Sarkozy comes out against French recognition of 'Palestine'
Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy has come out against a measure that is to be voted on in the French parliament next week calling for the unilateral recognition of 'Palestine.'
Sarkozy condemned the unilateral measure,
which is set to be presented for a parliamentary vote on December 2, in
the wake of the “heinous and bloody” Har Nof terror attack last week in
which five Israelis were killed.
“I will fight for the Palestinians to have
their state. But unilateral recognition a few days after a deadly attack
and when there is no peace process? No!” he said at a political rally.
Sarkozy said he would never accept a resolution that would “call into question the security of Israel.”
“This is the fight of my life,” he said.
...
France’s plans for a non-binding but highly
symbolic vote follows similar resolutions passed by the British and
Spanish parliaments, and an official decision to recognize Palestine by
the Swedish government.
Sweden’s move infuriated Israel which responded by recalling its ambassador to Stockholm.
Don't these European countries have anything better to do?
I was trying to pump as much information as I could out of a well
connected source I had built an excellent working relationship with,
we’ll call him Pierre, who often provided me with information other
reporters covering French diplomatic activity in the Middle East didn’t
get. I had called him up with for some clarifications on the rumors
about Regev and Goldwasser, left a message, and decided that since it
was my first ever Tisha B’Av in Jerusalem, that I would go down to the
Kotel for services.
The scene was overwhelming. There was a sea of people, Haredim,
Hassidim, Hilonim, tourists, photographers and security, all crammed
into the the Western Wall plaza. Bachurim were sitting on the floor in
mourning, grown men were crying, it was a very emotional and inspiring
sight, and I was completely caught up in it. As I wandered around taking
it all in, my phone began buzzing in my back pocket and brought me back
into a world I thought had been left behind at the office for the day.
“Hello?!?! Hello?!?!” I shouted over the noise of the crowd. It was Pierre returning my call.
“Hi Pierre,” I began somewhat hurriedly. “Listen, I can’t really talk
now, I’m down at the Kotel for Tisha B’Av, can I call you back in the
morning?”
It didn’t occur to me that he probably had no idea what the Kotel
was, or what Tisha B’Av signified. Pierre was an inquisitive type, and
sometimes over the course of our conversations, he ended up asking more
questions than I did. This was one of those times. “Sure, pas de problem, we speak in the morning,” he said. Before I could hit the end button, I heard it.
“Mais attend,” – wait he said – “You are where?”
I was certainly not in this conversation. My head was elsewhere. I
was antsy, and I wanted to get off the phone. I didn’t want to start
sermonizing on the meaning behind this day of mourning, that it was the
day that God had decided that future generations would weep in order to
commemorate past transgressions. That Israel as a whole on this day
would relive the lost hope felt in the desert as they began to angrily
follow Moses and question their faith. That because tears were directed
inwards instead of toward the Heavens, that for one day a year the
Almighty would not mend His children’s broken hearts. So I went with the
thirty second ESPN highlight version.
“I’m at the ruins of the temple in Jerusalem. It was destroyed today,
so people are coming from all over the country to mourn and to pay
their respects.”
Pierre was a government official, not a ten year old attending Jewish
day school and already well acquainted with the likes of Vespasian,
Titus, and Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai. There was dead silence on the other
end of the line, and you could almost feel the panic sinking in on the
other side.
“But the president was briefed on the Middle East this morning,” he
began shakily. “Nobody mentioned this catastrophe.” and then it came.
“France strongly condemns the destruction of your Temple!”
For the shocking ending of what is apparently a true story, read the whole thing.
At a Keren Hayesod dinner last week, in a speech for which he was paid 150,000 euros by the Jewish community of Geneva, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy (who is Jewish) slammed Israel.
The Keren Hayesod-United Israel Appeal
gala dinner in Geneva was hosted by the local Jewish community, with 450
participants in attendance and philanthropist Lily Safra footing the bill for
the guest of honor and main speaker who was flown in on a private
flight.
Suffering from a cold, Sarkozy was unshaven and in a bad mood,
the magazine reported.
In his speech, Sarkozy accused the Israeli
government of “having enclosed the Jewish state within the ramparts of
Jericho.”
“He then called on the Jewish Diaspora and the international
community to put pressure on Israel to force it to restart negotiations with the
Palestinians,” said the article, emphasizing that “these words didn’t please the
audience, which was vociferous in its dissatisfaction.”
“When he finished
speaking, Mr. Sarkozy left the hotel quickly without saying a word,” Le Nouvel
Observateur reported.
This is sad, but unfortunately a sign of the times. Anonymous 'Israeli officials' are calling President Obama 'soft' on Iran, and instead pointing to the leadership of the British and the French.
"The administration is still not acting in full force to impose significant sanctions against Tehran," one of the officials told Ynet Sunday night.
On the other hand, officials in Jerusalem lauded French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron. "France and the UK have begun to act determinedly, while Obama's administration has yet to formulate a policy that is sufficiently severe," another official said.
"While the House of Representatives and the Senate are promoting (anti-Iran) legislation, the White House is operating according to an ideology which could be defined as 'hesitant.' The Iranian issue calls for a clear stance, but the administration has yet to take the necessary measures to significantly hurt the ayatollahs' regime."
US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro told reporters Thursday Israel and the US enjoy close bilateral cooperation on the threat of a nuclear Iran.
"There is no issue that we coordinate more closely on than Iran," Shapiro told reporters in Tel Aviv.
"A nuclear Iran, he added, is "a real threat to Israeli security, ours and our allies', and that is why we are determined to prevent this from happening."
But officials in Jerusalem are not satisfied with Obama's policy on Iran. Defense Minister Ehud Barak said during a recent interview that the international community must impose harsher sanctions against the Islamic Republic in order to incapacitate the Iranian regime and force it to suspend its nuclear program.
Obama is a 'success.' The US is no longer the leader in international affairs. What could go wrong?
We now know why French President Nicolas Sarkozy called Prime Minister Netanyahu a liar. And when you hear the reason, I guarantee you, you will consider Sarkozy an even bigger moron than you did before. Are you ready for this? Sarkozy was angry that Israel didn't agree to have Gilad Shalit flown out of Egypt on a French helicopter. And just what did the fetid French do to deserve that 'honor'?
According to the report last week, Sarkozy – explaining his very undiplomatic comment about Netanyahu to US President Barack Obama in November – said that he was “furious” that Israel refused to fly Schalit out of captivity on a French helicopter.
Government sources confirmed that a French request to fly Schalit from either Gaza or Egypt to Israel was made, presumably to increase France’s visibility and give Paris some credit for Schalit’s release. The sources said that while French officials were publicly very helpful and outspoken about Schalit, the mediation for his release was done by Egypt and Germany.
Schalit, by virtue of a French grandmother, has dual Israeli- French citizenship.
One government source said that for symbolic reasons it was out of the question that an Israeli soldier – for whose freedom Israel released hundreds of terrorists – would return to Israel in anything but an Israeli aircraft.
The source also wondered out loud whether this was truly the reason Sarkozy hurled the “liar” epithet at Netanyahu. According to the source, it was more likely that Sarkozy – who, along with a number of European colleagues is urging the prime minister to implement another settlement construction freeze – was frustrated that while Netanyahu talks about his desire for peace, he is not taking the actions Sarkozy recommends to make it happen.
It's three weeks later, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy is now trying to claim that his remarks about Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu being a liar were 'taken out of context' and that Sarko really loves Israel.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy met on Thursday with Jewish leaders and tried to explain the embarrassing incident in which he was overheard calling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a "liar".
One participant at the meeting told the JTA news agency that Sarkozy said the relationship between Netanyahu and his family was "strong" and claimed that his remarks were taken out of context. He also "expressed his firm desire to move beyond the misunderstanding following an off-record conversation.”
Sarkozy took part in a lunch with leaders of the French Jewish umbrella group CRIF. He “responded to a lot of our concerns,” said Francis Kalifat, CRIF treasurer.
Kalifat said Sarkozy gave the group “certain explanations,” for the recent conversation with Obama, in which both leaders didn't realize they were speaking into microphones that were turned on, allowing several journalists to hear three minutes of the conversation in an adjoining room. But Sarkozy asked that the group not repeat that explanation saying his words were taken out of context.
"The President reaffirmed his friendship and support for the State of Israel from the very beginning of our conversation," Kalifat said, adding: "He wanted to remind us that throughout his political career, he has had a profound attachment to Israel.”
Sarkozy also spoke of his “strong, long relationship and friendship with Netanyahu and his family,” and “expressed his firm desire to move beyond the misunderstanding following an off-record conversation.”
I don't buy it. The guy was caught with an open microphone and he said what he said. The only plausible explanation is that he meant that Bibi is only sometimes a liar. That's not much of an improvement.
In addition to words of sympathy, Sarkozy's letter to Netanyahu, according to two officials in the Israeli leader's office, said:
"You have my friendship, and our differing views on the problems of the Middle East, and the interpretations appearing in the media, have no effect on it."
How about "I'm sorry"? How about "It was a dumb thing to say and I won't say anything like that again"? Netanyahu should tell Sarko to stick it where the sun don't shine.
And Netanyahu should do the same with Barack Hussein Obama:
Obama's message made no mention of the remarks made in Cannes.
Obama and Netanyahu have had a rocky relationship but Obama was seen as eager to avoid any open confrontation with Israel ahead of a campaign for reelection next year for which he will need votes from Jewish voters.
"Our thoughts and prayers are with the two of you," he wrote, according to the Israeli officials.
As usual with Obama, it's all about "me, me, me."
Meanwhile, Bibi seems to be ignoring both of them, which is probably the best move.
Netanyahu had made no comment on Sarkozy's comments which came at a time Israel's ties with Paris had otherwise vastly improved after decades of tensions over France's close alliances with Arab countries.
And you thought that 'world leaders' were supposed to be smart. Obama and Sarkozy certainly are not.
On Monday, President Obama was asked by NBC's Chuck Todd about that 'hot mic' conversation with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Here's his response.
With respect to the “hot mic” in France, I’m not going to comment on conversations that I have with individual leaders, but what I will say is this: The primary conversation I had with President Sarkozy in that meeting revolved around my significant disappointment that France had voted in favor of the Palestinians joining UNESCO, knowing full well that under our laws, that would require the United States cutting off funding to UNESCO, and after I had consistently made the argument that the only way we’re going to solve the Middle East situation is if Palestinians and Israelis sit down at the table and negotiate; that it is not going to work to try to do an end run through the United Nations.
So I had a very frank and firm conversation with President Sarkozy about that issue. And that is consistent with both private and public statements that I’ve been making to everybody over the last several months.
And you thought he was talking about Netanyahu, didn't you?
Just consider what French President Nicholas Sarkozy did to Israel in the past month. After Paris endorsed the Palestinian membership at UNESCO, President Sarkozy said that the idea of a Jewish state is “silly,” and later branded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “a liar” in a conversation with US President Barack Obama.
A few weeks earlier, Sarkozy ordered that school textbooks avoid the use of the word “Shoah” to describe the Holocaust, preferring the term “anéantissement”, a word that merely means annihilation.
Those familiar with Paris’ hostile attitude to Israel and the Jewish people in times of crisis are not surprised. It was just seven decades ago that France’s collaborationist Vichy regime, headed by Marshal Petain, enthusiastically took part in rounding up French Jews and turning them over to the Nazis. Some 110,000 French Jews were murdered in the gas chambers, a number that would have been far lower had it not been for the shameful manner in which the French cooperated with Hitler’s Final Solution.
In the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israel’s life was threatened, France’s President Charles de Gaulle took a pro-Arab policy and instituted a weapons embargo on the Middle East. He also characterized the Jewish people “an elitist and domineering people.” This marked the first time since World War II that a head of state had directed an anti-Semitic remark at Israel and the Jewish people.
Israel Radio just reported (10:00 pm) that French President Sarkozy has sent another letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy pledged his friendship to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in a condolence letter on the loss of his father-in-law Shmuel Ben-Artzi, who died last week at age 97.
The letter comes one week after Sarkozy was overheard calling Netanyahu a "liar" in a conversation with US President Barack Obama.
Obama also sent Netanyahu condolence letter.
I don't know what Obama wrote, but Israel Radio reports that Sarkozy now denies the remarks attributed to him about Netanyahu. And of course, he still has not apologized for making those remarks, despite the fact that several journalists (still waiting for them to come forward) heard them.
Sarkozy apologizes without apologizing, Obama lies again
After being caught with their pants down last week, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Hussein Obama are trying to get back into Prime Minister Netanyahu's good graces without having to actually apologize for slandering him.
Sarkozy sent a personal letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu over the weekend addressing the IAEA's report on Iran's nuclear program, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Sunday.
The letter contains particularly harsh statements against Iran and is signed with the words "with friendship" in the French president's own hand-writing. The gesture is quite uncommon within diplomatic correspondence.
The letter was relayed to Netanyahu by French Ambassador to Israel Christophe Bigot.
What a perfect last name for a French ambassador....
And then there's the disingenuous, lying Barack Hussein Obama.
On Wednesday, the White House said that working relations between Obama and Netanyahu were very good and that the president talks to Israel's prime minister more than any other leader.
I haven't gone through the White House phone logs and cannot tell you unequivocally that Obama does or does not talk to Netanyahu more than to any other leader. But it's meaningless. If Obama does talk to Netanyahu more than any other leader, it's because he puts more pressure on him than on any other leader. By that standard, maybe he ought to be talking to Assad or Ahmadinejad or Abu Bluff more.
This paved the way for a French apology. In his letter to Netanyahu, Sarkozy fiercely slammed Tehran, accusing it of spreading "propaganda lies" and promised that Paris will lead unprecedented sanctions against Iran at this week's IAEA Board of Governors meeting.
He offered Netanyahu a close cooperation on the issue of sanctions, signaling France will accept Israel's demands on toughening sanctions.
But where's the apology? Well, it might come in January.
Meanwhile, French newspaper Le Figaro reported Saturday that Sarkozy's former envoy to the Middle East Valérie Hoffenberg asked the president to clarify the "misunderstandings" during a special visit to Israel, which may take place in January. She noted that Sarkozy has "accepted the idea," however the Élysée Palace has yet to confirm the report.
So maybe he'll come here and maybe he won't. And maybe he'll apologize and maybe he won't. I think it's time for Netanyahu to stop overlooking this crap and to have a little respect for himself and his country. If Sarkozy comes here in January, I'd send Lieberman to meet with him - maybe even Ayalon. And let Sarkozy sit on a stool.
Here's why all Israelis should be upset about the way that Presidents Obama and Sarkozy maligned Prime Minister Netanyahu last week.
The trouble here is that we are rarely exposed to slander at such an official level. One would expect more deference from these two statesmen when talking about their Israeli counterpart, a man who studied in the same university as Obama, who was a captain in Israel’s elite Special Forces, and who was elected twice through a democratic process. If anything, his recent gestures towards his neighbors are a token of his willingness to come to an understanding – quite a change from his oft-sported status quo stance.
In fact, these gestures – the 10-month settlement freeze, the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, including some with blood on their hands, and the perpetual hand outstretched to Mahmoud Abbas – present a far different picture of Bibi earnestly seeking a tough peace.
This “secret” conversation about the Israeli PM is a dangerous precedent, especially when the character assassination bears the echoes of the demonizing accusations spread with such success during one of the darkest pages of history and still a fixture in the 21st Century. To the watchful mind, it recalls the horrendous epithets thrown at Jews by Nazi ideology, the “liar” libel being the first slander in a long line of verbal humiliation that led the way to actual dehumanization and massacre.
Hearing today’s most influential and powerful leaders capitalizing on such a prejudice carries the danger of conflation, double standard and demonization which can lead to a slippery slope of unfounded hatred.
Of course, Netanyahu was not called a liar because he is a Jew. So why was he called a liar? What did he do to deserve such an epithet? Was it the same thing that he did to deserve being ushered through the back door of the White House in early 2010? What lie/s does Mr. Sarkozy speak of? The qualification for this humiliation was not given, nor did Obama, a trained lawyer, seem to require one – quite the contrary.
Our leaders bear a great responsibility in the accusations they decide to make in public or in private - these have real consequences. This unfortunate but dubious eavesdropping has had the merit of exposing if not a lie, an embarrassing political hypocrisy which demands to be redressed.
Caroline Glick on the 'off mic' conversation between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Hussein Obama, which came to light last week.
These statements are interesting both for what they say about the two presidents' characters and for what they say about the way that Israel is perceived by the West more generally.
To understand why this is the case it is necessary to first ask, when has Netanyahu ever lied to Sarkozy and Obama? This week the UN International Atomic Energy Agency's report about Iran's nuclear weapons program made clear that Israel - Netanyahu included - has been telling the truth about Iran and its nuclear ambitions all along. In contrast, world leaders have been lying and burying their heads in the sand.
Since Iran's nuclear weapons program was first revealed to the public in 2004, Israel has provided in-depth intelligence information proving Iran's malign intentions to the likes of Sarkozy, Obama and the UN. And for seven years, the US government - Obama included - has claimed that it lacked definitive proof of Iran's intentions.
Obama wasted the first two years of his administration attempting to charm the Iranians out of their nuclear weapons program. He stubbornly ignored the piles of evidence presented to him by Israel that Iran was not interested in cutting a deal.
Perhaps Obama was relying on the US's 2007 National Intelligence Estimate about Iran's nuclear weapons program. As Israel said at the time, and as this week's IAEA report proves, it was the NIE - which claimed that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003 - not Israel that deliberately lied about the status of Iran's nuclear weapons program. It was the US intelligence community that purposely deceived the American government and people about the gravest immediate threat to US national security.
Israel, including Netanyahu, was telling the truth.
So if Netanyahu never lied about Iran, what might these two major world leaders think he lies about? Why don't they want to speak with him anymore? Could it be they don't like the way he is managing their beloved "peace process" with the Palestinians? The fact is that the only times Netanyahu has spoken less than truthfully about the Palestinians were those instances when he sought to appease the likes of Obama and Sarkozy. Only when Netanyahu embraced the false claims of the likes of Obama and Sarkozy that it is possible to reach a peace deal with the Palestinians based on the establishment of an independent Palestinian state west of the Jordan River could it be said that he made false statements.
Because the truth is that Israel never had a chance of achieving peace with the Palestinians.
And the reason this has always been the case has nothing to do with Netanyahu or Israel.
Let's all of us face the truth: With the exception of a few people in the US, and an even lesser number (and percentage) of people in Europe, and other western countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.) most of the world couldn't care less about us. In fact, they'd rather see us destroyed. They are practitioners of the World's oldest hatred. They - including Obama and Sarkozy - are anti-Semites.
Dennis Ross, a senior aide to President Obama on the Middle East, and a long time peace processor, has stepped down.
Ross, a special assistant to the president, had initially pledged to work for Obama for two years, but extended his time at the White House by another year in light of the Arab Spring upheaval reshaping the Middle East, Carney said.
His departure casts additional doubt over Obama's Middle East strategy, and follows the resignation in May of Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell.
Ross had been central to Obama's efforts to revive peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, dealt a blow last month when the Palestinians gained membership of the UN cultural agency UNESCO, something Obama had sought to prevent
"Obviously, there is still work to do but I promised my wife I would return to government for only two years and we both agreed it is time to act on my promise," Ross said in a brief resignation statement.
Two other factors that might have played into Ross' decision to step down now: With Obama moving into campaign mode, no breakthroughs are likely in the next fourteen months, and Obama's open mic comments about Binyamin Netanyahu in France last Thursday might have made it uncomfortable for Ross - the most pro-Israel member of the White House staff - to continue working there.
This needs no further comment but I'll make one after it anyway. This cartoon by Mike Ramirez really bites hard. But here's my question: If Obama and Sarkozy had to choose between Ahmadinejad and Netanyahu, which do you think they would choose? I'd bet on Ahmadinejad.
Jonathan Tobin points out that it's not so much Prime Minister Netanyahu who is resented by Presidents Obama and Sarkozy: It's Israel.
Throughout both of his terms as Israel’s leader, Netanyahu has insisted on pointing out the failures of the Palestinians to abide by their Oslo commitments. Rather than meekly nod along when Obama or Sarkozy speak of the need for Israel to relinquish territory, Netanyahu has had the chutzpah to publicly talk back to them about Israel’s rights and not just its immediate security needs. Though he has sometimes given in to their demands if he thought it was in his country’s interests, he has also made it clear that doing so is a grave concession that could bring deadly consequences. Any Israeli who speaks in this manner, which necessarily complicates the efforts of the peace processers to ignore the Palestinians’ reluctance to make peace, is not going to be liked.
Much like Menachem Begin, the first member of his party to serve as Israel’s prime minister, Netanyahu cannot play the unctuous diplomat. Though he has made concessions and sought to reach out to other countries as well as ably making his country’s case before the American people, he does so as a proud, stiff-necked Jew, not a supplicant or a starry-eyed dreamer who is beguiled by an unrealistic vision about the intentions of his Palestinian negotiating partners.
Netanyahu has more than his share of personal flaws. But what Sarkozy and Obama are telling us is that the Israeli won’t play by their rules and knuckle under when his country’s rights are imperiled. Though he values Israel’s alliance with the United States, Netanyahu’s idea of his responsibilities is one in which he prioritizes defending his country’s interests over making nice with heads of state.
It should be conceded that his tactics don’t always work well, and he won’t win any foreign popularity contests. But the issue here isn’t Netanyahu. An Israeli leader who won’t acquiesce to the lies other leaders tell about the Palestinians’ peaceful intentions will never be loved. Sarkozy and Obama don’t resent Netanyahu as much as they do Israel.
Tobin is right. But the description of why Obama and Sarkozy hate Netanyahu could as easily have been written - and has been written (not by me - this is a quote) about Israel's Left.
But there is a deeper motive for the hatred we feel for Benjamin Netanyahu. Here too some background is called for: In the early 90's, and especially the spring and summer of 1992, the autumn and winter of 1993, and the spring and autumn of 1994, we, the enlightened Israelis, were infected with a messianic craze. Almost without noticing it, our peace movement, which had always been so rational and sober, full of phlegmatic reserve, began to whirl itself into an ecstatic Kabbalistic dervish trance. All of a sudden, we believed that the great global changes underway at the end of the millennium were signaling us that the end of the old Middle East was near. The end of history, the end of wars, the end of the conflict. Like the members of any other messianic movement, we decided to hasten the end, and anointed Yitzhak Rabin as our Messiah.
Yitzhak Rabin was a demonstratively un-messianic person. But for that very reason, because of his reserve and his decency, he was just right for the role we carved out for him. No one could ever suspect Rabin of charlatanism. Meanwhile, we began to pitch our tents around him, dancing around and demanding that he perform miracles for us. That he make a Western Europe out of the Middle East. That he fashion us a Norway out of the Land of Israel and Palestine. Yitzhak Rabin stood there, blushing and embarrassed, knowing that there was something a little suspicious about all the commotion being made, that our apocalyptic prognostications had gone too far. Yet the reveling around Baba Rabin went on. He let it continue, not wanting to disappoint us. He saw how excited we were, and thought why not? Maybe it will work.
But even then, back in the autumn of 1993, Netanyahu was the naysayer. The heretic. Even then he did not raise his voice and did not yell. He'd travel alone from village to village and town to town, repeating in his cool, unemotional voice and stern gaze that we were intoxicated with the fantasy. That we were humiliating ourselves, making a joke of ourselves.
In the beginning, during the first months, Netanyahu did not bother us too much. He was marginal, practically an eccentric. He was a tree falling in the woods with no one to hear it.
But gradually, it became clear that the scenario was not as straightforward as we had believed it would be, that there was something a bit more complex going on here, that there were still loose strings having to do with identity, history and culture, fundamental existential problems. Benjamin Netanyahu began to annoy us more and more. The more reality pushed aside our ecstatic mirage of the oasis in the desert, which had enraptured us to the point of sensory overload, the more Benjamin Netanyahu annoyed us. To the point that when reality finally rushed in, when terrorism struck and Yitzhak Rabin was murdered and we found ourselves once again part of the cruel and complex history from which we thought we had extricated ourselves, it was obvious to us who was to blame. The naysayer was to blame. The Judas Iscariot was to blame. The murderer of the Messiah was to blame.
Especially those of you who were not reading this blog in September 2008, read the whole thing. Europe's Left and the United States' Left believe that it's acceptable to talk about Netanyahu that way because Israel's Left does it too. And Israel's Left hates our country as much as their counterparts overseas do.
Two days after Presidents Obama and Sarcozy were caught with their proverbial pants down (not the first time as you can see from the picture at top left - no it's not a photoshop), both governments are practicing damage control and trying to convince us that they really do love Israel and even enjoy working with Prime Minister Netanyahu.
US President Barack Obama has a "very close working relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu. They speak very regularly," Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes said Wednesday, days after Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy were overheard ridiculing the Israeli leader during a private exchange at the G20 summit in Cannes.
Briefing reporters at the White House, Rhodes said, "I think they've probably spent more time one on one than any other leader that the president has engaged in. That's rooted in the fact that the US and Israel share a deep security relationship but also a values-based relationship.
"I think our actions speak very loudly, which is that this president has taken security cooperation with Israel to unprecedented levels. He has stood up time and again against delegitimization of Israel – whether it's the Goldstone report, the flotilla or, of course, most recently, Palestine efforts to see unilateral measures at the UN to shortcut negotiations," he said.
"So our record speaks very clearly about the president's commitment to Israel, and he, again, I think, has maintained a very close working relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu where they've been able to communicate clearly on these issues," the American official added.
Yada, yada, yada. I wonder if anyone is buying this other than the ADL, the AJC and Ira Forman.
Meanwhile, Sarkozy met with leaders of the World Jewish Congress and the CRIF - the organized French Jewish community on Wednesday, and although the Jews didn't raise the issue of Sarkozy's comments about Netanyahu, Sarkozy did.
None of the visitors to the palace brought up Tuesday’s headline story in which Sarkozy was heard calling Netanyahu a liar in a conversation with US President Barack Obama.
But the sources added that Sarkozy has spoken of his support for Netanyahu.
“I have defended Bibi throughout my political life,” the French president said, according to the sources. He added that he was a longtime supporter of Israel and its leadership, even when people made anti- Semitic slurs against him as a result.
Sarkozy told the Jewish leadership he felt that Israel had lost the media war and had failed to make its case to the international community that it wanted peace, according to the sources.
Kind of like the guy who gets caught cheating with another woman, and then tells everyone else how he really loves his wife. It rings hollow. But then, Sarkozy is an expert on that, isn't he?
ADL puts its tail between its legs over Obama comments
Jennifer Rubin reports that the ADL was embarrassed by President Obama's comments about Prime Minister Netanyahu at the G20, which came to light on Tuesday.
Obama’s comment put liberal Jews once again in a tight spot. It seems like only last month that the Anti-Defamation League was clucking at citizens to take Israel off the table as a subject of discussion in the 2012 election. But yesterday the ADL trudged back to the topic, obviously glum that Obama had once again revealed himself to be less than a sympathetic friend to Netanyahu and to Israel. A statement read:
We are deeply disappointed and saddened by this decidedly un-Presidential exchange between Presidents Sarkozy and Obama.
President Obama’s response to Mr. Sarkozy implies that he agrees with the French leader. In light of the revelations here, we hope that the Obama Administration will do everything it can to reassure Israel that the relationship remains on a sure footing and to reinvigorate the trust between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, which clearly is not what it should be.
What is sad is that we now have to worry to what extent these private views inform foreign policy decisions of the U.S. and France — two singularly important players in the peace process.
Perhaps if the ADL spent less time hushing Americans it wouldn’t be surprised when Obama acts like Obama.
But hey - don't think that will stop them from supporting Obama. What's more important: A few million living Jews or the unfettered right to murder more unborn ones?
Unflinching support for Israel has, of course, been a constant of American foreign policy for years, often at the cost of political and diplomatic support elsewhere in the region, but the Obama administration has also sought to improve ties with Turkey after the chill that followed the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
American Jews and other supporters of Israel fulminated. But it took a while, predictably, for foreign policy aficionados to examine these premises systematically. Two senior national security gurus finally have done so, and have shredded the argument. “Israel, a Strategic Asset for the United States,” written by Robert Blackwill, who served in four White Houses, most recently as George W. Bush’s deputy national security adviser, and Walter Slocombe, a senior Pentagon official in the Carter and Clinton administrations who worked as a defense adviser in Iraq in 2003, concludes that America’s close ties to Israel have advanced, not jeopardized, its national security interests. The 17-page essay, published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, lists numerous ways in which the U.S. has benefited from its relations with Israel, especially in the defense and intelligence sectors. It also argues America should reject the notion of Israel as a strategic liability and openly embrace it as a strategic asset. ... “Since 1973, we can’t find a single example of tangible actions by Arab governments for which the U.S. paid a price for its relationship with Israel,” Blackwill told me at the Council on Foreign Relations last week. “Not one,” Slocombe agreed.
Newspapers are often quick to cite complaints of Arab leaders about America's support for Israel. This essay argues that these displays of pique are not indicative of any actions taken or not taken on account of the purported outrage over Israeli actions.
2) Diehl with it
In recent years Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post has noted certain anomalies about the Middle East and its major players. In 2009, shortly after the election of Barack Obama, Diehl wrote Abbas's waiting game:
It's true, of course, that if Obama is to broker a Middle East settlement he will have to overcome the recalcitrance of Netanyahu and his Likud party, which has not yet reconciled itself to the idea that Israel will have to give up most of the West Bank and evacuate tens of thousands of settlers. But Palestinians remain a long way from swallowing reality as well. Setting aside Hamas and its insistence that Israel must be liquidated, Abbas -- usually described as the most moderate of Palestinian leaders -- last year helped doom Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert, by rejecting a generous outline for Palestinian statehood. In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank -- though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert "accepted the principle" of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees -- something no previous Israeli prime minister had done -- and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert's peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it's almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further. Abbas turned it down. "The gaps were wide," he said.
What’s extraordinary about Obama’s initiative is not its details, which don’t differ meaningfully from the ideas of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or, for that matter, several of Netanyahu’s predecessors as prime minister. It is, rather, its superpower chutzpah — the brazen disregard for the views and political posture of this Israeli government, and the fecklessness and disarray of the current Palestinian leadership. Never mind, goes the implicit Euro-American line: We will make this happen. What could account for such an attitude, given the timorous approach to the rest of the region? Part of it is understandable frustration with years of Israeli-Palestinian impasse, which is magnified by the conviction in much of official Washington that the terms for peace are well known and widely accepted, and need only be implemented. Part is legitimate worry that the Israeli- Palestinian front, though quiet now, could explode later this year after a United Nations vote, helping extremists in places such as Egypt. Yet the damage to U.S. interests from a U.N. resolution on Palestine would pale compared to the consequences of an Iranian-backed victory by Assad in Syria or the failure of NATO in Libya. Those crises have not moved Obama to lead. There is, in his diplomacy, an implicit conviction that the United States must first of all deal with the sins of its own client. “Here are the facts we must all confront,” Obama declared in his speech to the AIPAC conference last month, before proceeding to deliver a lecture about Palestinian demography, Arab politics and the United Nations. It wasn’t that he was entirely wrong. But it’s revealing of this president that he is determined to speak truth to Binyamin Netanyahu — and not to Bashar al-Assad.
In other words, Netanyahu has been an occasionally difficult but ultimately cooperative partner. He can be accused of moving too slowly and offering too little, but not of failing to heed American initiatives. And Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas? For five of the six months of the Israeli settlement moratorium he refused Obama’s appeals to begin negotiations; after two meetings, he returned to his intransigence. Rejecting a personal appeal from Obama, he took his bid for statehood to the United Nations, where he may yet force the United States to use its Security Council veto. France last month joined an appeal from the Mideast diplomatic “quartet” — the United States, European Union, Russia and United Nations — for Israel and the Palestinians to return unconditionally to negotiations. Netanyahu accepted. Abbas said no. Abbas, it’s fair to say, has gone from resisting U.S. and French diplomacy to actively seeking to undermine it. Yet it is Netanyahu whom Sarkozy finds “unbearable,” and whom Obama groans at having to “deal with every day.” If there is an explanation for this, it must be personal; in substance, it makes little sense.
Paying attention to details, Diehl has persuasively shown that Netanyahyu isn't as inimical to peace, as often portrayed.
Who does Diehl think he’s writing for at this point? Is there anyone who reads his stuff who doesn’t think he’s a shameless AIPAC/Likud party shill? Even the Weekly Standard isn’t interested in this stupid story, yet even the liberal Washington Post editorial board is using it as a pretext to bash Obama’s policy on the Middle East. What an embarrassment that once proud paper has become.
Diehl, has established through careful reporting that politics alone don't explain the Sarkozy/Obama exchange about Netanyahu and Diehl's critic calls him names. And here's Andrew Sullivan on the incident:
November 22's foreign policy debate for the GOP looks likely to be centered on how strongly the candidates can back a lying, foreign prime minister in a neo-fascist coalition over their own president, desperately trying to prevent Israel from unilaterally launching World War III. In a world of 7 billion people, the GOP's foreign policy reaches its most emotionally intense in fusing US policy with a country of 7 million people thousands of miles away, with no serious strategic importance to the US, and, in some ways, a strategic iability.
On one side there's careful reporting; on the other there's name calling and unsubstantiated allegations.
And this is a riot. What's the New York Times headline? Journalists Overhear Private Exchange Between Obama and Sarkozy, Report Says. Right that's the news. Not what the exchange was about. Or that journalists apparently conspired to withhold disclosing a newsworthy but embarrassing exchange between two world leaders.
If the Palestinians want full U.N. membership, they have to win the backing of the Security Council. The United States will undoubtedly veto any resolution, and that will further isolate both Israel and Washington. The Palestinians may instead ask the General Assembly to recognize them as a state or give them observer status as a state. Either would undoubtedly pass. But it would be in name only. After the initial exhilaration, Palestinians would be even more alienated, while extremists would try to exploit that disaffection.
There was little likelihood from the beginning that the attempt would be successful, because the United States had vowed to veto it. But in submitting the bid in September, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, appeared ready to try to claim at least a moral victory by having yet another Palestinian initiative felled by an American veto. The membership committee’s report will go to the Council, where, in theory, 9 of the 15 members could still vote in favor of accepting the Palestinians. But it has become increasingly apparent that there are not sufficient votes to get a resolution passed, and it is possible that it may not even come to a vote.
Abbas has set himself up for a major fail. The Obama administration deserves credit for standing firm on its veto threat. However, more effective diplomacy should have been able to derail Abbas's effort earlier.
Perhaps the best summary of last Thursday's 'gaffe' involving French President Sarkozy and US President Barack Hussein Obama deriding Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu came from Likud MK Danny Danon.
“Obama’s true face was revealed, as are his cold and disrespectful policies toward Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu,” MK Danny Danon (Likud) told the Post. “Anyone who had doubts about the way Obama treats Israel doesn’t have them anymore. Obama is bad for Israel.”
The Prime Minister's office and the Foreign Ministry declined comment, but there was plenty of other comment available. The opposition jumped all over it.
Labor MK Daniel Ben-Simon told the Post on Tuesday that he is “embarrassed as a citizen and as a MK” by Sarkozy’s words.
“I was embarrassed to read what Sarkozy thinks about our prime minister, and I was even more embarrassed to hear that the US President agrees with him,” Ben-Simon said.
“I am filled with shame that this is the way two of our greatest allies treat our prime minister,” he added. “I think this is the first time such comments have been publicized.”
“If [Netanyahu] lies so easily to important officials, just imagine how much he lies to us,” Ben-Simon said.
Kadima, whose last Knesset campaign slogan was “Bibi, I don’t believe him,” chose not to comment on the matter.
“What Sarkozy said is more than enough,” a party spokesman quipped.
There was also some harsh commentary against Obama in the US, notably from former Republican Presidential nominee John McCain.
Republican Senator John McCain on Tuesday slammed the French and American leaders over their derogatory remarks on Netanyahu, saying that while the "French have always been like that" toward Israel, the United States should know better.
...
In an interview with Fox Network, the Arizona senator said "I happen to be a great admirer of Prime Minister Netanyahu," adding that "Israel is under more pressure and probably in more danger than they’ve been since the ’67 war and that kind of comment is not only not helpful, but indicative of some of the policies towards Israel that this administration has been part of."
Commenting on the deadlocked peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians, McCain noted that "No one, not even the most ardent supporter of the president, can view the Israeli-Palestinian issue and peace in the region as anything but a total failure as part of (the current American) administration."
McCain suggested that the President ought to appoint Bill Clinton has his special envoy to the Middle East.
With both sides at a standoff, Obama's Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, resigned earlier this year. McCain said Obama's best chance to turn the situation around now would be to bring in Clinton.
"He (Clinton) has the respect, he has the clout" and the parties would fear upsetting him, McCain said. "And he knows the issue better than anybody."
There is already a Middle East envoy for a group known as the Quartet, a body comprising the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations: former British prime minister Tony Blair.
"I've watched Tony Blair try to make progress," McCain said. But Blair, in seeking to broker new talks, has run into some of the same problems that bedeviled Mitchell's efforts.
Let's go to the videotape.
Every time I see McCain I feel regret over the fact that he did not (or at least I feel that he did not) go all out to beat Obama three years ago.
By the way, I don't believe appointing Bill Clinton would help anything, but it would certainly be a better choice than George Mitchell was.
The Israeli delegation to the UN General Assembly expressed satisfaction on Wednesday after the first day of the international gathering in New York.
"The Palestinians were routed and they are about to fold. Not everything is sealed but it is clear that they have received a significant blow from the American and French positions," they said.
The French proposed a one-year map for 'Palestinian statehood' - that would work out great with Obama's reelection schedule.
But the real miracle here is that the World is finally starting to awaken to the reality of what a 'Palestinian state' would engender. This is from the first link again.
According to sources in the delegation, the Americans and Europeans are beginning to understand the harsh reality of the present Middle East. Israel presented a vast amount of intelligence information pointing to al-Qaeda's penetration in Egypt and the growth of radical Islam in the Arab country.
Diplomatic officials stated that Israel warned that Sinai could turn into a second Afghanistan. "The images from the storming of the Egyptian embassy in Cairo and Mubarak's trial changed the Western perception of what is actually transpiring in the Middle East," they said.
In consultations between Jerusalem and Washington, it was determined that Obama would clarify to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas the economic consequences of a unilateral declaration.
The US President will also demand of Abbas to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as soon as possible, and launch a direct dialogue.
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
