Dennis Ross rips Obama over abstention, says it's not likely to matter
Former peace processor par excellence Dennis Ross has
ripped President Obama for failing to veto Friday's UN Security Council resolution.
If there is one issue on which the President has been consistent
vis-à-vis Israel, it has been settlement construction in the territories
that Israel occupied after the 1967 war. From the outset of his
administration, he called for a freeze on the building of Israeli
settlements to include natural growth. Even when he vetoed a settlements
resolution in 2011, he had his then UN ambassador, Susan Rice, make a
tough statement about our opposition to settlements even as she
explained that the one-sided nature of the resolution left us little
choice but to veto.
Perhaps, President Obama felt this resolution was more balanced. Truth
be told, resolutions in international forum about Israel are rarely, if
ever, balanced.
This one creates the veneer of balance by referring to the need to stop
terror and incitement, but of course it never names the Palestinians so
this effectively refers to stopping all such actions by both sides.
Moreover, the resolution is criticizing only Israel and calling on it to
cease all its activity beyond the June 4, 1967, lines — which is
defined as a violation of international law. Nothing is asked of the
Palestinians.
Sounds just like Obama administration policy all along, doesn't it? Nothing asked of the 'Palestinians.' But Ross also has some good news for the Israelis.
While the Israelis clearly opposed the resolution and hoped it would be
vetoed by the U.S., one can ask: Does this resolution create a
precedent? It is hard to see how. President-elect Trump was clear about
his opposition to it and has already tweeted in response to the
resolution that things will be different in his administration.
Even in UN terms, the fact that the resolution was considered under
Title 6 and not Title 7 means it cannot serve as a predicate for
imposing sanctions later on — clearly a path the Palestinians would like
to go down.
If there is one area in the resolution that may be potentially
problematic for the future, it is the reference to the settlements being
illegal. That could create problems for the one possible formula for
resolving the border at some point: settlement blocs and territorial
swaps. One way to absorb a significant number of settlers is to permit
settlement blocs which are on a small part of the West Bank to become
part of Israel; in return the Israelis would swap territory as
compensation to the Palestinians. Will that not be more difficult if all
settlements are deemed illegal?
Killing what was left of the 'two-state solution' through his bumbling is clearly right up Obama's alley. The mamzer.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Dennis Ross, Middle East peace process, settlement blocs, settlements, two-state solution, United Nations Security Council
Priorities: As the world burns, Obama worries about Israeli 'settlement' bloc expansions
As the world burns around him, President Hussein Obama's obsession with Israel is interrupted only for his golf games. On Friday, the Obama-Kerry State Department condemned
Israel's incorporation of an abandoned former tuberculosis treatment center into the Etzion bloc.
Settlement activity is “illegitimate and counterproductive to the cause
of peace. Continued settlement activity and expansion raises honest
questions about Israel’s long-term intentions and will only make
achieving a two-state solution that much more difficult,” Kirby told
reporters in Washington on Friday.
He spoke days after Defense
Minister Moshe Ya’alon agreed to expand the Gush Etzion bloc to include a
4-hectare site with eight stone buildings that is located off of Route
60 between the Gush Etzion junction and the Kiryat Arba settlement.
Settlers
want to operate a tourist center on the property geared to helping
visitors take advantage of Jewish tourist sites in the area, including
the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron.
The property was owned by
the US Presbyterian Church until 2008 where it ran a tuberculosis
hospital and then a hostel on the site. Inclusion of the site within the
Gush Etzion boundaries would make it easier for settlers to further
develop the property.
When queried about the compound by a
reporter at the daily briefing, Kirby said the US was “deeply concerned”
about the move, “which effectively creates a new settlement on 10 acres
in the West Bank.”
He then spoke in general about Area C of the West Bank, which is under Israeli military and civil rule.
“It’s
important to note that some 70 percent of the West Bank’s Area C has
already been unilaterally designated as Israeli state land, or within
the boundaries of these regional settlement councils,” Kirby explained.
“The
new decision only expands this significant majority of the West Bank
that has already been claimed for exclusive Israeli use. “Along with the
regular retroactive legalization of unauthorized outposts and
construction of infrastructure in remote settlements, actions such as
this decision clearly undermine the possibility of a two-state
solution,” Kirby said.
He added that “continued settlement
activity and expansion raise honest questions about Israel’s long-term
intentions and will only make achieving a two-state solution that much
more difficult.”
The US has asked both the Israelis and Palestinians to demonstrate their commitment to a two-state solution, Kirby said.
“Actions such as [the Gush Etzion] decision, we believe, does just the opposite,” he stressed.
I'm sure the
starving Syrians in Madaya and the
molested German women in Cologne found Obama's priorities heartwarming.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Germany, Gush Etzion, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, Religion of Peace, religion of rape, settlement blocs, settlements are legal, Syria, Syrian uprising
Deja vu all over again...
I guess that's Hamas' response to Prime Minister Netanyahu announcing he's willing to negotiate the borders of the '
settlement blocs.'
Peace is
not at hand.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Gaza, Hamas, Hamas rockets, Middle East peace process, settlement blocs
Do we intend to 'keep' Jerusalem?
I doubt that any of you will be too surprised at this, but US Secretary of State John FN Kerry's 'framework agreement' includes an Israeli '
settlement freeze.' But what's puzzling about this report is what it says about Jerusalem.
Officials in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's office have yet to
officially respond to the request, Army Radio reported. While there has
been no official response from Jerusalem, government officials have
resigned themselves to the fact that Israeli gestures are necessary in
order to entice Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas back to
the negotiating table.
According to Army Radio, Israel would declare an "unofficial" freeze to
all construction in the isolated Jewish settlements that lie outside of
the major population centers under Israeli control in the West Bank.
While an official freeze on construction requires a government edict, an
unofficial freeze could be implemented by placing bureaucratic
obstacles and red tape on building plans or having the defense minister
order the Civil Administration, which is charged with approving
construction plans in the territories, to cease deliberating on such
plans. In addition, the interior minister could instruct the Jerusalem
Building and Planning Council to halt all plans in sensitive areas of
the city, and the prime minister could order the housing minister to
cease publishing tenders.
An unofficial freeze would enable government officials to deny its
existence while in practice halting all construction, according to Army
Radio.
Emphasis added is mine. Two questions here: First, there are 'Jewish settlements' that are not isolated but that lie outside of the major population centers under Israeli control in the 'West Bank.' For example, anything in the Jordan Valley. Or the Beit El - Shilo - Ofra area (which was not originally considered a 'major settlement bloc' but Netanyahu has hinted that it might be considered one). Or the Hebron area.
Second, if the only place in which we are being asked to freeze 'settlement construction' is in 'Jewish settlements' that lie outside of the major population centers under Israeli control in the 'West Bank,' why would we have to halt construction anywhere in Jerusalem? Is it not under our control? Is Jerusalem not an area that Israel intends to keep (another criterion given earlier in the same article)?
Hmmm.
Labels: Beit El, East Jerusalem, Hebron, John Kerry, Jordan Valley, Judea and Samaria, settlement blocs, settlement freeze, Shilo
Livni: Kerry first foreign diplomat to defend Israeli interests in the international arena
Israeli Justice Minister and chief
negotiator bottle washer Tzipi Livni has gone all-in with the American 'peace plan' calling those in the government who disagree with her '
hypocrites.'
Justice Minister Tzipi Livni blasted on Thursday Israeli "hypocrites"
whose actions could threaten to derail the ongoing peace process with
the Palestinians, Israel Radio cited her as saying Thursday at a
conference at Bar-Ilan University.
There are critics in the
government who claim to support peace, but in actuality use the argument
of security as a cover for ideological opposition to a peace agreement,
the chief Israeli negotiator said.
"I am ready to fight with the world on the important issues for all
of us, to convince of the righteousness of Zionism, and Israel's
security needs and preservation of the settlement in Israeli territory,"
Livini said.
However, she added that she was "not ready for us
to pay the price for the ideological minority that prefers isolated
settlement blocks."
Who is talking about 'isolated settlement blocks'? Forget for just one minute that none of the 'settlement blocks' is isolated.... Has anyone heard the 'Palestinians' concede one iota on the status of Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem? On their self-proclaimed 'right of return'? On recognizing that Israel is a Jewish state and that any deal made now will be the end of the conflict? No, no, no and no.
But if you want to see how big a fool Livni is....
Firing back at critics, Livni lauded Kerry as the first foreign diplomat to defend Israeli interests in the international arena.
Perhaps she never heard of Daniel Patrick Moynihan or John Bolton.
Arutz Sheva
adds:
Without naming names, Livni said that ministers who are not prepared
to concede land are “hypocrites” – and, if they get their way, will
ultimately destroy Israel as a Jewish state.
“We all want peace. But there is a price that whoever really wants
peace must pay,” she declared, speaking at an event at the Bar Ilan
University Law Department.
“This is the choice we have: if we want to protect the Jewish,
democratic state - or the entire land of Israel, which will not be
Jewish, and will not be democratic,” she argued. The only way to keep
Israel both Jewish and democratic is through negotiations for the
creation of an Arab state in Judea and Samaria, she said.
“If we don’t come to a decision, the world will decide for us,” warned Livni, who heads the Israeli negotiating team.
Sorry Tzipi, but your beloved demographic time bomb has long since been
disproved. Here's
Caroline Glick.
Still today, Kerry, Livni, Lapid and their fellow travelers seek to
intimidate us by constantly telling us that continued Israeli control
over Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem will bring about Israel’s demographic
demise.
But the lie at the heart of their argument is no longer possible to ignore.
As demographic expert Yoram Ettinger wrote last week in Yisrael Hayom,
Jewish Israeli fertility rates are higher than Palestinian fertility
rates in Judea and Samaria. In 2013, the Palestinian fertility rate was
2.91 children per woman and the Israeli Jewish fertility rate was 3.04
children per woman.
Today Jews make up 62-66 percent of the population in Judea, Samaria and
sovereign Israel. With a two to one majority, a higher birthrate, and
positive immigration rates, far from being a strategic threat to
Israel’s national viability, demographics are one of Israel’s strategic
assets.
The only threat to Israel’s demographic stability is the two-state
formula. A Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem would
permit the unlimited immigration of millions of foreign Arabs into its
territory. Rather than securing Israel’s Jewish majority, a Palestinian
state would place millions of hostile Arabs on the outskirts of a rump
Israel’s major cities.
With their threat of demographic ruin losing its traction with the
public, purveyors of the two-state plan now raise the threat of economic
strangulation and ruin at every opportunity.
Indeed.
There is one Israeli hypocrite and only one in this process. His name is Binyamin Netanyahu and he's still having trouble making up his mind which side he supports. He should never have put Livni in charge of negotiations. It's time to cut her loose even if it means her party leaves the coalition.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Caroline Glick, demography, John Kerry, Middle East peace process, settlement blocs, Tzipi Livni, Yoram Ettinger
Netanyahu demands Beit El bloc
A report indicates that Prime Minister Netanyahu has demanded that Israel retain the Beit El bloc (including Shilo, pictured above) in any 'peace agreement' with the 'Palestinians.' It goes without saying that
the 'Palestinians' have rejected the demand.
In most discussions of the blocs, there are three that are
generally mentioned – the Ariel bloc, which includes most of the towns
of central Samaria; Maale Adumim bloc, encompassing eastern suburbs of
Jerusalem; and the Gush Etzion bloc. But a report on Army Radio Thursday
said that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was demanding that Israel
retain a fourth bloc – the area around Beit El, north of Jerusalem.
According to the report, Netanyahu told Kerry that Israel could
not give up these areas, which played a major role in Jewish history.
Shilo, for example, was the home of the temporary Sanctuary (mishkan)
before the building of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, Nabi Samuel is the
burial place of the Prophet Samuel, and Beit El itself was the site of
the famous dream of the Biblical Jacob, in which he saw angels ascending
and descending from heaven.
If that's the case, how does he plan to give up Hebron or Bethlehem? Or does he include them as part of the Gush Etzion bloc?
Netanyahu also has another demand, which is rational, but which is unlikely to get a fair hearing.
In addition to demanding the fourth bloc, the report said,
Netanyahu has nixed the idea of a “centimeter for centimeter” land swap,
as the PA has demanded. At least part of the swap would come in the
form of cash, or in the value of the land, cities, and industrial base
that Israel would be surrendering to make the plan work.
Of course, the 'Palestinians' have rejected both demands. I wish our government had the courage, the conviction and the unity to just dig in and keep to our positions like the 'Palestinians' do. We're constantly running around looking for concessions we can make, while they just keep saying no.
Labels: agreed land swaps, Beit El, Binyamin Netanyahu, settlement blocs
Former Shin Bet chief apes Chicken Little
The former chief of the Shin Bet General Security Service has been imitating Chicken Little, telling a conference on Wednesday that the 'Palestinian problem' is
a bigger danger to Israel than a nuclear Iran, and of course, that 'settlements' must be stopped.
To solve the conflict, Israel must immediately freeze Jewish
building in the West Bank outside the settlement blocs, and pledge to release
all Palestinian prisoners at the end of the negotiations, Diskin said at the
10th anniversary event hosted by the Geneva Initiative.
“The implications
of the absence of a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more
existential than the Iranian nuclear issue,” Diskin told an audience at the Tel
Aviv Museum of Art.
A few comments:
1. There is very little actual building going on outside the 'settlement blocs' and none going on outside the boundaries of existing Jewish cities and towns.
2. Officially freezing Jewish building gives the 'Palestinians' hope that they can just drag
the 'negotiations' out forever, since it means that they have nothing to lose by not negotiating seriously.
3. 'Palestinian prisoners' are terrorist murderers. We're already releasing them to bring the 'Palestinians' to the table. Does Diskin think that's a good idea too? eave aside whether th was a good deal or the right thing to do. at
4. We agreed to release those 'Palestinian' murderers in exchange for NOT having a 'settlement freeze.' Leave aside whether that was a good deal or the right thing to do. If we now give the 'Palestinians' a 'settlement freeze' as a gift, what message are we sending the 'Palestinians'?
5. The absence of a solution to the Israeli-'Palestinian' conflict is not an existential issue, and is certainly not more of an existential issue than a nuclear Iran. But giving the 'Palestinians' all of their demands would place Israel in existential danger.
Sources close to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu
slammed Diskin and his comments, saying that “anyone who thinks that the
Palestinian threat is greater than the threat of a nuclear bomb in the hands of
Iran, which calls for the destruction of the Sate of Israel is divorced from
reality and lacking any strategic vision.”
...
Netanyahu will be influenced by neither “recycled statements,
nor the righteous preaching that flows from the personal frustration of someone
who wanted to be appointed the head of the Mossad, but did not get the job,” the
sources said.
Very nice but the international community - correctly - sees Netanyahu as spineless and pliable and as long as that continues to be the case, he and we will be under pressure.
To see the rest of Diskin's fantasies,
read the whole thing.
Labels: Geneva initiative, Iranian nuclear threat, Judea and Samaria construction, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, settlement blocs, Yuval Diskin
'Palestinians' accuse US of 'deception and misinformation' on talks
Nothing, but nothing, is good enough for the 'Palestinians.' After the United States exerted enormous pressure on Israel, which is supposed to be an American ally, the 'Palestinians' are now accusing the United States of '
deception and misinformation about the 'peace talks.'
[London based Al-Hayat] quoted Abbas as telling the officials: “I have told the US
Administration 10 times, and I’m ready to tell them again that we won’t
accept any solution that contradicts the Palestinian vision.”
A senior Palestinian official told Al-Hayat
that US Secretary of State John Kerry gave the Palestinians assurances
that Israel would decrease construction in settlement blocs. The
official also claimed that Kerry promised that Israel would halt
construction in settlements outside the blocs during the peace
negotiations.
“It’s obvious that Kerry was either deceived by the
Israelis or that he’s deceiving us in order to keep us at the
negotiating table,” the official said.
Some Palestinian officials
also voiced concern over talks between the US and Israel regarding
shared security interests once a political solution is reached. One
official complained that the Palestinians were not party to these talks.
Something tells me that Kerry didn't deceive Abu Bluff. Abu Bluff deceived himself. Here's hoping the 'Palestinians' walk out of the 'talks' soon.
Labels: Abu Mazen, John Kerry, Judea and Samaria construction, Middle East peace process, Palestinian lies, settlement blocs
Oh my: Look who's likely to be the swing vote if the government decides to expel Jews from 'settlements'
Gil Hoffman reports that despite the Knesset being split 61-59 in favor of the Right, if a plan to expel Jews from 'settlements' comes to a vote, the Left believes that it will carry the day. The Shas party (and maybe United Torah Judaism as well) are eager for the chance to
take revenge on Naftali Bennett for excluding them from the government.
“The haredi parties will be partners in the peace process,” Hatnua MK
Amram Mitzna told the haredi radio station Kol Chai this week.
“A majority can be created in the Knesset for evacuating settlements.”
Mitzna
said haredi MKs have told him they cannot wait to take revenge against
Bayit Yehudi leader Naftali Bennett for blocking their parties from
entering the coalition. He said he could also see a scenario whereby
haredi parties join the current coalition at Bayit Yehudi’s expense when
the diplomatic talks with the Palestinians progress.
“The
priorities of the haredim have changed,” Mitzna said. “They say they
aren’t in anyone’s pocket anymore. They know the Right has always
betrayed them.”
I would not believe everything Mitzna says, but it is known that the Haredim were furious at being
excluded from the coalition and they (correctly) place the
blame for that on the deal between Bennett and Yair Lapid. While they expected that kind of behavior from Lapid, they did not expect it from Bennett, and that's why most of the fury is directed at him and his party (that's also playing out in the current mayoral campaign in Beit Shemesh by the way).
But with respect to Shas, there's another aspect that makes this story plausible. Aryeh Deri (pictured at top), who returned to the party in the last election after a lengthy suspension due to a bribery conviction, has always been a Leftist at heart, and he now has the ear of Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef much more closely than does the more Right-leaning Eli Yishai. It's more than plausible that Deri will convince Rav Yosef to order Shas' MK's to vote in favor of an expulsion.
The Right is trying to hold on to the Haredi vote.
The Right also understands the importance of the haredim and their
votes in the Knesset. Construction and Housing Minister Uri Ariel (Bayit
Yehudi) said Wednesday that he would advance building projects for the
haredi sector not only in Betar Illit and Modi’in Illit on the Green
Line but also in Tel Zion, a haredi neighborhood of the Kochav Ya’acov
settlement north of Jerusalem that is not considered part of a
settlement bloc.
“It is wrong to look at haredim as second-class citizens,” Ariel said. “They deserve building, too.”
But not, apparently, the same funding for their yeshivoth and schools and other educational institutions that the rest of the country gets, and certainly not special concessions from the army. At least in the view of Ariel and his party. While the Haredim have the advantage that the vast majority of their constituents who live in Judea and Samaria live along the green line, something tells me that their votes won't be sold for housing starts that may never be completed. But they might be sold for something better than has been offered to them on the 'sharing the burden' front.
Labels: Aryeh Deri, Beitar Ilit, Eli Yishai, Haredim, IDF, Israeli Knesset, Kiryat Sefer (Modi'in Illit), Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, settlement blocs, Uri Ariel
Guidelines for 'peace talks' leaked?
Elder posts a list of leaked 'guidelines' for the 'peace talks' that came from something called 'Palestine Today' put out by Islamic Jihad. Elder speculates that '
moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen may have sent them to Moscow for approval and they may have been leaked that way. Color me skeptical. Here are some of the more
outlandish ones.
3) "The
security barrier will establish a security border for the Jewish state
and a permanent border for the Palestinian state, subject to change by
mutual agreement" (h/t Ali) Not sure what this means unless they are
saying that Israel's borders will not go beyond the Green Line, which is
strange if there is a land swap.
I think this means that the 'security fence' will be the border between Israel and the 'Palestinian state,' subject to adjustment. This sentence doesn't say anything about a land swap. The 'security fence' incorporates
9.4% of the land mass of Judea and Samaria and include 85% of the Jewish population. The land swap is a separate issue.
5) Israel freezes construction on some outposts, but not on existing
settlement blocs including Maaleh Adumim, Har Homa, Gilo, Neve Yaakov,
Ramat Shlomo, Kiryat Arba, and some others with large populations
Kiryat Arba is not part of a 'settlement bloc' and I find it hard to believe that the 'Palestinians' would not go ballistic if Israel builds there. There is no way that the 'Palestinians' are going to give us anything other than very limited access (if that) to the Hebron - Kiryat Arba area.
6) Residents in the "frozen" settlements will be given the choice of citizenship at the conclusion of the process
Not sure why this is phrased this way and doesn't relate to 'settlers' on the other side of the 'security fence.'
7) At the end of the negotiations it will be announced that the conflict
is over and there will be full normalization of relations between
Israel and all Arab countries announced at an Arab League meeting;
Israel recognizing Palestine within the borders mentioned above and
Palestinian recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people
Hard to believe. See below.
8) At the end of negotiations some Palestinian families will be allowed
to re-unite in the WB and Gaza; others will get he right of compensation
or immigration to Arab countries, especially Gulf countries, with them
being naturalized in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and Qatar; not sure
about the source of the compensation
Again, hard to believe, especially in light of the experiences that Arab countries have had with the 'Palestinians.' Kuwait? You've got to be kidding.
My view is that this was put out by Islamic Jihad to embarrass Abu Mazen. I don't believe this set of guidelines is real. And why would they send it to Russia? Brussels or Riyadh seem like much more likely destinations.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Middle East peace process, security fence, settlement blocs
Obama's credibility gap
Evelyn Gordon points out how President Obama's failure to take to task his best friend forever (BFF), Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, over Erdogan's failure to abide by the agreement the two of them made with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, is
weighing heavily on the 'peace process.'
As Jonathan noted
yesterday, Israeli pessimism about renewed Israeli-Palestinian peace
talks stems from certain important facts that Americans like to ignore
but Israelis find impossible to forget. I’d like to add another fact to
his list. You might call it the Turkey problem–specifically, President
Barack Obama’s blithe disregard of Turkey’s violation of a deal with
Israel that he himself brokered.
Any Israeli-Palestinian agreement would presumably involve certain
American guarantees, particularly on security. Washington even assigned a
very prominent retired general, former commander in Afghanistan John
Allen, “to consult with the Israelis about how the United States can
help them meet security challenges posed by a Palestinian state,” as the
Washington Post’s David Ignatius put it.
But America can’t offer this kind of guarantee anymore, because under
Obama, U.S. promises to Israel have repeatedly proven worthless. The
Turkish deal is a classic example.
Read it all. If Obama cannot get Erdogan, whom he has described as his best friend in the region, to abide by a deal made with Israel, why should anyone think he can get '
moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen or his unelected successor to abide by a deal?
And by the way, what if Obama's successor disavows this agreement the way Obama disavowed Bush's agreement with us on building in the 'settlement blocs'? Actions have consequences, and unfortunately, thanks to Obama, the United States' word just isn't what it used to be.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Bush letter, George W. Bush, Mavi Marmara, Middle East peace process, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, settlement blocs, Turkey, Turkish obsession with Israel
79% of Israeli Jews expect 'peace talks' to fail
Someone at the JPost needs to fix the headline (hopefully they will by the time you see this post).
79% of Israeli Jews don't believe the newest round of 'peace talks' will succeed. What a shock....
The poll found that seventy-nine percent of Israeli Jews think the new
round of negotiations have a low chance of success of yielding a peace
agreement, while 18% believe they have a high chance of succeeding. The
numbers were very different among Arab Israelis, among whom 41% think
there is a low chance of success and 47% believe there is a high chance.
There were also large differences between Jewish and Arab Israelis
regarding their perception of the sincerity of the sides in the
diplomatic talks. Among Israeli Jews, 63% believe the Israeli government
is truly interested in returning to the negotiating table and just 29%
believe the Palestinian Authority wants the negotiations. Among Arabs,
58% say the Israelis are sincere about the talks and 85% believe the
Palestinians are truly interested in the negotiations.
As for the prospects of a referendum on any potential deal passing....
Under the conditions of a permanent peace agreement with security
arrangements, a demilitarized Palestinian state, international
guarantees, and a Palestinian declaration of the end of conflict, 63%
of Israeli Jews oppose withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders with land
swaps, 58% oppose dismantling settlements while leaving the Ariel, Maale
Adumim, and Gush Etzion blocs intact, and 50% oppose transferring Arab
neighborhoods in Jerusalem to the PA along with a special arrangement
for the holy places. Seventy-seven percent of Israeli Jews oppose
recognition of a Palestinian “right of return” involving the return of a
small number of refugees and financial compensation for the rest.
If
a referendum were held today on a peace agreement including withdrawal
from Judea and Samaria and an evacuation of settlements, 58% of Jewish
respondents and 33% of Arab respondents believe the agreement would be
rejected by the people. Only 29% of Jewish respondents and 58% of Arab
respondents believe it would win a majority.
Yes, each and every one of the items in the first paragraph was proposed by Ehud Olmert to Abu Mazen in 2008. Abu Mazen rejected the proposal.
And in a result that is sure to lead to cries of racism....
Eighty-eight percent of Israeli Arabs and 46% of Israeli Jews think that
all Israeli citizens should vote in such a referendum, while four
percent of Israeli Arabs and 49% of Israeli Jews think that the vote
should be limited to Jewish citizens only.
Maybe Israeli Jews aren't so dumb after all.
Labels: agreed land swaps, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Judea and Samaria, Middle East peace process, Palestinian state, referendum law, settlement blocs
The Bush letter nine years on
Rick Richman reminds us that Sunday is the 9th anniversary of the famous Bush letter that effectively promised Israel the '
settlement blocs.' At the time, the letter was overwhelmingly endorsed by both Houses of Congress, but in 2009, President Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, tried to pretend that it didn't exist, and Obama has continued to behave as if the letter did not exist.
US Secretary of State John FN Kerry is unable to pretend the letter didn't exist. But that doesn't mean he's going to back Israel's position. Rick Richman
explains.
At an April 9 press conference
in Tel Aviv, Bow Shapira from Israeli TV (Channel 1) told Kerry he
wanted to ask about “a guarantee from the past”–the 2004 Bush letter,
which he described as “telling that blocs of settlements can stay,
cannot [be] removed from the territory.” His question about the
guarantee was straightforward: “well, does it exist?” Kerry responded in
part as follows:
I remember that commitment very well because I was running for
president then, and I personally have supported the notion that the
situation on the ground has changed, and obviously, we’re talking about
blocs that are in a very different status. I’m not going to get into
telling you what ought to happen with respect to any particular piece of
geography today because that’s for the parties to decide in their
negotiation. But I have certainly supported the notion publicly myself
that we need to deal with the ’67 lines, plus the swaps that reflect
some of the changes that have taken place since then.
It is not surprising that Kerry remembered the commitment so well. He
appeared on “Meet the Press” on April 18, 2004–four days after the Bush
letter was issued–and was asked directly about it by Tim Russert:
MR. RUSSERT: On Thursday, President Bush … said that Israel
can keep part of the land seized in the 1967 Middle East War and
asserted the Palestinian refugees cannot go back to their particular
homes. Do you support President Bush?
SEN. KERRY: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: Completely?
SEN. KERRY: Yes.
Kerry’s response to the Israeli reporter last week is significant,
because he recognized: (1) that the Bush letter was in fact a
commitment, subsequently endorsed by both the Senate (95-3) and the
House (407-9) in concurrent resolutions; and (2) that he supported it at
the time, in unambiguous terms.
But it is indicative of the continuing problem President Obama
created with his refusal in 2009 to endorse the Bush letter that an
Israeli reporter felt it necessary to ask whether the U.S. commitment
exists. The president has been attempting to assure Israelis with his
have-your-back, all-options-on-the-table rhetorical commitments, but
they remember that in the past he did not feel constrained to respect
even a written commitment to Israel.
Given that Obama doesn't live up to his commitments, why should Israel give up real assets to appease him?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, settlement blocs
Even Livni says keeping 'settlements' is required for 'peace'
Speaking at a Jerusalem Post conference, the woman whose party has ads up comparing 'despair' (Netanyahu and Lieberman) with hope (Livni), and 'international ioslation' (Netanyahu and Lieberman) with a 'political agreement' (Livni), has actually come out and said that
keeping 'settlements' is required for 'peace.'
"It doesn't matter what you think about settlements," Livni said with
uncharacteristic bluntness. "We have settlement blocs close to the
Green Line and the only way for the conflict with the Palestinians to
end is for Israel to keep them. Any pre-agreement by the international
community to a withdrawal to 1967 borders before the talks occur, makes
it difficult to negotiate. it was clear in the talks I conducted with
the Palestinians that there would not be return to 1967 borders."
Livni
said she is frustrated as an Israeli when the international community
compares casualties caused by the IDF, which acts to defend Israel and
target terrorists, to those killed by terrorists who target civilians.
"The
message terrorists need to hear is that there are things that are
unacceptable to the international community," Livni said. "Soldiers feel
that they cannot act against those who try to harm them."
The ambassadors were shocked that Livni criticized them. I'm shocked that she actually said something that's almost rational. Yisrael Beiteinu picked up the pieces on Twitter.
"Tzipi Livni says no connection between settlements and security,
standing in opposition to decades of even Left-wing thinking," a Yisrael
Beytenu spokesman wrote.
The Yisrael Beytenu spokesman added
later: "Livni ignores that freeze in upgrade in relations with EU was
under her administration. Easy to blame others for her mistakes."
Livni ignores something far more important: When she was foreign minister, her boss offered the 'Palestinians' far more than anyone thought possible, and far more than the maximum Israel can give without endangering its security. And the 'Palestinians' turned it down.
What could go wrong?
Labels: 1949 armistice lines, Judea and Samaria, Knesset elections 2013, settlement blocs, settlements, Tzipi Livni
Sarkozy: From the frying pan into the fire?
It's only been one post since I wrote about French President Nicolas Sarkozy
professing his love for Israel. But that love is as fake as everything else about Sarkozy. Just three days after the oral arguments in
Zivotofsky v. Clinton, it turns out that the French government has issued a passport to a dual French-Israeli citizen who was born in Israel that says he lives in "
Maaleh Adumim, Occupied Palestinian Territory."
Eddy, who was born in Israel to French immigrants, applied for a French passport intending to go study there. He completed the paperwork and was issued a temporary travel document. On his way home from the consulate in Jerusalem, he noticed something strange.
"It had all my details, my identification number, my address – Ma'ale Adumim – but the State of Israel was omitted," Eddy told Ynet.
"It's infuriating," he added. "I wanted to go back there and tell them I don't need their passport. I knew that the French were anti-Semitic, and I wouldn't have been surprised if they wrote 'Ma'ale Adumim, Palestine,' but they chose the harsh wording of 'Occupied Palestine.'"
Ynet has learned that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman intends to send the French government a harsh letter of protest, demanding it to remove the label.
Good luck with that. There are good reasons why Jews have been
fleeing France in
droves. And with all the best intentions in the world, Lieberman will not succeed in changing the heirs of Vichy.
The settlement's mayor, Boris Grossman, was just as exasperated.
"The territory was not seized from Palestine because there is no such entity," he said. "This is an Israeli and Jewish city whose origins are mentioned in the bible and its land does not belong to Arabs. It's a pity to see a nation that calls itself a friend of Israel supporting the Palestinians and the rhetoric that that harms any chance of a peace process."
MK Lia Shemtov (Yisrael Beiteinu) said the label used an "unfortunate" choice of words.
"Ma'ale Adumim is an inseparable part of the State of Israel," she said.
Shemtov noted that she has received reports of the same wording printed on documents issued to residents of east Jerusalem neighborhoods beyond the Green Line, and called on the French government to strike the statement from all official paperwork.
If all the 'Palestinians' got up and left tomorrow morning, France would find another excuse to label as much of Israel as possible as not being ours. But why does YNet have to refer to a city with a
population of more than 39,000 people as a 'settlement'? Yes, Israel's Leftist media hates Jews who live across the 'green line' nearly as much as France does.
Labels: France, Judea and Samaria, Maaleh Adumim, settlement blocs
Bibi to expel 130,000 Jews from home?
National Union party leader Yaakov (Ketzaleh) Katz has accused Prime Minister Netanyahu of preparing the
expulsion of 130,000 Jews from their homes in Judea and Samaria.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s seeming agreement to surrender Jewish communities outside of “settlement blocs” sets the stage for the largest expulsion of Jews since the Spanish Inquisition in 1492, National Union chairman and Knesset Member Yaakov (Ketzaleh) Katz charged Tuesday.
The Prime Minister did not spell out which “settlement blocs” he meant during his Herzl Day speech in the Knesset Monday night.
“Now the truth has become clear,” said MK Katz. “This is the first time that the Prime Minister has stood up and declared, contrary to the platform of his Likud party, that he is prepared to expel 130,000 Jews, residents of the hills of Judea and Samaria, in effect advancing Kadima party policies.
“There has been no such wholesale expulsion since the Spanish Inquisition by the worst Jew-haters of Europe." He urged MKs and ministers of the Likud to join the National Union “to be true to the platform on which they were elected.”
Prime Minister Netanyahu may not have spelled out which Jews he intends to expel from their homes in Judea and Samaria, but Ketzaleh has. If you go to Arutz Sheva's Hebrew site, there's a
list of communities Netanyahu intends to keep and a list of those he intends to give up with their populations (Hat Tip:
Avraham F). Even I was surprised.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, settlement blocs, Yaakov Katz
