Israel Matzav

How badly did Obama and Kerry lie?

At least Israel and Iran can agree on something. Obama and Kerry are unreliable liars.

For the last two weeks, the lame duck Obama administration has been trying to depict itself as totally passive in allowing UN Security Council Resolution 2334, condemning Israeli 'settlements' in Jerusalem (among other things), to pass.

Last week, Israel Radio reported on an Egyptian newspaper report that put out a transcript of what was said to be a White House meeting with 'Palestinian negotiators.' Now, MEMRI has translated that report into English. It's devastating. Among other things not previously reported, the 'Palestinians' asked that Obama cancel the designation of the PLO as a terrorist organization, and insisted that the 'Palestinian leadership' be allowed to move freely in the United States. Look for Obama to issue executive orders on these issues in the next two weeks.

On December 27, the Egyptian daily Al-Youm Al-Sabi', which is close to Egyptian intelligence services, published an exposé of the minutes of the secret talks. According to the report, by Ahmed Gomaa, the Palestinian delegation included PLO Executive Committee secretary and negotiating team leader Saeb Erekat; Palestinian general intelligence chief Majid Faraj; Husam Zomlot, strategic affairs advisor to Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud 'Abbas; Palestinian Foreign Ministry official Dr. Majed Bamya; Palestinian negotiations department official Azem Bishara; Palestinian intelligence international relations department chief Nasser 'Adwa; and head of the PLO delegation to Washington Ma'an Erekat.

The report gave the details of the Palestinian delegation's schedule during the visit, noting that "the Palestinian side began its meetings on December 12, when Saeb Erekat and Majid Faraj met with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. The next day, the two met with National Security Advisor Susan Rice. The entire delegation met with an American team that included four representatives of the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security, for a six-hour political-strategic meeting. Majid Faraj concluded his visit with a lengthy meeting with the CIA chief."

According to the report, the minutes of the "top secret" meeting of Kerry, Rice, Erekat, and Faraj reveals U.S.-Palestinian coordination leading up to the UN Security Council vote on Resolution 2334 regarding Israel's settlements, which was adopted December 23. It states that the sides "agreed to cooperate in drafting a resolution on the settlements" and that the U.S. representative in the Security Council was "empowered" to coordinate with the Palestinian UN representative on the resolution.

The meeting also, according to the report, was aimed at coordinating Kerry's attendance at the upcoming international Paris Conference set for January 15, 2017, in order to promote a further international move regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Kerry, it said, offered to propose his ideas for a permanent arrangement "provided that they are supported by the Palestinian side."

At the meeting, Rice pointed out the "danger" of the incoming Trump administration's policies, the report stated, adding that both she and Kerry had advised President 'Abbas to make no preliminary moves that might provoke the new administration. Rice even offered to help arrange a meeting between the Palestinian delegation and a representative from the Trump team, by enlisting the help of World Jewish Congress president Ronald Lauder.

Also at the meeting, Erekat warned that if the U.S. Embassy was moved to Jerusalem, the Palestinians would call to expel U.S. Embassies from Arab and Muslim capitals, the report said.

The report added that Kerry and Rice had fulsomely praised 'Abbas's policies and how he handled matters, and harshly criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying that he "aims to destroy the two-state solution."
...
U.S. Representative To The Security Council Coordinated With Palestinian UN Representative On The Issue Of The Resolution Condemning The Settlements

According to the Al-Youm Al-Sabi' report, "the minutes of the meeting – which was attended by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and on the Palestinian side by PLO Executive Committee Secretary and negotiations team leader Saeb Erekat, and head of Palestinian general intelligence Maj,-Gen. Majid Faraj – reveals that the sides agreed to collaborate regarding a resolution on the settlements." According to the report, "during the meeting, the American side focused on coordination of positions between Washington and Ramallah regarding the resolution on the settlements, which was brought to a vote in the Security Council and adopted several days ago..."

The report stated that "the minutes of the meeting reveal American-Palestinian coordination regarding the resolution on the settlements" and that Kerry and Rice stressed that "they were willing to cooperate with a balanced resolution, and that Washington's UN mission was authorized to discuss this matter with the Palestinian representative to the UN, Ambassador Riyad Mansour." It continued: "The U.S.'s representative to the Security Council coordinated with the Palestinian ambassador on the issue of the resolution condemning the settlements."

Coordinating Kerry's Attendance At International Conference In France

The delegation also attempted to coordinate Kerry's attendance at the Paris Conference, which will take place January 15, 2017, to promote a further international move for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to the report. "As for the French initiative, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that he could not attend [the conference if it were to be held] December 21-22, but stressed that he could [attend it if it were to be held] after January 9. The Palestinian delegation stressed that 'Abbas had contacted the French side, and that it had expressed its willingness to postpone the international conference [in Paris] so that the American secretary of state could attend."

Possibility Of Kerry Presenting His Ideas For Permanent Solution

According to the report, "Kerry raised the possibility of presenting ideas for a permanent solution, provided that they are supported by the Palestinian side... and this refers to principles that have already been raised as part of the Framework Agreement.[3] He also proposed that the Palestinian delegation travel to Saudi Arabia to discuss these points, but according to the minutes, he did not contact the Saudis on this matter. [Additionally,] according to the minutes of the meeting, National Security Advisor Susan Rice rejected, and ridiculed, the offer to propose ideas, arguing that the [incoming] administration of Republican President Donald Trump will completely oppose them."

Rice "Stressed The Danger Posed By The Trump Administration"

Rice, the report stated, "stressed the danger posed by the Trump administration, which could take a position different from that of all American administrations since 1967 on the issue of Palestine and Israel. She emphasized that she took seriously statements about moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and the Trump administration's view of the settlements."

Kerry and Rice "advised Palestinian President Mahmoud 'Abbas to not take any preliminary steps that could provoke the Trump administration, such as dismantling the PA, turning to the International Criminal Court, or ending security coordination with Israel," said the report, adding: "They [also] stressed the need to avoid military action or martyrdom [attacks], as these would greatly jeopardize the Palestinian position.

"They praised the substantial efforts of the Palestinian security apparatuses, specifically Palestinian [general] intelligence, led by Majid Faraj, as part of what they called 'the struggle against terrorism.' [The two] maintained that Palestinian-American collaboration in this area is among the closest of all the coordination between American apparatuses and security forces in the region."

Rice Offered To Organize Meeting Between Ronald Lauder And Palestinian Delegation

"According to the minutes of the meeting, Susan Rice asked whether the Palestinian delegation could meet with a representative from Donald Trump's team. She clarified that she could request intervention and could organize this by means of World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder. Saeb Erekat responded that he had already asked but that Lauder could not. He added: 'We were told that they were still organizing the new administration, and that once they were done, they would officially meet with the Palestinian side.'"

Erekat: If U.S. Embassy Is Moved To Jerusalem, We Will Call To Expel U.S. Embassies From Arab And Muslim Countries

"When Susan Rice asked what the Palestinian response would be if the U.S. Embassy was moved to Jerusalem, or if a new settlement bloc was annexed, Erekat responded: 'We will directly and immediately join 16 international organizations, withdraw the PLO's recognition of Israel, and cut back our security, political, and economic ties with the Israeli occupation regime, and we will hold it fully responsible for the PA's collapse. Furthermore, we will [call] on the Arab and Islamic peoples to expel U.S. Embassies from their capitals.' Rice answered Erekat by saying: 'It seems that future matters could be very complicated, and we are all apprehensive about sitting down with Erekat because of his absolute knowledge of these matters, and because of his memory and his sincerity.' She expressed the American side's respect and friendship for Erekat, and apologized for yelling at him in March 2014."

"The Palestinian Delegation Officially Demanded That The Law... Designating The PLO A Terrorist Organization Be Rescinded"

According to the report, "the Palestinian side officially demanded that the 1987 U.S. law designating the PLO a terrorist organization be rescinded.[4] Furthermore, both sides agreed to establish a bilateral commission to examine visa requests from Palestinians and entry and movement visas for Palestinian leadership in the U.S."

Read the whole thing.

Labels: American allies, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, designated terror organization, Jerusalem Embassy Act, John Kerry, Ron Lauder, Saeb Erekat, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:12 PM 0 comments

#CHANGE Time for an Israeli victory

It's the last day of Chanuka, so I couldn't resist the graphic.

Some 2,300 years after the Hasmonean's Chanuka military victory (caused by some miracles from God), Daniel Pipes argues it's time for another Jewish victory.

I propose an Israeli victory and a Palestinian defeat. That is to say, Washington should encourage Israelis to take steps that cause Mahmoud Abbas, Khaled Mashal, Saed Erekat, Hanan Ashrawi, and the rest of that crew to realize that the gig is up, that no matter how many U.N. resolutions are passed, their foul dream of eliminating the Jewish state is defunct, that Israel is permanent, strong, and tough. After the leadership recognizes this reality, the Palestinian population at large will follow, as will eventually other Arab and Muslim states, leading to a resolution of the conflict. Palestinians will gain by finally being released from a cult of death to focus instead on building their own policy, society, economy, and culture. 

While the incoming Trump administration’s Middle East policies remain obscure, President-elect Trump himself vociferously opposed Resolution 2334 and has signaled (for example, by his choice of David M. Friedman as ambassador to Israel) that he is open to a dramatically new approach to the conflict, one far more favorable to Israel than Barack Obama’s. With his lifelong pursuit of winning (“We will have so much winning if I get elected that you may get bored with winning”), Trump would probably be drawn to an approach that has our side win and the other side lose. 

Victory also suits the current mood of Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu. He’s not just furious at being abandoned in the United Nations, he has an ambitious vision of Israel’s global importance. Further, his being photographed recently carrying a copy of historian John David Lewis’s Nothing Less than Victory: Decisive Wars and the Lessons of History signals that he is explicitly thinking in terms of victory in war: Lewis in his book looks at six case studies, concluding that in each of them “the tide of war turned when one side tasted defeat and its will to continue, rather than stiffening, collapsed.”

Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Chanuka, Donald Trump, Hanan Ashrawi, Khaled Meshaal, Saeb Erekat

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:34 PM 0 comments

Oh, what a tangled web we weave. When first we practise to deceive!

The Obama administration's effort to deny Prime Minister Netanyahu's charge that Obama was behind the passage of a UN resolution declaring the Western Wall to be 'Palestinian territory' has come apart under the weight of its own lies.

You will recall, if you follow the links above that the Obama administration denied the Netanyahu government's accusations that Obama-Kerry were behind and orchestrating the UN resolution. And if you keep reading below, you will find out that in fact, the Obama administration has been orchestrating this resolution since September, and that John Kerry's little post-election trip to New Zealand (and Antartica) is likely connected to it.

On Wednesday morning, Israel Radio reported on an Egyptian newspaper report that published a summary of a meeting among Kerry, Susan Rice and chief 'Palestinian' negotiator bottle washer Saeb Erekat. That led to this denial from US National Security Council spokesman Ned Price:

This is a total fabrication. This meeting never occurred. https://t.co/FHDL1taIlF

— Ned Price (@Price44) December 28, 2016

To which CAMERA analyst Gidon Shaviv responded.

/@Price44
Can I point out the meeting is on the schedule online? Any response? pic.twitter.com/Z4KAwi4KRR

— Gidon Shaviv (@GidonShaviv) December 28, 2016

Price equivocated.

/@Price44 Are you saying a meeting took place but the transcript is fake, or that Rice wasn't at the meeting?

— Gidon Shaviv (@GidonShaviv) December 28, 2016

Price never responded to the question.

But in fact, on Tuesday, the State Department's Mark Toner admitted that the meeting did take place. And much more (full transcript here).

QUESTION: Yeah. I mean, tensions have been increasing since the UN vote on Friday. I’m sure you’ve seen all the reports and heard a lot of the words. The Israeli officials are now being quoted as saying that they have evidence that they will lay out to the Trump administration of – in which the U.S., specifically Kerry, had discussions with the Palestinians before the vote, a few weeks before, during a visit to Washington where Saeb Erekat was around, and basically that he pushed them to go to Egypt and to move ahead with this resolution. That’s one of the things.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: So the question is: Was the U.S. hiding behind this other group of countries to submit the resolution? Were those discussions ever taken place? Because the Israelis feel that they’ve got evidence that there was meddling by the Americans.

MR TONER: Excuse me. Forgive me. (Coughs.) I picked up a cold over the weekend too, unfortunately, so I apologize.

So you’re right. We’ve obviously seen the same reports, an amalgamation of different allegations that somehow this was U.S.-driven and precooked. What I’ll say – excuse me – (coughs) – is that we reject the notion that the United States was the driving force behind this resolution. That’s just not true. The United States did not draft this resolution, nor did it put it forward. It was drafted and initially introduced, as we all know, by Egypt, in coordination with the Palestinians and others. When it was clear that the Egyptians and the Palestinians would insist on bringing this resolution to a vote and that every other country on the council would, in fact, support it, we made clear to others, including those on the Security Council, that further changes were needed to make the text more balanced. And that’s a standard practice on – with regard to resolutions at the Security Council. So there’s nothing new to this.

Actually, it's not 'standard practice' unless you're looking for an excuse not to veto it. If the United States had planned to veto the resolution - as happened many times in the past - it would not have bothered to pretend to make the text 'more balanced,' because it would not have mattered. And it certainly would not have sent Secretary Kerry gallivanting around the world to work on it. 

You look like you’re pouncing on me, but go ahead.
QUESTION: No, we just —

MR TONER: No, we’ll continue. I can continue, but if you have a – do you have a follow up?

QUESTION: No, no. Let’s just keep going with this.

MR TONER: Okay, sure. And this is a really important point. We also made clear at every conversation – in every conversation – that the President would make the final decision and that he would have to review the final text before making his final decision. So the idea that this was, again, precooked or that we had agreed upon the text weeks in advance is just not accurate. And in fact —

QUESTION: But we know that —

MR TONER: Go ahead. I’m sorry. Go ahead.

QUESTION: No, we know that the U.S. didn’t draft it or put it forward. But was the U.S. in any way coaxing on any – another group of countries to move ahead and go and move ahead with this resolution?

You mean like 'humiliated' Joe Biden leaning on Ukraine to improve the 'optics' and make it 14-0? But Toner didn't bother to explain that.

MR TONER: Well, again, these are – I mean, again, I think it’s important to have the proper context, in that all through the fall there was talk about – and we often got the question here and of course we replied that we’re never going to discuss hypotheticals in terms of what resolutions or what is circulating out there – but of course, there has been for some time in the fall talk about this resolution or that resolution with regard to the Middle East peace and the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Yes, of course. Because without the need to worry any more about himself or his party, the true Jew-hating Obama was free to come out. 

So of course, in the – of course, in the course of those conversations, we’re always making clear what our parameters are, what our beliefs are, what our – what we need to see or what we – in order to even consider a resolution. That’s part of the give-and-take of the UN.

QUESTION: But surely these countries, before they would move ahead, would want to get the view of an influential member of the Security Council of the UN of who – of what their position would be on this.

MR TONER: Well, again, I think we – of course, as the draft or the text was circulated, we said to those on the Security Council that – what further changes were needed to make the text more balanced. And in fact, we ended up abstaining because we didn’t feel it was balanced enough in the sense of it didn’t hit hard enough on the incitement-to-violence side of the coin.

No. When you abstain and you could have vetoed, that's a vote in favor. Let's call a spade a spade. 

Go ahead. You look perplexed. (Laughter.) Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: At what stage did you intervene to try and balance? Was it after Egypt said they’d withdraw it?

MR TONER: I think it was once – yeah, I mean, once – I mean, I don’t have a date certain. It was once the Egyptians and Palestinians made it clear that they were going to advance this text or bring this resolution to a vote and that, in fact, it would be supported by other countries.

QUESTION: Does that date predate Mr. Erekat’s visit to the State Department?

MR TONER: I don’t know the date of his visit. But again, I’m not – I’m not exactly – and I’m not necessarily excluding that when he did visit to the State Department that they didn’t discuss possible resolutions or anything like that in terms of draft language. But again, there was no – nothing precooked. There was nothing – this was not some move orchestrated by the United States.
Please.

Erekat 'visited' the State Department on December 12 - ten days before the Egyptians presented and withdrew the resolution, and eleven days before Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela - with open support from the UK and behind the scenes support from the US - presented it again. Orchestrated? Bet on it. 

QUESTION: Could you be clear what you just said? I heard a double negative in there. You’re not precluding that they didn’t discuss it. Are you saying they – that when the Palestinians were here —

MR TONER: I don’t have a readout. Yeah, I don’t have a readout of that meeting in front of me. I just – but I said I can imagine that they talked about Middle East peace broadly and efforts to reinvigorate the process. I don’t know that they discussed the possible action at the UN. But of course, as we – as I said in answer to Lesley’s question, that was something that was in the mix for some months now in New York at the UN that there might be some action taken there.

This wouldn't be anywhere near as suspicious had the meeting been publicly disclosed on December 12. But if had, Israel would not have been blindsided.

QUESTION: And what about New Zealand, when the Secretary was there before Antarctica?

MR TONER: Yeah.

Yeah indeed. Let's interrupt for a minute. Here's a New Zealand Herald report from November 13, five days after the US election.

One of the closed-door discussions between United States Secretary of State John Kerry and the New Zealand Government today was a potential resolution by the United Nations Security Council on a two-state solution for the Israel - Palestinian conflict.

After the talks, Foreign Minister Murray McCully even raised the possibility of the US or New Zealand sponsoring a resolution.

"It is a conversation we are engaged in deeply and we've spent some time talking to Secretary Kerry about where the US might go on this.

"It is something that is still in play," McCully told reporters after talks today in Wellington.

New Zealand's two-year term on the Security Council will end in ignominy on Saturday. But then, we should not have been as surprised by their behavior as we were. Our bad.

Back to the State Department. 

QUESTION: And also I believe he had a meeting here with Mr. Shoukry at some point in early December.

MR TONER: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Was the resolution discussed at either of those meetings with those diplomats?

MR TONER: Again, I can’t specifically say whether the resolution – but certainly, if a resolution or action at the UN was discussed, it wasn’t discussed in the level of detail where there was some final text. We always reserved the right with any text that was put forward, drafted and put forward, to veto it or to not take action or abstain, which is what we ended up doing.

Like I said - when you have a veto and you don't use it, you're voting in favor. 

QUESTION: But you advised them on how to put together a motion that the United States would feel comfortable abstaining or voting in favor of?

MR TONER: Well, I think what we said is – and this is not just unique to this process, but once a text, a draft text is to the point where it’s going to be put forward to a vote, of course we would provide input on what we believed were – was language that didn’t pass or didn’t allow us to vote for it or —

QUESTION: You see what I’m saying?

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: You didn’t just say bring whatever motion you like up and we’ll vote however we feel about it. You were encouraging them to bring forward a motion that you would feel comfortable not blocking.

Sounds like game, set and match right here. 

MR TONER: Well, but we have to be really careful in how we’re talking about this because what the allegations —

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR TONER: No, I know and I understand that. But no, no, but I’m saying that some of the allegations out there, frankly, are implying that this was somehow some – as I said, some orchestrated action by the U.S. to pass a resolution that was negative about settlement activity in Israel, and the fact is that that’s just not the case. Of course, we would always provide, when the final text was going up for a vote, our opinion on where the red lines were. But I think that – I think this is all a little bit of a sideshow, to be honest, that this was a resolution that we could not in good conscience veto because it condemns violence, it condemned incitement, it reiterates what has long been the overwhelming consensus international view on settlements, and it calls for the parties to take constructive steps to advance a two-state solution on the ground. There was nothing in there that would prompt us to veto that type of resolution.

Actually, no. The only party it calls on to do anything is Israel. 

QUESTION: But there was nothing in there —

MR TONER: And in fact —

QUESTION: — because you told them not to put anything in there that would cause you to veto it.

MR TONER: But that – but again, not at all. And I said we did not take the lead in drafting this resolution. That was done by the Egyptians with the Palestinians. But again, in any kind of resolution process, of course there’s moments where – or I mean, it’s not like our views regarding settlements or regarding resolutions with respect to Israel aren’t well-known and well-vetted within the UN community. There’s been many times in the past where we’ve not – or we vetoed resolutions that we found to be biased towards Israel. But that’s another point here is that there’s nothing – the other canard in all of this is that this was somehow breaking with longstanding U.S. tradition in the UN Security Council, when we all know that every administration has vetoed – or rather has abstained or voted for similar resolutions.

Actually, no administration other than the Carter administration has ever called 'settlements' illegal. And no administration has ever called on 'all States'

to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967

That's right. In case you missed it, the Obama administration voted for a resolution that backs BDS.

QUESTION: But it’s true then that you had opportunities to ask them not to bring it forward at all and didn’t take them.

MR TONER: I’m not sure what you’re —

QUESTION: Well, instead of saying why not write the motion this way, you could have said please don’t bring a motion.

MR TONER: Well, again, I think when it was clear to us that they were going to bring it to a vote and that every other council – every other country on the council was going to support that resolution, that draft text —

Since when does a country with veto power have to worry about what 'every other country on the council' is going to do, especially a week before ten of the council's 15 members are about to turn over? Funny that we never hear Russia or China worrying about what 'every other country on the council' is going to do.

But the effort to destroy Israel in the council goes back much further than Kerry's trip to New Zealand in November. Here's Adam Kredo from the Washington Free Beacon.

Jonathan Schanzer, a Middle East expert and vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Free Beacon that he spoke with U.S. officials in September who admitted that “a U.N. measure of some shape or form was actively considered,” a charge that runs counter the White House’s official narrative.

“We know that this administration was at a minimum helping to shape a final resolution at the United Nations and had been working on this for months,” Schanzer said.

“This isn’t terribly dissimilar from the administration’s attempts to spin the cash pallets they sent to Iran,” he added, referring to the administration’s efforts to conceal the fact that it sent the Iranian government some $1.7 billion in cash.

“The fact is, the administration has been flagged as being an active participant in this U.N. resolution,” Schanzer said. “Now they wish to try to spin this as inconsequential. This was an attempt by the administration to lead from behind, as they have done countless times in the past and which has failed countless times in the past.”

And if you're having any doubts whether to believe Schanzer or to believe the Obama-Kerry spin, please consider this.

One veteran foreign policy insider and former government official who requested anonymity in order to speak freely described senior Obama administration officials as “lying sacks of shit” who routinely feed the press disinformation.

A senior congressional aide who is working on a package of repercussions aimed at the U.N. told the Free Beacon the administration is scrambling to provide excuses in response to the breakdown in its own narrative regarding the resolution.

“The administration got caught red handed, and now they’re talking out of both sides of their mouth,” said the source, who was not authorized to speak on record. “First they claimed the resolution was simply not objectionable. Now they say it will actually help advance peace. These denials only look more ridiculous with each passing day as new evidence surfaces that the White House was behind this anti-Israel resolution.”

The Obama administration has been caught several times misleading the public about its campaign to discredit Israel, including the funding of an organization that sought to unseat Netanyahu in the country’s last election, according to one congressional adviser who works with Republican and Democratic offices on Middle East issues.

All of which leads this Jew to believe that columnist and lawyer Kurt Schlichter is spot-on with this tweet.

If you are Jewish and supporting Barack Obama and John Kerry, well, you would have made a fine helper at Auschwitz.

— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) December 28, 2016

Indeed.

Labels: American allies, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, John Kerry, New Zealand, Saeb Erekat, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:35 PM 0 comments

'Palestinian' flag banned from Eurovision

Eurovision is a song festival in Europe that is televised and voted upon internationally. Israel is a participant. The imaginary country of 'Palestine' is not. (They don't need to be - a couple of years ago, the Israeli entrants showed up carrying Syrian flags).

Last week, Eurovision published a list of banned flags. The banned flags included the 'Palestinian' flag, and 'Palestinian' chief negotiator bottle washer Saeb Erekat howled in protest.

Palestinian leaders are blasting the Eurovision Song Contest for preventing their flag from being flown during the event this month.

Palestinian official Saeb Erekat voiced his dismay in a letter to Jean-Paul Philippot, the head of the European Broadcasting Union which oversees the yearly contest. In the letter, obtained by The Associated Press Sunday, Erekat says the decision is "totally biased and unacceptable." The Palestinians do not compete in the contest.

The EBU published a list of banned flags last week. Among them were the flags of Northern Cyprus, Kosovo, Spain's Basque region and the Islamic State group's flag.

In a Facebook post , the EBU apologized and said it removed the list of flags. An updated policy says flags of an "offensive, discriminatory, unsuitable, political or religious nature," are banned.

But the 'Palestinian' flag is certainly of an "offensive, discriminatory, unsuitable, political or religious nature." So they're still banned. Here's Eurovision's apology from Friday morning:

"On Thursday afternoon, a draft version of the flag policy for the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest was published on the website of the Globe Arena and ticket agency AXS. The document included a non-exhaustive list of examples of flags that under the flag policy are prohibited in the venue. This document was not intended to be published.

The organisers understand and acknowledge the sensitivities of presenting a selection of flags of organisations and territories, each of them of very different nature. The organisers apologise to everyone who feels offended by the list.

The EBU has asked the Globe Arena and AXS to immediately remove the document that includes the flag examples, and to publish the official document, without the examples, instead.

The official and final flag policy document will be published on the official website, Eurovision.tv, later today, along with a full explanation."

So these are now the permitted flags:

Official national flags of the 42 participating countries, or from one of the countries that have recently taken part (e.g. Turkey, Portugal, Romania).

Official national flags of any of the other United Nations Member States (see http://www.un.org/en/member-states/ for an updated list).

The European Union flag.

The rainbow flag, as a symbol of tolerance and diversity.

And if you follow that list  of United Nations Members States.... Israel is in. 'Palestine' is not.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Labels: Eurovision, Palestinian flag, Saeb Erekat

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:57 PM 1 comments

The war against the 'settlements' comes to TripAdvisor

Sorry for not posting for a couple of days - I've been swamped with work.

The war against the 'settlements' has come to AirBnB and to TripAdvisor. The Washington Post's William Booth reports that the 'Palestinians' are protesting the offering of rooms in 'settlements' on the popular Bed and Breakfast site, and that the result has been a rush by 'settlers' to list more homes (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).

The Airbnb host said that once his guests see the view, “nobody wants to talk politics.” Igal Canaan, a Jewish settler, threw open the doors of his designer apartment to reveal a jaw-dropping panorama of blue sky and Judean wilderness.

“In the morning, you can see shepherds with their flocks,” said Canaan, pointing out a distant village often associated with the birth of the prophet Jeremiah. “The view is totally biblical.”

All this, plus swimming pool, kitchenette, fast WiFi and maybe a “welcome” bottle of wine, just 20 minutes from Jerusalem, for about $80 per night.

The guest reviews call it awesome — but according to the Palestinians, it is also very wrong.

That's about what Mrs. Carl and I pay for the zimmer we occasionally rent in the Galilee (which includes a jacuzzi but not a swimming pool) and it's a heck of a lot closer to our Jerusalem home. Hmmm. 

A few weeks ago, Saeb Erekat, secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Organization, sent a terse letter to Airbnb chief executive Brian Chesky in San Francisco, warning that his company was “effectively promoting the illegal Israeli colonization of occupied land.”

Airbnb said in a statement to the Associated Press that it “follows law and regulations where it can do business.”

Indeed they do. And the government of Israel certainly has no problem with 'settlers' revenants renting out their homes. And perhaps Saeb - the 'Palestinians' perennial chief negotiator bottle washer should have kept his mouth shut.

So what did some Jewish settlers with an extra bedroom do?

“Ever since the Palestinians started complaining, our people took this as a challenge and have been rushing to Airbnb to list their properties,” said Miri Maoz-Ovadia, a spokeswoman for the Binyamin Regional Council.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Read the whole thing. 

Labels: BDS, Israeli tourism, Judea and Samaria, Saeb Erekat

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:53 PM 3 comments

Shalom and Erekat meet in Jordan, Europeans sponsor, US not informed

Interior Minister Sylvan Shalom and 'Palestinian' chief negotiator bottle washer Saeb Erekat had a get-acquainted meeting in Amman on Thursday. Jordan knew of and sponsored the meeting alongside the European Union. In a reflection of just how important Obama and Kerry are to the 'process,' the United States was not even told.

A private individual who holds no official position in the Israeli government acted as a middleman in preparing for last Thursday’s meeting between Interior Minister Silvan Shalom and chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, Haaretz has learned.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas were aware of the talks about holding the meeting and approved it. Senior officials in the Jordanian government and the European Union were also involved. The United States, however, was kept in the dark and Israel did not update the Americans before or after the meeting took place.

...

At a certain stage European Union envoy Fernando Gentilini tried to coordinate between the sides and even suggested the meeting be held in Brussels, however Erekat asked that it be held in Amman, Jordan, which brought the Jordanian government into the secret. Erekat did not present preconditions for the meeting, beyond that it be held at a neutral venue.

The two-hour meeting was mainly intended for the two to get acquainted. Both Erekat and Shalom presented initial suggestions on how to restart the peace process, but did not enter into a detailed discussion. They agreed to report back to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and to meet again in the near future.

The Amman meeting began in the presence of Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh, and later Erekat and Shalom continued in private.

I don't really expect this to go anywhere. The 'Palestinians' are hoping the United Nations will do their dirty work by passing a resolution in September mandating a 'Palestinian state.'  But the big story here is the non-existent American influence. #ThanksObama.

Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, European Union, Jordan, Middle East peace process, Saeb Erekat, Sylvan Shalom

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:04 AM 0 comments

Even Livni admits it: It was Abu Bluff's fault

Even Tzipi Livni admits that it was 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen who brought about the failure of last year's 'peace talks.' She did it in an interview with anti-Israel New York Times columnist Roger Cohen.

Livni acknowledged that dealing with Netanyahu on the talks had always been difficult, but from her perspective the Palestinians caused their failure at a critical moment.

On March 17, in a meeting in Washington, President Obama presented Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, with a long-awaited American framework for an agreement that set out the administration’s views on major issues, including borders, security, settlements, Palestinian refugees and Jerusalem.

Livni considered it a fair framework, and Netanyahu had indicated willingness to proceed on the basis of it while saying he had reservations. But Abbas declined to give an answer in what his senior negotiator, Saeb Erekat, later described as a “difficult” meeting with Obama. Abbas remained evasive on the framework, which was never made public.

...

Still, prodded by Secretary of State John Kerry, talks went on. On April 1, things had advanced far enough for the Israeli government to prepare a draft statement saying that a last tranche of several hundred Palestinian prisoners would be released; the United States would free Jonathan Pollard, an American convicted of spying for Israel more than 25 years ago; and the negotiations would continue beyond the April 29 deadline with a slowdown or freeze of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Then, Livni said, she looked up at a television as she awaited a cabinet meeting and saw Abbas signing letters as part of a process to join 15 international agencies — something he had said he would not do before the deadline.

She called Erekat and told him to stop the Palestinian move. He texted her the next day to say he couldn’t. They met on April 3. Livni asked why Abbas had done it. Erekat said the Palestinians thought Israel was stalling. A top Livni aide, Tal Becker, wrote a single word on a piece of paper and pushed it across the table to her: “Tragedy.”

...

Talks limped on around the idea of a settlement freeze and other confidence-building measures. Then, on April 23, a reconciliation was announced between Hamas and Abbas’s Fatah — something since proved empty. That, for Netanyahu and Livni, was the end: They were not prepared to engage, even indirectly, with Hamas. A long season of negotiation gave way to recrimination and, soon enough, the Gaza war, with nearly 2,200 Palestinians dead and about 70 Israelis.

Livni met Abbas in London on May 15. “I said to him, the choice is not between everything and nothing. And your choice in the end was to get nothing.”

Labels: Abu Mazen, John Kerry, Middle East peace process, Saeb Erekat, settlement freeze, Tzipi Livni

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:24 PM 1 comments

Gaza airport not a new issue - concrete from runways was used to construct terror tunnels

Supporting the claim that Israel, Egypt and the 'Palestinian Authority' are pressuring Hamas to accept the Egyptian cease fire proposal Haaretz reports on the pressure coming out of Ramallah.

A senior Palestinian official told Haaretz that Ramallah is pushing for acceptance of the Egyptian initiative even if it does not immediately answer Palestinian demands. The official said any international resolution would be weak and Israel would evade it, as has happened with UN resolutions.

“Only an agreement mediated by Egypt that has international support can achieve positive results in the short term,” the official said, adding that Israel’s proposals did not come close to the Palestinians’ minimum demands.

Under Egypt’s proposal, Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza commit not to take any action against the other by “sea, air or land,” while the Palestinians promise not to dig tunnels into Israel, Egyptian newspaper Al-Shorouk reported Friday.

Haaretz also reports that the 'Palestinians' don't think that Israel should be making such a big deal out of Gaza having an airport and seaport.

According to Palestinian officials, Israel is depicting the airport and safe-passage issues as if they were new. An airport operated in Gaza from 1998 to 2001.

Not exactly until 2001.... 

The airline was grounded in October 2000 following the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifada and was forced to move to El Arish International Airport in December 2001, after destruction by Israeli military forces. of the runway at its previous base, Yasser Arafat International Airport, where it operated limited services.

...

On December 12th 2001 GZA was bombed by the Israeli army, which warplanes hit the control tower.  In January 10th 2002, the 60 million USD runway was competely destroyed by the Israeli army, shattering hopes for the resumption of flights to the airport in the forseeable future.

Umm.... Not exactly....

ONE ISRAELI KILLED, ONE INJURED BY PALESTINIAN GUNFIRE IN GAZA

Noa Dahan, 25, of Mivtachim, was killed and her Nephew, Oz Parishta, 18, was wounded, when Palestinian gunmen opened fire on their vehicle near the town of Rafah in the Gaza Strip,

YEDIOT AHARONOT ON-LINE reported.

The two were driving from the Kerem Shalom checkpoint to the Rafiah border passage when they were ambushed by at least three Palestinian gunmen. Dahan, who was hit in the head, died
instantly. In response to the attack, the Israel Defense Forces closed the Rafiah crossing terminal to Egypt. The Palestinian airport in Dahaniya was also shut down. The airport was reopened on Tuesday under an agreement with the Palestinians, after having been closed last month as a result of a Palestinian ambush attack on an Israeli bus, wounding ten people.

I have a vague memory that Dahan actually worked at the airport, but I haven't been able to confirm that. Maybe what I'm remembering is that the bus in that story was carrying airport workers? (The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs site only lists incidents in which people were killed.

And then there's the little matter of how the 'Palestinians' used the airport. This is from the same link.

IDF Chief-of-Staff Maj.-Gen. Shaul Mofaz told the Knesset’s Committee on Security and Diplomatic Affairs on Tuesday that the Palestinians are using Arafat’s private plane to smuggle weapons into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. 

And of course that's exactly why the 'Palestinians' are pushing to have the airport reopened. 

One of the main sticking points is the Hamas terrorist group’s demands to be allowed to build a seaport and airport, in their words, to offer “more freedom for the Palestinian people who are stuck in Gaza.”

But Israel and the west knows that any type of port of this nature, controlled by terrorists whose charter calls for the destruction of the state of Israel and its inhabitants, would be nothing more than a way to import weapons to use in its armed struggle against the Jewish State.

Oh - and one other thing the media is forgetting to tell you about the airport. Here's an al-Jazeera English video from August 2010.



Hey - you don't think they used all that concrete to construct terror tunnels - do you? That would be another reason not to rebuild the airport, wouldn't it? 'Scavengers,' eh?

Labels: Egypt, Gaza, Gaza Airport, Hamas, Khaled Meshaal, Palestinian Authority, Saeb Erekat, weapons acquisition

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:08 PM 0 comments

Why the 'peace talks' failed

From an epic piece by Ben Birnbaum and Amir Tibon in The New Republic, here are just a few of the reasons why the 'peace talks' failed.

In his rush to announce the resumption of talks before flying home, though, Kerry left the conversation with two serious misunderstandings that would sow the seeds for later surprises. Netanyahu’s 2,000-plus figure covered only homes that were open for bidding. (In his mind, long-term building plans were a different story.) Nor did it include East Jerusalem, a part of the West Bank that Israel considered sovereign territory. Focused on the big picture, Kerry hadn’t asked for such clarifications.

The more consequential miscommunication concerned the prisoners. Netanyahu told Kerry that he was prepared to release approximately 80 of them (excluding those with Israeli identity cards). Kerry asked for—and thought he heard Netanyahu agree to—all 104. “Both of them like to talk for long periods of time,” said someone who has dealt with both leaders. “And I’m not sure that when one of them is lecturing the other at length, the other guy is really listening very carefully.”

...

Two weeks later, the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met at a hotel west of Jerusalem. Both sides showed up angry. Erekat and Shtayyeh were steaming at new Israeli settlement plans that had been announced immediately after the second prisoner release days earlier, and at Netanyahu’s (false) claim in an interview that Abbas had accepted the new building in return for the prisoners. Meanwhile, Livni and Molho, who had adhered rigorously to Kerry’s gag order on the talks, were incensed by a slew of Palestinian news stories that they believed their counterparts had leaked. Both sides, excepting Molho, were frustrated at the lack of progress they’d made over three months. And the claustrophobic setting—a small bedroom that had been converted into a conference room—didn’t help to calm nerves.

Erekat stormed into the room and slammed his briefcase on the table. In recent weeks, with the talks faltering, he had begun drafting a Palestinian Plan B that would include ending Fatah's six-year-old rift with Hamas and resuming the U.N. campaign—steps that would doom the process. Pointing at the briefcase, he declared: “This case contains our requests to join fifteen U.N. treaties and conventions, and my president will get my suggestion that he should sign them immediately if you say it was prisoners for settlements. And if he doesn’t approve it, I will resign tonight.”

“You can’t do this,” Livni said, raising her voice. “This is not what we agreed on.”

“What we agreed on was prisoners for no-U.N., not prisoners for settlements,” he barked.

“Stop shouting,” Livni said. “You’re being unfair.” But Erekat kept yelling that the settlements were making him a pariah among his people.

As Livni listened to Erekat complain about his political problems, something inside her snapped.

“Do you think this is easy for me?” she shouted. She recited a litany of some of the worst Palestinian prisoners that Israel was releasing for the sake of the talks: one who had murdered an elderly Holocaust survivor, another who had stabbed two teenagers, yet another who had hurled a firebomb at a bus, killing a mother and her children. “These are your heroes,” she said, disdainfully. “I don’t know why they are your heroes, but I pushed to release them to get these talks started so we could get a peace deal, so if I can do it, you can accept a few houses. Houses can be demolished. We can’t put those murderers back in jail, and I can’t get back three lives that were just taken.”

Erekat shot back: “What should I tell all the Palestinians who were killed?”

Finally, Indyk intervened, waving his arms like a baseball umpire making the safe sign. “Time out!” he screamed. The Palestinian negotiators went out to a nearby veranda, and minutes later, Indyk—whom Kerry had dubbed “the Saeb whisperer”—joined them. “I can’t take it anymore,” Erekat told Indyk. “It’s time for me to move on. Netanyahu is cheating us. He is not a man of peace.”

It was a refrain Indyk had grown accustomed to hearing. “I can tell you that he’s changing,” he said. “He’s moving.” After a few minutes, Indyk and the Palestinians returned to the room, and the meeting resumed, awkwardly. When they parted after three hours, the negotiators shook hands, as they had always done. But it was clear something had changed. That night, Erekat and Shtayyeh presented a joint letter of resignation to Abbas, while Livni called her top aides to vent. “I was one hundred percent sure it was over,” said one.

...

In early December, Kerry presented Allen’s proposals to the Israelis. While they sidestepped the question of when Israeli forces would leave the Jordan Valley, they sketched out what the area—and the rest of the West Bank—might look like after they did. The future Palestinian-Jordanian border would include new early warning infrastructure, an invisible Israeli presence (via cameras) at border crossings, and top-shelf American gadgetry. Livni liked the package. So did most of Israel’s security brass. Even hard-line Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was making conciliatory noises. “Israel will not get more than it is getting from Kerry,” he said publicly. Netanyahu saw it as a basis for discussion.

Netanyahu’s hawkish defense minister—Likud’s Moshe Ya’alon—thought it was worthless. “The Americans think we are natives who will be impressed with their technology,” he told one confidant. “Don’t they know that we are the masters of technology?” Unfortunately for everyone involved, it was impossible to imagine the Israeli government approving any deal without Ya'alon's support.

For months, the Americans had courted the crusty defense minister and concluded that he was—in the words of one senior official—“beyond repair.” Ya’alon, meanwhile, railed about American naïveté in off-the-record briefings with journalists. On January 14, an Israeli newspaper published some of his remarks, including his diagnosis of Kerry as “obsessive” and “messianic.” “The only thing that can save us,” Ya’alon said, “is for John Kerry to win his Nobel Prize and leave us alone.” 

...

Abbas had always been more wary. From the beginning, he felt as if Kerry was privileging Netanyahu’s needs over his. And the numbers seemed to bear the Palestinian leader out: Kerry had met with Netanyahu nearly twice as often as he had with him. It was not lost on the Palestinians, either, that the secretary’s team—Indyk, Lowenstein, Makovsky, Schwartz, Yaffe, Goldenberg, Blumenthal—sounded like a Bar Mitzvah guest list. To Abbas, the asymmetry of the diplomatic triangle was best illustrated by a December meeting between him and Kerry at the muqata. The meeting, devoted to security issues, was supposed to have been attended also by General Allen. Kerry showed up without him. When Abbas asked where he was, Kerry apologized and explained that Allen needed to stay in Jerusalem and work more with Netanyahu.

The depth of Palestinian alienation became clear to Kerry and his team only on February 19, when the two sides met for dinner at Le Maurice Hotel in Paris—the kickoff to a three-day parley. As the Palestinians walked in the door, each American was struck with the same thought: These guys do not look like they’re in a good mood. Following dinner, Kerry met alone with Abbas while Erekat and Indyk spoke in a separate room. Afterward, Kerry and Indyk got in the car that would take them to their rooms at the Grande Hotel. The secretary turned to his envoy: “That was really negative.” At around the same time, Abbas, who was nursing a terrible cold, saw Erekat in the hall and told him that he was going straight to sleep. “It was a difficult meeting,” he said. “I’ll brief you tomorrow.”

The next morning, at around 7:30, Indyk called Erekat. “The secretary wants to see you,” he said. Erekat was surprised at the early time of the summons. This must be important. He put on a suit and took a cab to the Grande. When he and Indyk got to Kerry’s Louis XIII-style suite, the secretary answered the door. He was dressed casually: hotel slippers, no jacket or tie. He looked concerned. After a moment of silence, the first words came out of Kerry’s mouth. “Why is Abu Mazen so angry with me?”

Erekat responded that he hadn’t yet been briefed on the meeting, so Kerry offered to get his notes. “I barely said a word, and he started saying, ‘I cannot accept this,’” Kerry grumbled, going through some of Abbas’s red lines.

“What do you want?” Erekat said. “These are his positions. We are sick and tired of Bibi the Great. He’s taking you for a ride.”

“No one takes me for a ride!”

“He is refusing to negotiate on a map or even say 1967.”

“I’ve moved him,” Kerry said, “I’ve moved him.”

“Where?” Erekat said, raising his voice. “Show me! This is just the impression he’s giving you.”

The next month, Abbas led a Palestinian delegation to Washington. At a March 16 lunch at Kerry’s Georgetown home, the secretary asked Abbas if he’d accept delaying the fourth prisoner release by a few days. Kerry was worried that the Israelis were wavering. “No,” Abbas said. “I cannot do this.” Abbas would later describe that moment as a turning point. If the Americans can’t convince Israel to give me 26 prisoners, he thought then, how will they ever get them to give me East Jerusalem? At the meal, Erekat noticed Abbas displaying some of his telltale signs of discomfort. He was crossing his legs, looking over at him every two minutes. The index cards on which he normally took notes had been placed back in his suit pocket. Abbas was no longer interested in what was being said.

The next day at the White House, Obama tried his luck with the Palestinian leader. He reviewed the latest American proposals, some of which had been tilted in Abbas’s direction. (The document would now state categorically that there would be a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem.) “Don’t quibble with this detail or that detail,” Obama said. “The occupation will end. You will get a Palestinian state. You will never have an administration as committed to that as this one.” Abbas and Erekat were not impressed.

After the meeting, the Palestinian negotiator saw Susan Rice—Abbas’s favorite member of the Obama administration—in the hall. “Susan,” he said, “I see we’ve yet to succeed in making it clear to you that we Palestinians aren’t stupid.” Rice couldn’t believe it. “You Palestinians,” she told him, “can never see the fucking big picture.”

...

Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, John Kerry, Jonathan Pollard, Martin Indyk, Middle East peace process, Saeb Erekat, Tzipi Livni, Yitzchak Molho

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:22 PM 0 comments

As usual, the Americans 'forgot' to press the 'Palestinians'

Barak Ravid's authoritative summary of why the 'peace talks' failed is way too long to start excerpting. But the bottom line is that the Americans once again negotiated on behalf of the 'Palestinians' with the result that Netanyahu made many unanswered concessions that will move the starting point the next time, while the 'Palestinians' once again walked away.

What could go wrong?

Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, John Kerry, Martin Indyk, Middle East peace process, Saeb Erekat, Tzipi Livni, Yitzchak Molho

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:26 AM 0 comments

'Palestinians' seeking Arab League and Islamic Conference review of Australia

Former 'Palestinian' chief negotiator bottle washer Saeb Erekat has written a letter to the Australian government saying that the 'Palestinians' will seek a review of relations with Australia by the Arab League and the Islamic conference.

“Palestine will request that the Arab League and the Islamic Conference [Organization of Islamic Cooperation] review the relations of the Arab and Islamic world with Australia in light of Australia’s unlawful recognition of the illegal settlement regime in occupied Palestine,” Saeb Erekat wrote in the letter, dated June 5. 

...

In the letter, Erekat responded to Brandis’ statement, saying it showed that Australia “does not intend to comply with its duty under international law not to recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel in 1967, including East Jerusalem.”

He added that the term “occupation” reflects a “legal fact” based on UN resolutions.

...

In May, Australia’s ambassador to Israel, Dave Sharma, drew fire after meeting with Housing Minister Uri Ariel in the latter’s East Jerusalem office.

“It should be noted that diplomatic recognition of the situation created by the attempted annexation of our capital is a flagrant violation of international law,” Erekat wrote to Canberra after that meeting.

Hey Saeb! If it's illegal, why don't you just take them to court? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Background here.

Labels: Arab League, Australia, East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, Julie Bishop, occupation, Organization of Islamic Countries, Saeb Erekat

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:34 AM 0 comments

It's about time: Israel responds to Hamas-Fatah pact

This could be the start of something big. Israel is finally responding in an effective way to the Hamas-Fatah unity government: It has announced 3,000 housing starts in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

The units, which were originally to be approved with release of a fourth batch of Palestinian prisoners at the end of March that was never carried out, will include 400 units in Ramat Shlomo in Jerusalem, and another 1,100 to be divided between the settlements of Efrat, Beitar Ilit, Adam and Givat Ze’ev. In addition, another 1,500 will be approved for construction in other settlements throughout the West Bank.

...

The announcement of further construction comes amid a serious policy disagreement with the US over its approach to the new Palestinian unity government. US Secretary of State John Kerry pledged continued allegiance on Wednesday to strong security ties with Israel, even as he reiterated the US would engage the new government backed by Hamas.

Speaking at a press conference in Beirut, Kerry – asked why the US felt it had to “recognize the unity Palestinian government immediately” – stressed that Washington does not recognize a “government with respect to Palestine, because that would recognize a state, and there is not a state.”

Kerry said he has had daily conversations with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on this matter as “a friend, as well as the prime minister of the country.” He stressed that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas assured him “this new technocratic government is committed to the principles of nonviolence, negotiations, recognizing the State of Israel, acceptance of the previous agreements and the Quartet principles, and that they will continue their previously agreed upon security cooperation with Israel.”

...

The secretary of state reiterated the US position that Hamas is a terrorist organization, which has not accepted the Quartet principles and continues to call for the destruction of Israel, “even as it moves into this new posture.”

“Israel is our friend, our strong ally” Kerry said, adding that the US-Israeli security relationship has never been as strong as it is now under President Barack Obama.

“We are deeply committed. We’ve said again and again the bonds of our relationship extend way beyond security,” he said. “They are time-honored and as close, I think, as any country in the world. We will stand by Israel, as we have in the past. There is nothing that is changing our security relationship. That is ironclad.”

Be that as it may, Israel did nothing to hide its deep disappointment with the US policy, with Netanyahu saying Tuesday he was “deeply troubled by the announcement that Washington will work with the Palestinian government backed by Hamas.

Meanwhile, 'Palestinian' chief negotiator bottle washer Saeb Erekat is threatening to take Israel to court. .

Let's go to the videotape.



Here's more:

“We urge the Israeli government to refrain from any punitive actions,” Erekat told a small group of journalists and diplomats who traveled with him Tuesday to the outskirts of a small Beduin encampment in Area C of the West Bank, just outside of Jerusalem.

“If they [Israelis] go ahead in the line of escalation, we will react,” Erekat said.

...

“We want to give them [Israelis] a heads-up that we are planning to pursue our case internationally.”

He explained the Palestinians would write letters to the member states of the four Geneva Conventions, which among other topics, deal with the issue of war crimes.

“We’ll ask them [member states] to shoulder their responsibility vis-a-vis the occupying power [Israel], vis-a-vis the atrocities and the crimes that are being committed against the Palestinian population in the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza,” Erekat said. “We think Israelis and their legal [experts] know what this means.”

The Palestinians also plan to pursue Israel through the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which deals with acts of Apartheid, he said.
In 2014, the international community should “not stomach” the use of an apartheid system, Erekat said.

“Instead of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state we should recognize Israel as the apartheid state.”

He explained he had chosen to visit the Jabal Al-Baba Beduin camp because it is located in an area called E1, where Israel plans to build 3,500 new homes, for the Ma’aleh Adumim settlement.

Under that plan, this particular hilltop would have a commercial center and an army post. While plans for E1 are frozen, Erekat and members of the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department that led the tour, believe they will be carried out.

They said Israel would forcibly relocate the Beduin from the hilltop to make way for Jewish building.

Forced displacement is a war crime, Erekat said, as is the Israeli demolition of Beduin structures that has already taken place in the encampment.

“We are preparing ourselves for the defense of our people including the option of signing the Rome Statute,” Erekat said. While the Palestinians are prepared to turn to the international court, they are first focused on using the legal instruments afforded them under the 15 conventions they have already signed, he said.

Israel, in turn, has warned the Palestinians that their signatures on these conventions means they are liable for acts of violence against Israel by Hamas, especially rockets launched from Gaza to Israel’s southern cities.

Read the whole thing. I wonder whether this would be brought up with the court at the same time....

Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, E-1, East Jerusalem, Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, human shields, Jerusalem construction, Judea and Samaria construction, Middle East peace process, Saeb Erekat

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:06 AM 0 comments

And again: Abu Bluff threatens to dissolve 'Palestinian Authority'

'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen  says he's ready to meet Prime Minister Netanyahu anytime, anywhere. But he has also set a whole slew of preconditions for extending the 'talks' deadline. And he apparently missed the decision to walk back the threat to dissolve the 'Palestinian Authority.' In a Tuesday conversation with Israeli reporters, he threatened dissolution once again.

Abbas said that Israel would have to assume authority over the Palestinians if it were to continue its current policy toward the Palestinian Authority.

Abbas seemed to be reiterating his reported threat to dissolve the Palestinian Authority in the event that peace talks fail, even as chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat was quoted Tuesday as saying that the PA leadership had no intention of dismantling the Ramallah government.

The comments came as Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams were  meeting in Jerusalem Tuesday afternoon in an effort to come up with a package that would extend the negotiations beyond next week's deadline.

Good guy and bad guy? 

Labels: Abu Mazen, Middle East peace process, negotiations without preconditions, Palestinian Authority, Saeb Erekat, US foreign aid

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:58 PM 1 comments