Hillary Clinton tries to
put distance between herself and Barack Obama's Middle East policies (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
On the current operation in Gaza:
Much of my conversation with Clinton focused on the Gaza war. She
offered a vociferous defense of Israel, and of its prime minister,
Benjamin Netanyahu, as well. This is noteworthy because, as secretary of
state, she spent a lot of time yelling at Netanyahu on the
administration's behalf over Israel’s West Bank settlement policy. Now,
she is leaving no daylight at all between the Israelis and herself.
“I think Israel did what it had to do to respond to the rockets,” she
told me. “Israel has a right to defend itself. The steps Hamas has
taken to embed rockets and command-and-control facilities and tunnel
entrances in civilian areas, this makes a response by Israel difficult.”
I asked her if she believed that Israel had done enough to prevent the deaths of children and other innocent people.
“[J]ust as we try to do in the United States and be as careful as
possible in going after targets to avoid civilians,” mistakes are made,
she said. “We’ve made them. I don’t know a nation, no matter what its
values are—and I think that democratic nations have demonstrably better
values in a conflict position—that hasn’t made errors, but ultimately
the responsibility rests with Hamas.”
Hillary appeals to the ADL crowd:
When I asked her about the intense international focus on Gaza, she
was quick to identify anti-Semitism as an important motivating factor in
criticism of Israel. “It is striking … that you have more than 170,000
people dead in Syria. … You have Russia massing battalions—Russia, that
actually annexed and is occupying part of a UN member-state—and I fear
that it will do even more to prevent the incremental success of the
Ukrainian government to take back its own territory, other than Crimea.
More than 1,000 people have been killed in Ukraine on both sides, not
counting the [Malaysia Airlines] plane, and yet we do see this enormous
international reaction against Israel, and Israel’s right to defend
itself, and the way Israel has to defend itself. This reaction is
uncalled for and unfair.”
She went on, “You can’t ever discount anti-Semitism, especially with
what’s going on in Europe today. There are more demonstrations against
Israel by an exponential amount than there are against Russia seizing
part of Ukraine and shooting down a civilian airliner. So there’s
something else at work here than what you see on TV.” Clinton also
blamed Hamas for “stage-managing” the conflict. “What you see is largely
what Hamas invites and permits Western journalists to report on from
Gaza. It’s the old PR problem that Israel has. Yes, there are
substantive, deep levels of antagonism or anti-Semitism towards Israel,
because it’s a powerful state, a really effective military. And Hamas
paints itself as the defender of the rights of the Palestinians to have
their own state. So the PR battle is one that is historically tilted
against Israel.”
But when it comes to Judea and Samaria, she doesn't offer much. Let's go to the full transcript for this part.
JG: Several years ago, when you were in the Senate,
we had a conversation about what would move Israeli leaders to make
compromises for peace. You’ve had a lot of arguments with Netanyahu.
What is your thinking on Netanyahu now?
HRC: Let’s step back. First of all, [former Israeli
Prime Minister] Yitzhak Rabin was prepared to do so much and he was
murdered for that belief. And then [former Israeli Prime Minister] Ehud
Barak offered everything you could imagine being given under any
realistic scenario to the Palestinians for their state, and [former
Palestinian leader Yasir] Arafat walked away. I don’t care about the
revisionist history. I know that Arafat walked away, okay? Everybody
says, “American needs to say something.” Well, we said it, it was the
Clinton parameters, we put it out there, and Bill Clinton is adored in
Israel, as you know. He got Netanyahu to give up territory, which
Netanyahu believes lost him the prime ministership [in his first term],
but he moved in that direction, as hard as it was.
Bush pretty much ignored what was going on and they made a terrible
error in the Palestinian elections [in which Hamas came to power in
Gaza], but he did come with the Roadmap [to Peace] and the Roadmap was
credible and it talked about what needed to be done, and this is one
area where I give the Palestinians credit. Under [former Palestinian
Prime Minister] Salam Fayyad, they made a lot of progress.
I had the last face-to-face negotiations between Abbas and Netanyahu.
[Secretary of State John] Kerry never got there. I had them in the room
three times with [former Middle East negotiator] George Mitchell and
me, and that was it. And I saw Netanyahu move from being against the
two-state solution to announcing his support for it, to considering all
kinds of Barak-like options, way far from what he is, and what he is
comfortable with.
Now I put Jerusalem in a different category. That is the hardest
issue, Again, based on my experience—and you know, I got Netanyahu to
agree to the unprecedented settlement freeze, it did not cover East
Jerusalem, but it did cover the West Bank and it was actually legitimate
and it did stop new housing starts for 10 months. It took me nine
months to get Abbas into the negotiations even after we delivered on the
settlement freeze, he had a million reasons, some of them legitimate,
some of them the same old, same old.
So what I tell people is, yeah, if I were the prime minister of
Israel, you’re damn right I would expect to have control over security
[on the West Bank], because even if I’m dealing with Abbas, who is 79
years old, and other members of Fatah, who are enjoying a better
lifestyle and making money on all kinds of things, that does not protect
Israel from the influx of Hamas or cross-border attacks from anywhere
else. With Syria and Iraq, it is all one big threat. So Netanyahu could
not do this in good conscience. If this were Rabin or Barak in his
place—and I’ve talked to Ehud about this—they would have to demand a
level of security that would be provided by the [Israel Defense Forces]
for a period of time. And in my meetings with them I got Abbas to about
six, seven, eight years on continued IDF presence. Now he’s fallen back
to three, but he was with me at six, seven, eight. I got Netanyahu to go
from forever to 2025. That’s a negotiation, okay? So I know. Dealing
with Bibi is not easy, so people get frustrated and they lose sight of
what we’re trying to achieve here.
I don't know when this interview was conducted but it's a pity that Goldberg didn't ask her whether her views have changed as a result of the 'discovery' of the terror tunnels (I put 'discovery' in scare quotes because it's been known here since 2006-07 - only the extent of them was unknown). Most Israelis are much less willing to make 'compromises for peace' than they were even a year ago. Sure, you'll still see polls that Israelis believe in the 'two-state solution,' but when you get into specifics they're willing to give up a lot less than what Arafat (2000) or Abu Mazen (2008) were offered and turned down.
Clinton also claims that Iran has no 'right' to enrich uranium and that Obama's failure to help the Syrian rebels early on left a vacuum into which the Islamists stepped.
Let's just say that I have a hard time trusting Hillary or any Democrat after the past eight years. Here's
part of the reason why.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Bush letter, Gaza, Hamas, Hillary Clinton, Jeffrey Goldberg, two-state solution
Netanyahu tells Goldberg he'd consider unilateral steps in Judea and Samaria
Prime Minister Netanyahu told journalist Jeffrey Goldberg in an interview this week that he is
considering unilateral steps in Judea and Samaria. But not the ones Goldberg would like.
“We want a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish
state,” Netanyahu said. “How do you get that if you can’t get it
through negotiations? It’s true that the idea of taking unilateral steps
is gaining ground, from the center-left to the center-right. Many
Israelis are asking themselves if there are certain unilateral steps
that could theoretically make sense.”
But he was quick to add
that Israelis -- himself included -- don’t want a repeat of their Gaza
experience. In 2005, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon unilaterally
withdrew Israeli soldiers and settlers from Gaza; it was soon taken over
by the radical Islamist group Hamas, which has since used the territory
to launch rockets at Israeli civilian targets.
Nevertheless,
Netanyahu said that something must be done to prevent the collapse of
Israel as a Jewish-majority democratic nation. “We don’t want a
binational state, and we don’t want a Palestinian-Iranian state next
door,” he said. “There is an emerging consensus that we don’t have a
partner who can challenge constituencies, do something unpopular, do
something that is difficult. Abbas has not done anything to challenge
the prevailing Palestinian consensus."
And Netanyahu still doesn't get that the best thing we can do right now to prevent the collapse of
Israel as a Jewish-majority democratic nation is
nothing. Or perhaps he does get it but cannot say it to the likes of Tzipi Livni.
Goldberg also tries to set up his own straw man claiming that the burden is on Netanyahu to show flexibility.
I asked Netanyahu why he simply doesn’t bypass the current impasse
and declare an indefinite settlement freeze, particularly in areas
outside the thickly settled suburbs of Jerusalem and communities near
Tel Aviv. Right now, the burden is on Netanyahu to prove that he is
interested in compromise. Such a move -- while politically difficult --
would shift the onus onto Abbas and restore some of Israel’s
international standing.
“I don’t think it would work. Having
tried once, I saw that it doesn’t work,” he said, referring to the
time-limited settlement freeze during Obama's first term. “The Americans
said the only way Abbas is going to come into negotiations is either
you release prisoners or freeze settlements: Choose. We chose [to
release prisoners]. We made it very clear to the U.S. and to the
Palestinians exactly how much we would build, including in Jerusalem. We
built exactly what we said we would build in every one of the tranches.
It wasn’t that we surprised anyone with extra construction."
There's another reason Netanyahu won't do it: He wouldn't have a government left.
But there's another reason Netanyahu won't do it: Even if he did, Abu Mazen is simply
incapable of making compromises for peace.
“No matter what the spin is about blaming Israel, do we actually
expect Abbas, who seems to be embracing Hamas, to give a negotiated
deal? In all likelihood, no. I hope he does, but I’m not sure he’s
going to do it,” Netanyahu said.
“There is an emerging consensus
that we don’t have a partner who can challenge constituencies, do
something unpopular, do something that is difficult. Abbas has not done
anything to challenge the prevailing Palestinian consensus. In fact,
he’s doing the opposite: the Hamas reconciliation, internationalizing
the conflict, not giving one iota on the right of return, not giving an
iota on the Jewish state. He wouldn’t deal with Kerry’s framework,”
Netanyahu said.
Now, if only Netanyahu could challenge his constituencies, think out of the box and bring the disastrous 'Oslo process' to an end.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, demography, Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, Jeffrey Goldberg, Middle East peace process, Palestinian terrorists, Tzipi Livni, unilateral withdrawal
Jeffrey Goldberg: Obama interview remarks tantamount to a threat
Here's an interview that Charlie Rose did with Jeffrey Goldberg earlier this week in which Goldberg discusses
his interview with President Obama on the 'peace process' last week. Goldberg says that Obama's remarks in the interview are tantamount to a threat.
Let's go to the videotape. Unfortunately, I could only embed the entire show, but the interview with Goldberg starts at the 35:00 mark.
Pretty harsh stuff. Anyone think Goldberg is wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Charlie Rose, Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama's obsession with Israel
Kerry didn't like Obama's Jeffrey Goldberg interview either
The Hebrew daily Maariv reported on Wednesday night that US Secretary of State John FN Kerry is feels that President Obama's interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, in which Obama
criticized Prime Minister Netanyahu,
undermined Kerry's peace efforts.
According to NRG/Maariv, Kerry’s associates said that Obama’s comments sabotaged Kerry’s efforts to secure peace between Israel and the PA.
Two sources, one in Washington and one in Jerusalem, told the Israeli
daily that the White House did not inform Kerry in advance that the
interview was taking place.
"Obama’s interview, done without Kerry’s knowledge and which
personally attacked Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, undermines
Kerry’s efforts," said one source.
The second source said, "Kerry's greatest fear is that the interview
hurt the confidence of Netanyahu and the Israeli public opinion in the
U.S. government efforts to secure peace."
Goldberg himself was quoted by NRG/Maariv as having explained that the interview was probably an attempt to show Abbas, who has expressed anger
that Kerry’s framework is biased in favor of Israel, that Obama is also
pressuring Netanyahu. Obama plans to place similar pressure on Abbas
when he visits the White House on March 17, said Goldberg.
Jonathan Tobin
called this a couple of days ago.
By abusing Netanyahu even though he knows the Israelis have agreed to
the peace framework, Obama vented his spleen at what is obviously his
least favorite foreign leader. But rather than cheering his scolding of
Netanyahu those who claim to be “pro-peace and pro-Israel” ought to be
gravely concerned.
Unfortunately, the audience for the Goldberg interview was wider than
the membership of AIPAC or the Israeli Cabinet. The Palestinians were
also listening and what they heard will constitute a far greater
impediment to peace than settlements or the Israeli prime minister.
By speaking in this manner at this particular time, the president
made it clear that his administration doesn’t care what the Israelis or
the Palestinians actually do in the talks. He will take sides against
Netanyahu and for Abbas no matter what the Israelis say or how the
Palestinians continue to obstruct the process. It tells the Palestinians
they need not fear American pressure either at this stage of the talks
or if they ever get close to final status discussions.
That’s a catastrophe for the peace processers because they know that
the real pressure for peace on Netanyahu doesn’t come from the White
House. It stems from the desire of his people for an end to the
conflict. Should there ever be a credible peace offer from the
Palestinians that pledges them to recognize Israel’s legitimacy and
respects Israeli security and sovereignty, Netanyahu knows that no
government could turn it down.
But in contrast to the Israelis, there is no Palestinian peace camp
or faction within either Abbas’ Fatah or his Hamas rivals that will push
for peace even if it doesn’t grant their maximal demands. The only
possible source of pressure on Abbas to do make peace must come from the
U.S., Europe and the Arab States. But if President Obama is not willing
to hold Abbas accountable for his behavior, then no one will. In the
absence of an American determination to hold Abbas’ feet to the fire in
spite of the enormous Palestinian constituency that will always oppose
even the most generous Israeli offer, the already slim prospects for
peace are altogether extinguished.
By attacking Netanyahu and lauding Abbas, the president has accomplished
something that no Israeli right-winger could possibly accomplish: kill
the peace process. Without American insisting that Abbas change his
ways, there is no possible way for him to withstand the far greater
pressure he gets from the descendants of the 1948 refugees — who still
dream of flooding Israel and turning it into another Arab state — or his
Islamist rivals.
Indeed.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Jeffrey Goldberg, John Kerry, Middle East peace process
Jeffrey Goldberg: The Middle East conflict isn't about 'settlements'
Jeffrey Goldberg
gets it partly right:
But there is danger in thinking that the removal of these settlements
would bring about a liberal, enlightened Middle East. The danger is
analytical: If you don’t understand what ails the Middle East, how can
you possibly fix it? It is also dangerous to scapegoat Israel for
problems it didn’t cause, in the same way that it has historically been
quite dangerous to blame the Jewish people for problems they didn’t
cause. Brzezinski’s native Poland provides lessons in this regard.
That's true. The problem is that Goldberg thinks that we should expel 500,000 Jews from their homes anyway, because it would put us on what he sees as a 'higher' moral plane.
Before I go on, the usual caveats: The settlement project -- especially
those settlements far from Jerusalem that have been planted in the
middle of thickly populated Palestinian areas -- is a strategic and
moral disaster for Israel. The settlements should be dismantled. They
threaten Israel’s standing in the world; they threaten to undermine the
very nature and purpose of Israel. And so on. I’ve written before about the threat that settlements pose, at great length.
What Goldberg misses is that not only won't dismantling the 'settlements' bring about a 'liberal enlightened Middle East.' Dismantling the 'settlements' will also do nothing for Israel's standing in the world. You see, the world only likes Jews when we're on the verge of being exterminated. The rest of the time, they consider us fair game.
Labels: Jeffrey Goldberg, Judea and Samaria, settlements, settlements are legal
Jeffrey Goldberg gets one right
Ouch. And sadly, it's true.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Jeffrey Goldberg
Oh wow! Jeffrey Goldberg rips J Street
I follow Jeffrey Goldberg on Twitter. While I don't always agree with what he says, he at least has the ability to think for himself. So do 80 of the 197 other people I follow on Twitter, probably an indication that Goldberg often says significant things. Here's what he has to say about J Street's opposition to a US attack on Syria.
It sounds like J Street went from being Obama's blocking back to trying to block Netanyahu. Bottom line: J Street has made itself irrelevant. That's something that people who are truly pro-Israel should celebrate.
Heh.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Binyamin Netanyahu, chemical weapons, J Street, Jeffrey Goldberg, Syria
It starts: Kerry warns threatens Netanyahu that if talks fail, Israel will face a 'delegitimization campaign on steroids'
At least US Secretary of State John Kerry is being up front about his plans. Jeffrey Goldberg reports in his Tuesday Bloomberg column that Kerry has
warned threatened Prime Minister Netanyahu that if the talks fail, Israel will face a '
delegitimization campaign on steroids.'
There are some early signs that Netanyahu is realizing the price his
country may one day pay for its settlements, in particular those near
Palestinian population centers. He met recently with some of Israel's
leading manufacturers, who expressed their worry that their products may
one day be boycotted in Europe, a worry he shares. Kerry, capitalizing
on this anxiety, has warned Netanyahu in recent weeks that if the
current peace talks bear no fruit, Israel may soon be facing an
international delegitimization campaign -- in his words -- "on
steroids."
According to officials I have spoken to, who requested
anonymity so they could speak freely, Kerry thinks the one thing
Netanyahu fears as much as Iran's nuclear program is the growing power
of the international movement that seeks to isolate, scapegoat and
demonize his country. (One caveat: Kerry, like most Americans who know
Netanyahu, understands that the prime minister's narrowest but most
potent fear is of being unseated.)
Although Netanyahu is worried
that the campaign to make Israel appear to be an illegitimate state
could hurt the country's robust economy, he is said to be even more
worried that this campaign will erode Israel's ability to defend itself.
The theory is simple: A country seen as illegitimate, not only by the
powerful Arab lobby at the United Nations but also by Western powers,
will have little standing if it is forced to retaliate against sustained
attacks from groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which remain
committed to Israel's extermination.
Netanyahu thinks that the campaign
to delegitimize Israel could force Western powers to rein in Israel, or
at the very least, rush to condemn it before it has the chance to defend
itself.
Netanyahu's two fears are related. Israel will find it
increasingly difficult to one day act against the Iranian nuclear
program if it is hobbled by the hostility of the international
community. For years, I've been arguing that Israel would find more
sympathy in its campaign against Iranian nukes if it was more willing to
compromise with the Palestinians. Netanyahu, unlike other prominent
figures on the Israeli right, has agreed in principle to a two-state
solution, but he hasn't done very much to bring it about -- he has only
grudgingly and temporarily suspended expansions of the settlements
located on land that would almost surely be part of the future state of
Palestine.
But Netanyahu has lately been leaning in the direction
of the Israeli political center. And by doing this he is making the
truculent base of his party, the Likud, quite nervous. Netanyahu, I'm
told, has taken to disparaging some of the politicians to his right as
"insane." These are the politicians who delude themselves into thinking
that their country is a superpower, and can behave as one.
There are a number of points that bear noting here. First, someone in the State Department, possibly even Kerry himself or someone acting on his orders, leaked this to Goldberg, who is known to be obsessed with the 'Palestinians.' What's missing is the second half of Kerry's statement, which any US administration of the last 65 years - other than an Obama or Carter administration - would have made: If that happens, we will defend you, particularly if we know that it's not your fault. Note that the fallout from Ehud Barak's failed peace making was the intifada and a lot of international sympathy. And Barak brought himself to the table - he was not forced by a hostile American President and Secretary of State.
Second, to say that Netanyahu 'hasn't done much' is unfair and inaccurate, and if that's what the State Department believes, we ought to withdraw from these talks now. Netanyahu froze 'settlement' construction for ten months during Obama's first administration, and he's in the process of releasing 104 'Palestinian' murderers, with the first 26 going free tonight. No, I don't like those steps, but the fact that he's done this is precisely why it's ridiculous to say that Netanyahu 'hasn't done much.' He's done too much.
Third, does the State Department refer to the Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria as 'colonies' or was that Goldberg's gloss? And if that was Goldberg's dehumanizing gloss, does he have any business calling himself 'pro-Israel'? (I used to regard Goldberg as a part of the sane Left - I'm now having second thoughts).
Fourth, the biggest impediment to anything moving forward is 'Palestinian' intransigence, and this kind of leak from the US State Department is going to encourage them to be more intransigent and to hold out for everything they've always demanded. This kind of leak destroys the 'peace process' and undermines the trust that Israel must have in the United States in order to feel confident that the United States will back it when necessary. Just as well - the US is not going to back us while the Obama junta is in power.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, delegitimizing Israel, Jeffrey Goldberg, John Kerry, Middle East peace process
Breaking: US officials concede Obama interview with Goldberg meant to hurt Netanyahu in election
Remember the interview in which President Hussein Obama claimed that Prime Minister Netanyahu
doesn't know what's in Israel's best interests? Well, I'm sure you'll all be shocked to hear that US officials have now conceded that it was intended to
hurt Prime Minister Netanyahu's reelection chances.
What a sniveling little SOB Obama is.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Jeffrey Goldberg
