Priorities! State Department ignores Syria, blasts Israel for giving Jews in Samaria a place to live
The self-proclaimed 'most pro-Israel administration evah' has
blasted the Government of Israel for attempting to resettle the Jews of Amona, a neighborhood in Ofra (Samaria), in an alternate location in Samaria.
The statement, signed by Mark Toner, deputy spokesman for the State Department, drew an unusual linkage between the signing of the defense aid agreement with Israel and criticism of settlement building.
Toner stressed that the U.S. views advancement of the plan as a violation of a commitment by Netanyahu's government not to establish any new settlements in the West Bank.
The White House later further escalated the criticism, as Josh Ernest said that the decision constitutes a violation of a commitment undertaken by the Israeli government to the U.S. administration, adding that this isn't how friends behave.
"We had public assurances from the Israeli government that contradict this new announcement – so when you talk about how friends treat each other – this is also a source of concern. There is a lot of disappointment and great concern here at the White House," he said.
The criticism comes against the backdrop of the Civil Administration Planning Commission's decision last Wednesday to approve a plan for the construction of 98 housing units in the new settlement to be established next to the Shvut Rachel settlement.
According to the plan, it will be possible to build up to 300 housing units and an industrial zone. The NRG web site and Channel 2 were the first to publish the decision. The new settlement, which settlers say is only a neighborhood of the existing settlement of Shvut Rachel, can provide housing for residents of the illegal outposts of Amona, who are expected to be evicted by the end of December.
A senior U.S. official said that the White House boiled with anger at the advancement of the plan and even more at the timing of the decision – just a week after the signing of the military aid agreement by which the U.S. will give Israel $38 billion for a decade, and the day of the death of former president Shimon Peres, whose funeral was attended by President Barack Obama.
A large part of American anger was due to the administration seeing the step as a violation of a commitment Netanyahu gave Obama in 2009 that Israel would not build any new settlements. In his speech at Bar-Ilan that year, Netanyahu said he agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state and added: "The territorial issues will be discussed in a permanent agreement. Till then we have no intention to build new settlements or set aside land for new settlements."
And in the seven years since the Bar Ilan speech, there have effectively been NO negotiations. At some point, life has to move on.
Ironically, the best thing that could happen for the 'peace process' would be for the 'Palestinians' to actually feel they are losing something by not coming to the table. Nothing else has even a remote chance of bringing them to the table.
The statement was unusual both in its length of more than 300 words, and in content, using strong language to express U.S. objections to advancement of the plan.
"We strongly condemn the Israeli government's recent decision to advance a plan that would create a significant new settlement deep in the West Bank, State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner said.
Still waiting to hear Obama 'strongly condemn' Assad, let alone do something about him. But priorities man, priorities.
And then the State Department dug deeper.
One of the statement's clauses referred to the defense aid agreement. Its wording was most extraordinary, for through the years the U.S. has avoided creating any linkage between defense aid to Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the settlement construction issue.
"It is deeply troubling, in the wake of Israel and the U.S. concluding an unprecedented agreement on military assistance designed to further strengthen Israel's security, that Israel would take a decision so contrary to its long term security interest in a peaceful resolution of its conflict with the Palestinians," Toner added.
The State Department's statement also referred to the timing of the decision – the day of former President Shimon Peres' death, saying:
"Furthermore, it is disheartening that while Israel and the world mourned the passing of President Shimon Peres, and leaders from the U.S. and other nations prepared to honor one of the great champions of peace, plans were advanced that would seriously undermine the prospects for the two state solution that he so passionately supported."
So we owe it to Peres' 'legacy' to create his virtual state on an island and jump into the sea? How absurd!
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Amona, Barack Hussein Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Binyamin Netanyahu, Shimon Peres, State Department obsession with Israel, US State Department, US-Israel relationship
Is this what the US State Department told Belgium and France after their terror attacks?
Posting this in the hope that @apdiplowriter will ask the State Department about it this afternoon.
In the aftermath of the terror attack at the Max Brenner restaurant at Tel Aviv's Sarona Market on Wednesday, the US State Department is warning Israel not to '
escalate tensions.'
"We understand the Israeli government's desire to protect its
citizens after this kind of terrorist attack," said Mark Toner, a
spokesman for the State Department. "We would just hope that any
measures that Israel takes would be designed to not escalate tensions
any further, but we certainly respect their desire to express outrage
and to protect the safety of their people."
Nine Israelis were
shot on Wednesday night by at least three Palestinian men, in what has
been characterized by the United Nations, the US and Israel as an act of
terror. Four of the victims have died.
The decision by Israel not to return the bodies of dead
Palestinian perpetrators to their families– a policy Israel considers a
deterrent against future attacks– is "obviously an internal matter for
Israel to debate," Toner remarked. But he made note of Israel's decision
to constrict ease of travel for thousands of Palestinians in and out of
the strip.
I doubt the State Department bothered to look, but Saturday night and Sunday are the Jewish holiday of Shavuoth, and on Jewish holidays travel from Judea, Samaria and Gaza (isn't there a 'blockade' in Gaza anyway?) is
always restricted to humanitarian cases to enable the army to give more leaves.
The Washington Institute's Rob Satloff asks the right question:
Well, of course they didn't. But a different standard always applies to Israel.... I can't wait to hear the reaction when they find out that the cabinet is meeting today to expedite the demolition of the terrorists' homes.
And by the way, the terrorists came from Yata, which is south of Hebron, and not from Gaza.
Labels: home demolitions, Palestinian terrorism, Shavuoth, State Department obsession with Israel, Tel Aviv
Exposed: Sandy Berger advises Hillary Clinton how to disagree with Israel
Hillary Clinton
may not be any improvement over Barack Hussein Obama.
Let raise an idea about how you could present the arrangement on settlements that you are seeking with Israel as
I understand it, i.e. a moratorium coupled with allowances to complete a number of housing units. There are
two ways:
1. To describe it as an agreement, explaining why the US has accepted an Israeli completion of a
handful of units whose construction already has begun. This raises some concerns. It would
represent U.S. legitimization of some (however small) Israeli activity in the West Bank and it
would trigger Arab and Palestinian complaints that we had compromised, sowing doubts about
our effectiveness.
2.
The alternative would be for the administration to say:
a. We have come a very long way, as Israel has made unprecedented commitments to the U.S. in terms of a
settlements freeze. This is a very welcome development.
b. We did not achieve all that we had hoped as Israel intends to complete a number of
housing units. We have differences with the Israeli government on this matter which we
have expressed to them..
c.
That said, we are convinced that substantial progress has been made that warrants
an immediate resumption of peace talks as well as Arab steps toward Israel that will help
promote a two-state solution.
This latter option retains our credibility, does not compromise our oft-stated position and allows us to move
forward.
Israel gives a 'settlement freeze' for which Hillary Clinton and Sandy 'I stuffed the top secret material in my socks' Berger make sure it gets not credit.
Better than Obama? What difference does it make?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, State Department obsession with Israel, US State Department
Obama State Department: Netanyahu apology 'insincere'
'Israeli Arabs' may accept it, but State Department spokescritter Marie Harf says that the State Department has decided that Prime Minister Netanyahu's apology isn't '
sincere.'
"When he says one thing one day and another thing another it's
impossible to tell if he's sincere," State Department deputy spokeswoman
Marie Harf told reporters on Monday. "We can't read his mind."
But don't worry - the 'Israeli Arabs' aren't accepting it either.
Joint (Arab) List head Ayman Odeh called Netanyahu's statement
unacceptable and said a sincere apology should come in the form of
passing laws intended to make state funding allocations in Israel more
equal. He noted that after the meeting with the Arab leaders, Netanyahu
met with Bayit Yehudi leader Naftali Bennett and spoke to him about
advancing nationalist legislation.
"This is just another zigzag
by a man known for his zigzags," Odeh said. "He should return the
mandates he received for his incitement. We are waiting for a real
apology, which means real equality."
Netanyahu needs to be consistent like Ayatollah Ali Khameni, who consistently says that Israel must be destroyed. Oh... wait.... They don't believe Khameni either.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Israeli Arab, Marie Harf, State Department obsession with Israel
State Department, Rivlin slam Netanyahu for freezing 'Palestinian' funds
State Department spokeswoman Psaki and Israeli President Reuven Rivlin have slammed the Netanyahu government for
freezing funds transfers to the 'Palestinian Authority' in retaliation for the 'Palestinians' joining the International Criminal Court.
"This step is one that raises tensions as others do," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, referring to the freeze on revenue transfers to the Palestinian Authority.
...
The PA regularly fails to stand by its agreements, and owes Israel staggering sums, including over 1.4 billion shekels (over $360 million) in unpaid electric bills.
The PA has responded with intransigence, with onetime Palestinian Arab negotiator Saeb Erekat claiming to AFP Saturday that the move itself constitutes a "war crime."
I can't think of any reason why that would be a war crime. Here's Rivlin.
At a closed meeting of more than 30 Israeli ambassadors to Europe, held at the President's Residence in Jerusalem, Rivlin criticized both the PA's unilateral moves and Netanyahu's response, calling it damaging to Israel.
Two envoys who attended the meeting told Haaretz that
"President Rivlin said the Palestinian Authority's application to the
International Criminal Court in The Hague is an attempt by [PA Chairman
Mahmoud] Abbas to evade direct negotiations with Israel and force it
into an agreement on its [the PA's] terms, without any Palestinian
concessions."
Rivlin further criticized the actions of the Palestinians, calling
them a violation of the Oslo Accords, and arguing that the Israeli
government should respond - albeit with careful considerations to aid
Israel's interests, not harm them.
To that end, he noted, "freezing the transfer of Palestinian tax money is not beneficial to us and not beneficial to them."
"The Palestinians sustain themselves with these funds which also keep
the Palestinian Authority functioning. It is in Israel's interest that
the PA will function," Rivlin added.
"I was a lawyer until the age of 48, but I would never file a claim for compensation that would end up hurting me," the two ambassadors quoted Rivlin as saying.
I'd like to hear whether Rivlin has any other suggested responses. If he doesn't, he should sit and be quiet.
Labels: International Criminal Court, Jen Psaki, Palestinian tax transfers, Ruby Rivlin, State Department obsession with Israel
What am I missing here? - UPDATED: US TO BACK PALESTINIAN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION?
The tweet is from the inimitable Matt Lee quoting the State Department spokesperson.
What am I missing here? Isn't assuming that the outcome of the negotiations will be a 'Palestinian state' - whether on the 1949 armistice lines or on the 1949 armistice lines with 'mutually agreed adjustments' - prejudging them?
Can anyone help me out here?
UPDATE 10:16 PM
And yet....
You don't think they're threatening Israel do you?
Labels: negotiations without preconditions, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, State Department obsession with Israel, United Nations Security Council
State Department: No, we're not planning sanctions against Israel
Well, for this week anyway.
Labels: State Department obsession with Israel, toothless sanctions
5 European ambassadors, US protest demolition of terrorists' homes
Five
European ambassadors and the US State Department are
protesting an Israeli cabinet decision to demolish the homes of four 'Palestinians' behind recent terror attacks, including the two who carried out Tuesday's attacks on a synagogue in Jerusalem's Har Nof neighborhood. This is from the first link.
The ambassadors of Germany, France, Britain, Italy and Spain conveyed
this message at a meeting with senior Foreign Ministry officials in
Jerusalem on Thursday and called to restore calm to Jerusalem.
The five ambassadors said their governments object to demolishing
Palestinians’ houses, as such punitive measures only exacerbate the
situation and escalate the tension, according to Foreign Ministry
officials and European diplomats who attended the meeting.
...
U.S. State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke told reporters on
Wednesday that “punitive home demolitions are counterproductive to the
cause of peace, especially in an already tense situation.”
He said the Israeli government itself had discontinued this practice in the past, “recognizing its effects.”
The British and Spanish parliaments recently approved measures calling for a 'Palestinian state,' and the French parliament is due to vote on a similar measure. Sweden has already recognized 'Palestine.'
But then, what can we Israelis expect when we continue to have in our own government someone who claims that
the Jewish presence in our biblical heartland causes 'Palestinian' terrorism?
Justice Minister Tzipi Livni
(Hatnua) took part on Thursday in a conference of the Council for Peace
and Security, in which she blamed the Jewish presence in the Biblical
heartland of Judea and Samaria for "heating up the atmosphere" in the
recent wave of terrorism.
"Our role as cabinet members is to rise above the present reality and
see if there's something we can do to change the direction, also in the
region and also in our relations with the Palestinians," said Livni.
The minister claimed there is a coalition of Arab states that are
threatened by radical Islam, saying "that's the same coalition that
wants to end the conflict between us and the Palestinians based on two nation states. That's good news."
"The essence of Zionism," according to Livni, is to preserve Israel
as a Jewish and democratic state - reportedly her opposition to a law
defining Israel as the Jewish nation state has led her to draft an
alternate formulation focusing on Israel as a democracy over the state's Jewish nature.
"The more that the settlement enterprise continues our future does
not improve, it heats up the atmosphere and sends a message to the world
that Israel is playing a double game," claimed Livni. "We speak about
peace and an agreement, but in parallel we come out with all kinds of
announcements on more building and more expropriation."
The terrorism is because the 'Palestinians' won't tolerate the presence of Jews anywhere in this country, and the only way that the 'Palestinians' will ever agree to a 'Palestinian state' is if it's
Judenrein (free of Jews).
Labels: European anti-Semitism, home demolitions, Palestinian terrorism, State Department obsession with Israel, two-state solution, Tzipi Livni
What really gets Washington riled up
A good something (morning?) from about 40 minutes out of London. Still over two hours to sunrise there.
If you think Washington got excited about a terror attack on Tuesday, wait until you see how much more excited they get over - you guessed it -
the construction of 78 Jewish homes in Jerusalem. Nothing could be more 'harmful' to 'the cause of peace.'
According to Reuters, State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke
stressed Washington's "clear and consistent opposition to construction
activity in East Jerusalem."
"During this sensitive time in Jerusalem, we would see such activity
as inconsistent with the goal of lower tensions and seeking a path
toward peace," he added.
The latest criticism from Washington was made after the Jerusalem municipality approved the construction of 78 new homes for Jews in Jerusalem.
Municipal spokeswoman Brachie Sprung said 50 homes will be built in Har Homa and 28 in Ramot.
Yeah, I'm sure that's what motivated those two shmucks to go into a synagogue and murder people in the middle of prayers. Because there's nothing more inciting than building homes for people to live in.
PS I keep forgetting to throw this out: Can you imagine the outrage in the world if someone went in and shot up a mosque in the middle of prayers?
Labels: Jerusalem construction, Palestinian terrorism, State Department obsession with Israel
Obama State Department prevents Israeli from playing in the NBA
The Dallas Mavericks thought they had waived Israeli Gal Mekel to the Indiana Pacers. But then the US State Department stepped in. At a time when the Obama administration is trying to legalize millions of illegal aliens, and has doubled the number of student visas from China the State Department refused to extend Mekel's visa to allow him to continue to play in the NBA. Mekel is returning to Israel, the Pacers didn't get the player they wanted, and
the Obama administration has managed to hurt another Israeli.
The NBA granted the injury-depleted Pacers a hardship exemption that allowed them to sign a 16th player through last Thursday. When the State Department refused to move up the expiration date on Mekel’s visa even by one day, the Pacers, who had only 9 players on their active roster, backed out of the deal to sign another player before their waiver lapsed.
The Pacers were desperate to sign the Israeli star because only one of their five guards was able to play. Four of the five are injured.
Normally, visas for foreign-born players in the NBA are automatically transferable with the players to whom they are issued. More than 100 foreign-born players are currently in the NBA. This is the first instance many basketball analysts can recall where a foreign-born player was prevented from signing with a new NBA team because a visa could not be transferred.
Indiana wanted the 26-year-old Israeli shooting guard after his impressive start in Dallas, which included 19 points and 9 assists against the Pacers in Indianapolis on October 18.
Mekel was one of two Israelis in the NBA; the other is Omri Caspi of the Sacramento Kings.
But then you're
not surprised, are you?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, NBA, Omri Caspi, State Department obsession with Israel, travel visas, US passports
Obama: Israel has no more claim to Jerusalem than Russia does to Crimea
The Obama administration's solicitor general argued in the Supreme Court on Monday that
Israel has no more claim to Jerusalem than Russia has to Crimea. The argument was part of the
Zivotofsky case. This is from the first link.
U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who is rumored to
be in the running to replace outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder,
drew the comparison on Monday while he attempted to convince the Supreme
Court that Jerusalem is not officially part of Israel.
...
During Monday’s arguments before the court, Solicitor General
Verrilli maintained that a formal acknowledgment of Jerusalem being part
of Israel would be tantamount to the United States putting “Crimea,
Russia” on a citizen’s passport.
Verrilli was referring to the Ukrainian region of Crimea, which Russia forcefully seized earlier this year.
“The position of the executive [Obama] is that we recognize, as a
practical matter, the authority of Israel over West Jerusalem,” Verrilli
argued, according to court transcripts. “With respect to the rest of Jerusalem, the issue is far more complicated.”
“I do think, for example, Your Honor,” Verrilli said to Justice
Samuel Alito, “if [we] were to start issuing passports to people born in
Crimea tomorrow that identified Russia as the country of birth, that
would carry obvious implications for our foreign policy position, and it
would contradict the foreign policy position in a way that could be
quite deleterious.”
As with the disputes over Crimea’s status, stating that Jerusalem is
part of Israel also would interfere with the White House’s policy
positions, Verrilli argued.
I don't know in which hospital Menachem Zivotofsky was born, but every Jewish hospital in Jerusalem is in 'west' Jerusalem, with the exception of Hadassah Mount Scopus, which was part of an enclave that was within Israel between 1948-67. So even according to the administration's own arguments, we ought to be able to put "Jerusalem, Israel" on our children's US passports as their birth place.
Hmmm.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, State Department obsession with Israel, US Supreme Court
James "F**k the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway" Baker: I barred Netanyahu from the State Department
Former US Secretary of State James Baker seems quite pleased with the treatment that Prime Minister Netanyahu is receiving from the Obama administration. In fact, Baker claims that he too once barred Netanyahu from the State Department (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
“These kinds of things can happen from time to time,” Baker said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“There are always tensions in all foreign policy relationships, even with allies. But it can be overcome.”
Baker said that Netanyahu – then a senior Israeli official on foreign
policy – had said that “American policy in the Middle East is based on
lies and distortions” during the George H.W. Bush administration.
“I barred him from the State Department,” Baker said. “That may not be widely known.”
American policy in the Middle East was based on lies and distortions then and it still is now.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, James Baker, State Department obsession with Israel
'Freedom of worship,' State Department style
After Wednesday night's terror attack in which Yehuda Glick, an advocate of Jewish prayer rights on the Temple Mount, was shot and seriously wounded, the Israel Police announced on Thursday that
no one would be allowed on the Temple Mount.
Here's the State Department's reaction:
Only to Muslims? Not to Jews or Christians?
Regardless of the security situation? (Oh wait - the US has become really
expert on maintaining security at important sites these days, hasn't it?).
Unbelievable...
. Labels: Christians, Jews, Muslims, prayers, State Department obsession with Israel, Temple Mount
State Department: Throwing Molotov cocktails at passing cars doesn't make you a terrorist
Another gem from State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki's Monday press briefing.
QUESTION: In the case of the Palestinian American teenager who
was killed on Friday, are you – do you know the circumstances under
which he was shot?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any more details.
QUESTION: There are – okay. The reason I ask is because there
are reports out there that he was throwing Molotov cocktails at cars on a
highway. And I’m wondering, if that is the case, would you have still
been so speedy in putting out a statement and offering your condolences
to the family? The argument that is being made by some in Israel is that
this kid was essentially a terrorist. And you don’t agree with that, I
assume, but I don’t know, so that’s why I’m asking.
MS. PSAKI: Correct, we don’t. I don’t have any more details on the circumstances now.
QUESTION: So you – does that – that would apply even if he was throwing Molotov cocktails?
MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to speculate. I don’t have details to share.
QUESTION: All right. The other thing --
QUESTION: Back to the baby – back to the --
QUESTION: Well, I’ve got – I’ve got to get one more on this
and then I’m done. There is a photograph of this teenager’s – this
teenager being buried today, and he’s wearing a Hamas headband. It was
put on him, obviously. Is that of concern at all to you guys?
MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have any more on this particular case.
So according to Psaki, standing at the exit from the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel and throwing Molotov cocktails at passing cars is AOK and does not warrant police using deadly force to put a stop to it? Just askin'... Wait, there's more:
QUESTION: To go back to Matt’s question about – were you aware
when you put out the statement on Friday night that there were
allegations that the Palestinian American teenager had been throwing –
our story said a Molotov cocktail and it was – it had run before your
statement came out. So didn’t you – did you know at the time when you
put out the statement that there were allegations that he was engaged in
violence?
MS. PSAKI: Well, there were media reports, Arshad.
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: Beyond that, I don’t have anything to read out for you.
QUESTION: Right, no. But I just wanted to get on the record
that you knew about those reports when you put out the call for the
speedy investigation.
QUESTION: Matt – I mean Arshad, I’m happy to talk to our team and see if there’s more --
QUESTION: But just to clarify what Matt was saying, and you said – you kind of said something but it was just very short --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- you do not believe that this teenager was throwing Molotov cocktails. Is that right?
MS. PSAKI: That’s – I don’t have any more to outline or confirm for you in terms of the circumstances.
QUESTION: No, he said that you don’t believe that to be the case.
MS. PSAKI: That’s not what I said.
QUESTION: Do you? And you said no, you – no.
MS. PSAKI: He asked me if we thought he was a terrorist, and I said no.
QUESTION: Oh, okay.
QUESTION: Is that no longer the case? Do you think you were too precipitous, perhaps, in issuing that statement condemning --
MS. PSAKI: I think we’re going to have to move on now.
Well, that's pretty clear, isn't it?
Labels: Jen Psaki, morons, Palestinian terrorism, State Department obsession with Israel
State Department calls Jerusalem construction 'illegitimate,' maintains claim to being 'most pro-Israel administration evah'
From State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki's
Monday press briefing.
QUESTION: On Israel, could you talk about
Israel accelerating new settlement units that was just announced today,
and if you – we could just follow on last week. It just seems that
there’s a little bit of acrimony between the U.S. and Israel right now
surrounding the defense minister’s visit, Israel now with these
settlements and what’s going on.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve seen – they’ve been reports. There
haven’t been an official announcement at this point in time. We’re
certainly deeply concerned by the reports. We are engaging at the
highest levels with the Israeli Government from our Embassy on the
ground to get --
QUESTION: Does that mean the President’s called?
MS. PSAKI: No. We’re – I said on the ground – from our Embassy
on the ground to get more information. And we continue to make our
position absolutely clear that we view settlement activity as
illegitimate and unequivocally oppose unilateral steps that prejudge the
future of Jerusalem. Israel’s leaders have said they would support a
pathway to a two-state solution, but moving forward with this type of
action would be incompatible with the pursuit of peace, and that is
certainly a message that we are conveying directly.
In terms of our relationship, the defense relationship, as you know,
remains as strong as ever and the ties between us are unshakable. There
are times when we disagree with actions of the Israeli Government,
including settlements, the issue of settlements, where we have deep
concerns about some of the steps the government is taking. We express
those, but it does not mean that we don’t have a strong and formidable
relationship that continues.
The areas in which Israel approved construction over the weekend -
Ramat Shlomo and Har Homa - are nowhere near any 'Palestinians' (okay, they're both near 'Palestinians,' but the areas in which the construction was approved are adjacent to already-existing Jewish housing).
The State Department is hung up on steps that 'prejudge the future of Jerusalem,' but through its opposition to construction in the city, it is prejudging the future of Jerusalem (and of the entire enterprise of a 'Palestinian state') by ensuring that the 'Palestinians' have no incentive to compromise on their zero sum demands. Israel has shown (Gaza disengagement) that it is willing to uproot 'settlements' (although it would need far stronger assurances that real peace is at hand than are currently on the horizon) for even a remote chance of peace. 'Settlements' are not an obstacle to peace. 'Settlements' are the only consequences that might have any hope on having any effect on the recalcitrance of the 'Palestinians.' by declaring 'settlements' 'illegitimate,' the United States ensures that the 'Palestinians' have NO incentive to compromise.
Additionally, the lack of construction has led to an impossible housing crisis in the city in which most construction is luxury construction that is being sold to foreign investors at prices that young couples can only dream about having the money to pay. A storage room with a window and a corner walled off as a bathroom can rent for nearly $1,000 per month in many neighborhoods in Jerusalem.
There's much more that's disturbing in this briefing and I suspect it's only going to get worse as there will be no consequences for Obama's behavior over the next two years and two months after November 4.
Labels: Har Homa, Jen Psaki, Jerusalem construction, Ramat Shlomo, State Department obsession with Israel
The Obama administration's priorities!
No one should be surprised at
yet another double standard from the Obama administration.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, double standards, John Kerry, State Department obsession with Israel
American silence fuels 'Palestinian' terrorism
This New York Post piece by
Eliyahu Federman is spot-on (Hat Tip:
Victor Shikhman).
Abbas called Jews visiting the Temple Mount (Judaism’s holiest place) a “herd of cattle,” with no right to visit or worship there. Jewish visits, he said, were a desecration that must be stopped “by any means.”
“Any means” turned out to include the murder of baby Chaya.
What’s most remarkable is the US silence on Abbas’ remarks. Neither
Secretary of State John Kerry nor any State Department spokesman
condemned Abbas’ words comparing Jews to cattle. Even the US embassy in
Israel failed to issue a statement.
If the Israeli prime minister called Muslims praying at their holy
places a “herd of cattle” to be removed “by any means,” Jewish groups
and the US government would rightly and swiftly denounce such vile
bigotry.
Yet four days passed from Abbas’ remarks to the Wednesday terror attack. Four days of silence that culminated in horror.
Not a single Arab leader rejected this dehumanization of Jews, or
protested the incendiary call to prevent Jewish visitation and worship
at the Temple Mount.
Nor did the American Task Force on Palestine, the pro-Palestinian
lobby in Washington, speak up, nor groups representing American Muslims,
Arabs or Palestinians. The “pro-peace” movement, including Americans
for Peace Now and J Street, raised no objection.
After Wednesday’s horror, the State Department finally woke up, condemning the act of
terrorism “in the strongest possible terms,” expressing “our deepest
condolences” and urging “all sides to maintain calm and avoid escalating
tensions.”
But calls to “maintain calm” and “avoid escalating tensions” should
have come earlier, before condolences became necessary. They should have
come after the Palestinian president called Jews “cattle” and their
presence a desecration to be stopped “by any means.”
Such a statement may not have prevented the attack, but it would have
made clear that Palestinian incitement and violence against Israel and
Jews is unacceptable to the American people.
I'm not sure why Federman considers American silence in the four days leading up to the attack to be remarkable. Surely, after nearly six years of the Hussein Obama administration, no one should have expected anything else from the White House or the State Department (except maybe for them to pile on and back 'Abbas'). But he's right to call the administration out on that silence, and he's right to call out the supposed 'peace groups' - who couldn't even find it in themselves to issue a statement that 'Abbas' remarks are 'not helpful to the cause of peace' - for their silence as well.
Another Washington double standard....
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, double standards, John Kerry, Palestinian terrorism, State Department obsession with Israel
Kerry's Obsession
Bashar al-Assad has been murdering Syrians for three years. Islamic State is overrunning parts of Syria and Iraq. Turkey is going Islamist and destroying Kurdistan. Iran is developing ballistic missiles to deliver its nuclear weapons. So what should be the biggest priority for the Middle East? If you're US Secretary of State John Kerry, it's the holy grail of '
peace' between Israel and the 'Palestinians.'
"I think that it is more critical than ever that we be fighting for peace, and I think it is more necessary than ever... As I went around and met with people in the course of our discussions about the ISIL (Islamic State) coalition, the truth is we – there wasn’t a leader I met with in the region who didn’t raise with me spontaneously the need to try to get peace between Israel and the Palestinians, because it was a cause of recruitment and of street anger and agitation that they felt," Kerry said.
The US leader added that in order to achieve peace, both sides must make compromises.
"So what we need to do is recognize that we need to build peace through specific partnerships. One partnership is specifically the effort to try to drive towards this peace, to have a compromise, to find a way to create two states that can live together side by side, two peoples, with both of their aspirations being respected. I still believe that’s possible, and I still believe we need to work towards it," he said.
What could go wrong?
Labels: John Kerry, Middle East peace process, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, State Department obsession with Israel
USA Today admits that Jews bought 'grabbed' land in 'West Bank'
USA Today mentions
a fact that is usually hidden in its report on Israel's 'land grab' in Gvaot in Gush Etzion.
The Gush Etzion bloc's core communities were founded before Israel's
establishment in 1948 on land purchased by Jews in the 1920s and 1930s.
Arab soldiers destroyed the communities when they fought against
Israel's founding during the 1948 war.
If the entire pretext for forcing Israel to give up all the land that was liberated in 1967 is what the UN calls 'the inadmissibility of conquest by force' then why was it okay when the Arabs forced the Jews out of Gush Etzion in 1948? Why is the UN not advocating undoing that conquest by force?
And why is it that most of you probably had no idea that Jews owned land in Judea and Samaria before 1948? (I can hear my friend Sunlight shouting 'COUNTIES' but many of these records are likely incapable of reconstruction and many of the documents held by the Arabs are fraudulent. There was never a land registry in Judea and Samaria like there is in most other parts of the West, and it's very difficult to prove anything belonged to anyone before 1967. But it is a fact that Jews owned the land on which the Gush Etzion bloc is situated before 1948).
Labels: anti-Israel obsession, Barack Hussein Obama, Gush Etzion, John Kerry, Obama's obsession with Israel, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, State Department obsession with Israel, War of Independence
'Most pro-Israel administration evah' threatens 'further action' against Jewish state
Barak Ravid reports that the self-proclaimed 'most pro-Israel administration evah' is threatening '
further action' unless Israel 'reconsiders' its conversion of some 1,000 acres of land into state land earlier this week.
The Obama administration is considering taking further action regarding Israel’s expropriation of 1,000 acres of West Bank land this week, on top of the condemnation Washington has already issued.
“Maybe our reaction will find expression in other ways,” a senior U.S. official told Haaretz, but declined to give details.
...
In recent days attempts have been made by the national security
adviser, Yossi Cohen, and other Netanyahu advisers to calm the Americans
down. The Israeli officials told the Americans it would take years
until any construction was carried out in the area. The move was a long
process that still required a number of stages of approval.
Netanyahu’s
advisers added that the move had taken the prime minister’s aides by
surprise; Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon had not coordinated it with
them. The aides had not been informed in advance about the Civil
Administration’s announcement, or the timing.
An aide to Ya’alon
confirmed that the prime minister’s aides had not been told of the move;
he said this was not necessary because it was only a technical
procedure.
A senior Israeli official said the move began at a
meeting of the security cabinet after the murder of the three teens. At
the session, Ya’alon suggested that as part of the response to the
killing, Israel should turn the Gva’ot outpost in the Gush Etzion area
into a new settlement.
The establishment of a new settlement
requires a cabinet decision, but no decision on the issue was made at
that security-cabinet meeting.
Despite the absence of a decision,
Ya’alon instructed the Civil Administration to advance the
administrative procedures for expropriating the land. The Civil
Administration surveyed the area to make sure the land intended for
Gva’ot was not privately owned by Palestinians.
The Civil Administration found that no land in the area was privately owned and thus announced the expropriation.
Palestinian residents of the area will be able to submit objections to the move in the next 45 days.
How ridiculous is the Obama administration being (aside from the fact that its reaction shows that it is most definitely
not pro-Israel)? Ravid's newspaper published a map of the area in question earlier this week. As you'll see below, this area has been part of Israel in every peace proposal going back to the
Rogers Plan in 1969.
And I am old enough to recall the fury that consumed American Jewry over the Rogers Plan when it was introduced (follow the link in the paragraph before the tweet). This 'land grab' is nothing but a tempest in a teapot.
Labels: anti-Israel obsession, Barack Hussein Obama, John Kerry, Obama's obsession with Israel, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, State Department obsession with Israel
