Krauthammer incinerates Obama's 'shameful legacy'
In the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer explains what was different about that UN Security Council resolution, and how the Obama administration
stabbed Israel in the back by allowing its passage.
An ordinary Israeli who lives or works in the Old City of Jerusalem
becomes an international pariah, a potential outlaw. To say nothing of
the soldiers of Israel’s citizen army. “Every pilot and every officer
and every soldier,” said a confidant of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, “we are waiting for him at The Hague,” i.e. the International Criminal Court.
Moreover,
the resolution undermines the very foundation of a half-century of
American Middle East policy. What becomes of “land for peace” if the
territories that Israel was to have traded for peace are, in advance,
declared to be Palestinian land to which Israel has no claim?
The peace parameters
enunciated so ostentatiously by Secretary of State John Kerry on
Wednesday are nearly identical to the Clinton parameters that Yasser
Arafat was offered and rejected in 2000 and that Abbas was offered by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008. Abbas, too, walked away.
Kerry
mentioned none of this because it undermines his blame-Israel
narrative. Yet Palestinian rejectionism works. The Security Council just
declared the territories legally Palestinian — without the Palestinians
having to concede anything, let alone peace. What incentive do the
Palestinians have to negotiate when they can get the terms — and
territory — they seek handed to them for free if they hold out long
enough?
Indeed. The Post can look back at
this column from 2009 and realize that the 'Palestinians' were correct.
Yet
on Wednesday afternoon, as he prepared for the White House meeting in a
suite at the Ritz-Carlton in Pentagon City, Abbas insisted that his
only role was to wait. He will wait for Hamas to capitulate to his
demand that any Palestinian unity government recognize Israel and swear
off violence. And he will wait for the Obama administration to force a
recalcitrant Netanyahu to freeze Israeli settlement construction and
publicly accept the two-state formula.
Until Israel meets his
demands, the Palestinian president says, he will refuse to begin
negotiations. He won't even agree to help Obama's envoy, George J.
Mitchell, persuade Arab states to take small confidence-building
measures. "We can't talk to the Arabs until Israel agrees to freeze
settlements and recognize the two-state solution," he insisted in an
interview. "Until then we can't talk to anyone."
And what the Post doesn't mention is that Netanyahu is reported to have
offered even more in 2013.
If Hillary Clinton had won November's election, Israel would now have its back to the wall. Fortunately, Donald Trump won the election, and if he is willing to go to the wall in Israel's defense, perhaps this disgraceful resolution can be mitigated.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, Donald Trump, East Jerusalem, Jerusalem construction, John Kerry, Judea and Samaria construction, Middle East peace process, Palestinian terrorists, settlement freeze
Lawless: Obama trying to handcuff Trump on Middle East
Greetings from Israel. I am home again (briefly).
President Hussein Obama is trying to
handcuff President Elect Donald Trump's Middle East policy.
Washington DC insiders widely expect the president to launch a bold
effort to constrain the president-elect's options in dealing with the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict by supporting unilateral international
recognition of Palestinian statehood, possibly in the UN Security
Council.
...
In seeking to overturn longstanding precedent and thwart the expressed
policy positions of his successor, Obama presumably hopes that
supporting (or not vetoing) a UN Security Council resolution on
Palestinian statehood will create an irreversible fait accompli
that will eventually spur Israel to make concessions, like a settlement
freeze, which will in turn strengthen moderates on the Palestinian side.
It's the same thinking that led the United States to make concession after concession in the Iran nuclear deal,
and it is likely to backfire in the same way. Unilateral recognition of
a Palestinian state will communicate to Palestinian leaders that they
do not need to concede anything and validate the use and incitement of
violence, vindicating hardliners.
Until the Palestinian leadership can recognize
and accept a Jewish state in the land of Israel, the United States must
continue working to prevent international recognition of a Palestinian
state.
Anyone still want to claim that the Obama administration is the 'most pro-Israel administration evah'? If yes, it's time to take your blinders off.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, Donald Trump, Judea and Samaria construction, Palestinian education to hatred, Palestinian incitement, settlement freeze, two-state solution, United Nations Security Council
October 8, 2016: The end of the 'Palestinian Authority'
There are 'local' 'Palestinian' elections scheduled for October 8, and while '
moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen may be hoping that Israel will step in to stop them, because Hamas seems likely to win them, that is increasingly unlikely according to Caroline Glick, who sees the elections as signifying
the end of the 'Palestinian Authority.'
Hamas is widely expected to win control over most of the local
governments in Judea and Samaria. Hamas’s coming takeover of the
municipalities is likely playing a role in decisions by Fatah terrorist
cells to reject the authority of the PA. Many of those cells can be
expected to transfer their allegiance to Hamas once the terrorist group
wins the elections.
Given his Fatah party’s looming electoral
defeat, more and more PA functionaries are wondering why Abbas doesn’t
use the growing anarchy in Palestinian cities as a reason to cancel
them. Abbas seems to have calculated that Israel will step in and, as
it has repeatedly done over the past 20 years, cancel the elections for
him.
Media organs Abbas controls are full of conspiracy theories
whose bottom line is that Israel is not canceling the elections Abbas
declared because it is in cahoots with Hamas and other “collaborators”
to undermine the PA.
Although Israel, of course, is in cahoots
with no one, it is the case that the government has apparently finally
lost its patience with Abbas and is looking past him.
Repeated
angry denunciations by government leaders of Abbas for his lead role in
inciting violence against Israelis, leading the international movement
to delegitimize Israel, refusing to negotiate anything with its
leaders, and radicalizing Palestinian society, are finally being
translated into policy.
Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman’s
recent announcement that Israel is adopting a carrot-andstick approach
not toward the PA but toward the Palestinians themselves, and will
advance development projects in areas where terrorism levels are low
and take a hard line against areas where terrorist cells are most
active, has sent shock waves through Abbas’s palaces.
For 22
years, Israel has bowed to Palestinian and Western demands and agreed
to speak only to PA functionaries and Palestinian civilians authorized
by the PA to speak to Israelis. Liberman’s decision to base Israel’s
actions on the ground on the behavior of the Palestinians themselves
rather than act in accordance with PA directives, along with his
decision to speak directly to Palestinian businessmen and others, marks
the end of Israel’s acceptance of this practice.
Without a
doubt, Israel’s willingness to let Abbas fall is in part a function of
the wider Arab world’s increased indifference to, if not disgust with
the Palestinians. As MEMRI has documented, the Arab media is
registering growing impatience with PA spokespeople. Arab commentators
have harshly criticized PA functionaries who continue to insist their
conflict with Israel is the most pressing issue on the pan-Arab agenda.
The
disintegration of Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya and the rise of Iran as
a mortal threat, along with Israel’s growing importance as an ally to
Sunni Arab regimes have made the Palestinian cause look downright
offensive to large swaths of the Arab world.
Part of Israel’s
willingness to let Abbas fall also owes to its inevitability. Once
Hamas wins the elections and takes control over the local governments,
Abbas’s already weakened position will become unsustainable. As is
already happening in towns and villages throughout the areas, Fatah
cells will transfer their allegiance to Hamas. The areas will become
Balkanized and radicalized still further.
Confrontation between Israel and the Hamas-controlled Palestinians in Judea and Samaria is inevitable.
Moreover,
this process will likely be rapid. Just as Hamas’s complete takeover
of Gaza from Fatah forces happened seemingly overnight in June 2007, so
its seizure of control over Judea and Samaria will happen in the blink
of an eye.
The collapse of the 'Palestinian Authority' and the likely end of the 'two-state solution' are also part of Barack Hussein Obama's disastrous foreign policy legacy. It's been more than seven years since 'Abbas' told the Washington Post's Jackson Diehl that his only role in the 'peace process' was to
wait until President Obama forced Prime Minister Netanyahu to give him what he wanted.
Yet on Wednesday afternoon, as he prepared for the White House meeting
in a suite at the Ritz-Carlton in Pentagon City, Abbas insisted that his
only role was to wait. He will wait for Hamas to capitulate to his
demand that any Palestinian unity government recognize Israel and swear
off violence. And he will wait for the Obama administration to force a
recalcitrant Netanyahu to freeze Israeli settlement construction and
publicly accept the two-state formula.
Until Israel meets his demands, the Palestinian president says, he will
refuse to begin negotiations. He won't even agree to help Obama's envoy,
George J. Mitchell, persuade Arab states to take small
confidence-building measures. "We can't talk to the Arabs until Israel
agrees to freeze settlements and recognize the two-state solution," he
insisted in an interview. "Until then we can't talk to anyone."
So why is that Obama's fault? Because instead of taking 'Abbas' to task for his recalcitrance, Obama and his two Secretaries of State pandered to the 'Palestinian leader,' continuing to pressure only Israel to make concessions. Abu Mazen read that correctly seven years ago, and he still reads it correctly today.
What's interesting about Abbas's hardline position, however, is what it
says about the message that Obama's first Middle East steps have sent to
Palestinians and Arab governments. From its first days the Bush
administration made it clear that the onus for change in the Middle East
was on the Palestinians: Until they put an end to terrorism,
established a democratic government and accepted the basic parameters
for a settlement, the United States was not going to expect major
concessions from Israel.
Obama, in contrast, has repeatedly and publicly stressed the need for a
West Bank settlement freeze, with no exceptions. In so doing he has
shifted the focus to Israel. He has revived a long-dormant Palestinian
fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make
critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees,
while Arabs passively watch and applaud. "The Americans are the leaders
of the world," Abbas told me and Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt.
"They can use their weight with anyone around the world. Two years ago
they used their weight on us. Now they should tell the Israelis, 'You
have to comply with the conditions.' "
That is why for the past seven years, nothing has happened with the 'peace process.' And that is why nothing will happen during Obama's remaining months in office. Obama only knows how to pressure one side, and the Democratically elected government of Israel has a much better ability to resist Obama's pressure than does Abu Mazen, in his 11th year of a four-year term.
At this point, as Caroline Glick notes above, there are more reasons for peace not to happen than there were seven years ago. The Arabs don't care about the 'Palestinians' anymore. They are busy with their own. If there was an opportunity for peace during the past seven years, it was surely missed.
And that is Obama's legacy to our region.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Hillary Clinton, Jackson Diehl, John Kerry, Middle East peace process, settlement freeze
Michael Oren: How Obama abandoned Israel
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, former Israeli Ambassador to the United States and current MK Michael Oren (Kulanu) criticizes Prime Minister Netanyahu's handling of his relationship with President Hussein Obama, and then
rips Obama for abandoning Israel. More after the lengthy excerpt (someone was kind enough to send me the full article by email).
[M]any of Israel’s bungles were not committed
by Mr. Netanyahu personally. In both episodes with Mr. Biden, for example, the
announcements were issued by midlevel officials who also caught the prime
minister off-guard. Nevertheless, he personally apologized to the vice
president.
Mr. Netanyahu’s only premeditated misstep was
his speech to Congress, which I recommended against. Even that decision, though,
came in reaction to a calculated mistake by President Obama. From the moment he
entered office, Mr. Obama promoted an agenda of championing the Palestinian
cause and achieving a nuclear accord with Iran. Such policies would have put him
at odds with any Israeli leader. But Mr. Obama posed an even more fundamental
challenge by abandoning the two core principles of Israel’s alliance with
America.
The first principle was “no daylight.” The U.S.
and Israel always could disagree but never openly. Doing so would encourage
common enemies and render Israel vulnerable. Contrary to many of his detractors,
Mr. Obama was never anti-Israel and, to his credit, he significantly
strengthened security cooperation with the Jewish state. He rushed to help
Israel in 2011 when the Carmel forest was devastated by fire. And yet,
immediately after his first inauguration, Mr. Obama put daylight between Israel
and America.
“When there is no daylight,” the president told
American Jewish leaders in 2009, “Israel just sits on the sidelines and that
erodes our credibility with the Arabs.” The explanation ignored Israel’s 2005
withdrawal from Gaza and its two previous offers of Palestinian statehood in
Gaza, almost the entire West Bank and half of Jerusalem—both offers rejected by
the Palestinians.
Mr. Obama also voided President George W. Bush’s
commitment to include the major settlement blocs and Jewish Jerusalem within
Israel’s borders in any peace agreement. Instead, he insisted on a total freeze
of Israeli construction in those areas—“not a single brick,” I later heard he
ordered Mr. Netanyahu—while making no substantive demands of the
Palestinians.
Consequently, Palestinian President Mahmoud
Abbas boycotted negotiations, reconciled with Hamas and sought statehood in the
U.N.—all in violation of his commitments to the U.S.—but he never paid
a price. By contrast, the White House routinely condemned Mr. Netanyahu for
building in areas that even Palestinian negotiators had agreed would remain part
of Israel.
The other core principle was “no surprises.”
President Obama discarded it in his first meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, in May
2009, by abruptly demanding a settlement freeze and Israeli acceptance of the
two-state solution. The following month the president traveled to the Middle
East, pointedly skipping Israel and addressing the Muslim world from Cairo.
Israeli leaders typically received advance
copies of major American policy statements on the Middle East and could submit
their comments. But Mr. Obama delivered his Cairo speech, with its unprecedented
support for the Palestinians and its recognition of Iran’s right to nuclear
power, without consulting Israel.
Similarly, in May 2011, the president altered 40
years of U.S. policy by endorsing the 1967 lines with land swaps—formerly the
Palestinian position—as the basis for peace-making. If Mr. Netanyahu appeared to
lecture the president the following day, it was because he had been assured by
the White House, through me, that no such change would happen.
Israel was also stunned to learn that Mr. Obama
offered to sponsor a U.N. Security Council investigation of the settlements and
to back Egyptian and Turkish efforts to force Israel to reveal its alleged
nuclear capabilities. Mr. Netanyahu eventually agreed to a 10-month moratorium
on settlement construction—the first such moratorium since 1967—and backed the
creation of a Palestinian state. He was taken aback, however, when he received
little credit for these concessions from Mr. Obama, who more than once publicly
snubbed him.
The abandonment of the “no daylight” and “no
surprises” principles climaxed over the Iranian nuclear program. Throughout my
years in Washington, I participated in intimate and frank discussions with U.S.
officials on the Iranian program. But parallel to the talks came administration
statements and leaks—for example, each time Israeli warplanes reportedly struck
Hezbollah-bound arms convoys in Syria—intended to deter Israel from striking
Iran pre-emptively.
Finally, in 2014, Israel discovered that its
primary ally had for months been secretly negotiating with its deadliest enemy.
The talks resulted in an interim agreement that the great majority of Israelis
considered a “bad deal” with an irrational, genocidal regime. Mr. Obama, though,
insisted that Iran was a rational and potentially “very successful regional
power.”
The daylight between Israel and the U.S. could
not have been more blinding. And for Israelis who repeatedly heard the president
pledge that he “had their backs” and “was not bluffing” about the military
option, only to watch him tell an Israeli interviewer that “a military solution
cannot fix” the Iranian nuclear threat, the astonishment could not have been
greater.
Oren doesn't go far enough. His claim that Obama was 'never anti-Israel' doesn't square with
the facts that we knew long before Obama was elected President. The fact that the one example Oren gives of 'significantly strengthened security cooperation' under Obama relates to a natural disaster and not to a military action is telling.
Oren seems to be placing the burden of restoring the US-Israel relationship to what it was on both the US and Israel. But clearly, one party here (the US in the person of the Obama administration) initiated the hostilities. The actions that Obama took immediately on taking office - the introduction of '
daylight' between the US and Israel, the
Cairo speech, the
Buchenwald visit in which he adopted the 'Palestinian' narrative of Israel's sole right to our land being based on the Holocaust, and the
disavowal of the Bush letter - set the tone for the relationship, and it's up to Obama - more likely to his successor - to reset that tone.
Yesterday, I met with the Washington correspondent of a US-based newspaper. She asked me how Israelis feel about the United States. I told her 'Israelis love the United States and the American people. Israelis hate Obama. For good reason.'
For those who can,
read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Bush letter, Cairo, Holocaust, Joe Biden, Michael Oren, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, settlement freeze, settlements, US-Israel relationship
'Palestinians' to file charges with ICC charging Israel with murdering Arafat
Someone please tell me that the International Criminal Court won't be stupid enough to hear this one:
I would bet that the kangaroo court will take those charges very seriously. If you're not aware of the real cause of Arafat's death, go
here.
Earlier on Sunday, the 'Palestinians' offered to drop at least one of their ICC petitions if Israel stops building '
settlements.' And they also threatened to drop 'security cooperation' unless Israel frees up tax money for them.
The official told The Times of Israel that
land seizures in occupied territory constituted a clear violation of
international law. Still, he noted that the appeal to the ICC would be
withdrawn if Israel were to freeze settlement construction, and added
that the Palestinian Authority had conveyed to Israel an official
message to that effect, through Jordan and Egypt.
The official, a confidant of PA President
Mahmoud Abbas, also threatened that security coordination with Israel
would be curtailed if Jerusalem failed to transfer Palestinian tax money
it has been withholding as a punitive measure over the PA’s ICC bid.
“In the first stage [the cessation of security coordination] will entail
a stop to arrests made by us,” he said. “We will only arrest those we
decide to arrest.”
Under current security arrangements,
Palestinian security forces also arrests terror suspects based on
intelligence received from Israel.
The official revealed that the PA had
established a special judicial committee to examine the issue of turning
to The Hague ahead of the date when Palestine will formally join the
institution – April 1, 2015.
The 'Palestinians' are willing to do anything to ensure that there will be no consequences for their refusal to make any progress on 'peace.' They are playing a waiting game in the hope that one day they will be stronger than Israel. What could go wrong?
Labels: International Criminal Court, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian tax transfers, settlement freeze, Yasser Arafat
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.”
What's missing here is the acknowledgment that the 'Palestinians' don't want peace on any terms - they only want to destroy the Jewish state and murder its Jewish inhabitants. When will that acknowledgement be forthcoming? I'd say it's about as likely as the 'Palestinians' ever agreeing to real peace. In other words, never.
Labels: Abu Mazen, John Kerry, Middle East peace process, Saeb Erekat, settlement freeze, Tzipi Livni
De facto building freeze confirmed
Here's the truth: All those announcements that our government has made about building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria are for domestic consumption. The reality is that housing starts in Judea and Samaria
dropped by a whopping 62.4% in the first three quarters 2014. And the building in Jerusalem may not have crossed the green line.
Data published by the Central Bureau of Statistics on Sunday showed
that ground was broken on 935 homes in Judea and Samaria from January
to September of this year, compared with 2,487 during the same period in
2013.
Settler building makes up only 2.8% of the 32,850 country
wide housing starts. But the largest drop in construction occurred in
Judea and Samaria, compared to an overall decline of 7.4%, according to
the CBS.
Housing starts in Jerusalem, in comparison, grew by 20.6% in the first
three quarters of this year, compared with last year. But the CBS does
not provide data that shows how much occurred over the pre-1967 lines
in Jerusalem.
I'm sure the State Department will be happy.
Labels: Jerusalem construction, Judea and Samaria construction, settlement freeze, US State Department
There he goes again
President Hussein Obama's mouthpiece seizes upon an
editorial in
The Jewish Week to
bash Israel yet again.
When future historians write about this period in U.S.-Israel relations,
this editorial will warrant serious mention. The unease felt by some
American Jews about Israel's direction is moving into the mainstream.
Over the past few months, I've spoken with lay leaders of many of the
largest Jewish organizations (organizations that would very much prefer
not to be affiliated with such left-wing outfits as J Street), and the
question they ask is this: Just what is Bibi doing? If American Jews are
forced to choose between their liberal values (and most American Jews
are liberal) and support for a Jewish state that seems to be growing
increasingly illiberal, these leaders say that Israel -- and not the
Democratic Party -- will be the one to suffer.
Do those unelected 'American Jews' speak for American Jewry? Does American Jewry still back the Democratic party (Goldberg's holy grail) to the extent that he thinks they do? Given the poll numbers in the upcoming midterm election, one has to wonder.
The Israeli government doesn't seem to understand that the status quo is
unsustainable. As I've written (over and over again), I am not arguing
for an immediate pullout from the West Bank; the times are too
dangerous, and the Palestinian Authority too weak and corrupt and
cowardly, for such a move. But in the meantime, Israel could help create
conditions so that a Palestinian state could one day be born. What this
means is simple: Netanyahu should take no steps that further entangle
Israel in the lives of Palestinians. It also means that Israel should
try to negotiate in good faith with President Mahmoud Abbas, who is the
best interlocutor Israel is going to have, despite his many obvious
flaws. If nothing else, Netanyahu should call his bluff.
Netanyahu and his predecessors have called Abu Mazen's and his predecessor's bluff numerous times. There was Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat (2000), Ehud Olmert and Abu Mazen (2008) and Netanyahu and Abu Bluff (2010). How many more times does it have to be called? What incentive do the 'Palestinians' have to negotiate seriously if everything is going to be frozen forever anyway? Why should they ever compromise?
And yes, the status quo
is sustainable. It's been 47 years since 1967. The 'Palestinians' have shown no indication that they are ready to accept Israel's 'right to exist' in any borders. What alternative do we have but to sustain the status quo?
It also means understanding that while most settlement expansion that is
now taking place in the West Bank is happening in areas that will most
likely come under Israeli control in the event of a final peace deal, the Palestinians haven't agreed to this division yet.
Unilateral moves do not help. They certainly don't help Israel's
international standing, which is lower than it has ever been, and they
certainly don't help maintain Israel as a cause that garners bipartisan
support in the U.S.
So let's make sure the 'Palestinians' have nothing to lose by not compromising? That's going to get them just
rushing to the table. /sarc.
There really is no alternative to the status quo.
Shabbat Shalom.
Labels: Abu Mazen, American Jewish support for Israel, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Jeffrey Goldberg, settlement freeze, two-state solution
12 ways Obama has screwed Israel... in the last year
I don't agree with everything he writes and David Horovitz doesn't even mention Turkey (okay, that was March 2013), but this is a devastating piece that lists
12 ways in which Obama has screwed Israel over the last year (David would never put it so coarsely). Here's a summary:
You might think the above list is the least that Israel might reasonably
expect from the US administration. But no. The peace process has
collapsed and Israel is getting a disproportionate amount of the blame.
Hamas, committed under its own charter to the obliteration of Israel, is
now part of an internationally recognized Palestinian government. And
the P5+1 nations, led by the US, are working toward a deal that will
enshrine Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities. Israel may not be a
perfect ally, but we deserve better than this.
But what gets me about this is that David Horovitz - who once told me that he could not live in Israel without hope for peace - still holds out hope and even more importantly still cannot see that Obama and his wing of the Democratic party are Israel's enemies.
Unfortunately, however, such lapses and failures are not the exception
when it comes to the US-Israel alliance of late. This administration has
worked closely with Israel in ensuring the Jewish state maintains its
vital military advantage in this treacherous neighborhood, partnering
Israel in offensive and defensive initiatives, notably including missile
defense. It has stood by Israel at diplomatic moments of truth. It has
broadly demonstrated its friendship, as would be expected given
America’s interest in promoting the well-being of the region’s sole,
stable, dependable democracy. But the dash to recognize the Fatah-Hamas
government was one more in a series of aberrations — words and deeds
that would have been far better left unsaid or undone, misconceived
strategies, minor betrayals.
Actually, it's Congress that's been partnering Israel and forcing Obama to go along. Obama has abandoned Israel each time he has felt able to do so. '
Stood by Israel at diplomatic moments of
truth?
Really?
Labels: Abu Mazen, anti-Israel obsession, Barack Hussein Obama, David Horovitz, Iranian nuclear threat, Middle East peace process, Mohammed Morsy, Palestinian terrorists, settlement freeze, Syrian uprising
'I froze 'settlement construction' but Obama made me do it'
Prime Minister Netanyahu admitted on Thursday that he froze all 'settlement construction' in Judea and Samaria, but claimed that
the Obama administration forced him to do it.
In the night-time meeting at the Prime Minister's Office, whose details were reported on Friday by journalist Ariel Kahane of Makor Rishon, nearly all the leaders of the regional councils were present, as well as Dani
Dayan, Chief Foreign Envoy of the Council of Judea and Samaria, and
Ze'ev Haver, the chaiman of the Amana housing organization.
Netanyahu acknowledged that American demands led to the
cancellation of high planning council meetings of the IDF's civil
administration that manages the Judea and Samaria region.
The prime minister reportedly requested that the Housing Ministry freeze new construction projects
in Judea and Samaria earlier in the month, despite the collapse of
peace talks, and despite the fact that he chose to release jailed
terrorists instead of freezing building as a condition of the talks.
In the meeting the prime minister did not deny having giving the
order to freeze construction, but claimed to the representatives of
Judea and Samaria residents that he wasn't aware of the results of his
actions on the region.
On the way out of the meeting, the representatives looked for Prime Minister Netanyahu's backbone. No word yet on whether they found it.
But in all fairness, if Netanyahu had accepted the 'settlement freeze' and not released the terrorists, the 'Palestinians' would have said that releasing terrorists is crucial to the 'peace process' and they cannot go ahead without it.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, John Kerry, Judea and Samaria, Middle East peace process, settlement freeze
State Department denies reports Indyk's resigning
The State Department is denying reports that Martin Indyk is
resigning as head of the US 'negotiating team' for the 'peace process' and that the team is being disbanded. The State Department says that Indyk has been recalled to Washington for '
consultations.'
The deputy spokesperson at the State Department, Marie Harf, told
reporters in Washington on Monday that it was “incorrect” to suggest
that Washington was dissolving its team of negotiators in the region.
Harf was responding to questions about reports in the Israeli press over
the weekend claiming that American officials held Israel primarily
responsible for the collapse in negotiations. According to the
Hebrew-language tabloid Yedioth Ahronoth, the Obama
administration viewed Israel’s refusal to consider a halt to settlement
construction so as to allow for one last chance to salvage the
negotiations as a key factor in their failure.
Harf, however, reiterated the official administration position which
held that both sides took steps that sabotaged chances of reaching an
agreement.
“On the Palestinian side, the appeal to 15 different treaties while
we’re actively working to secure a prisoner release, as well as the
announcement of the Fatah/Hamas reconciliation agreement at the moment
we were working for a formula to extend the negotiations, really
combined to make it impossible to extend the negotiations,” she said.
“On the Israeli side, large-scale settlement announcements, a failure to
release the fourth tranche of prisoners on time, and then the
announcement of 700 settlement tenders at a very sensitive moment,
really combined to undermine the efforts to extend the negotiations,”
Harf said. “So I would very much take notion with the fact that this was
just one side. Both sides did things here that were very unhelpful.”
Unpoof? No one in Israel to the right of Shimon Peres is going to negotiate with Hamas....
Labels: Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, John Kerry, Martin Indyk, Middle East peace process, Palestinian Authority, settlement freeze
Abu Mazen puts the final nail in the 'peace' coffin
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.
'
Moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen gave a speech on Saturday that Israeli officials are calling
the death of the 'peace talks.'
"Abu Mazen is repeating demands for the same conditions that he already
knows Israel cannot accept," the unnamed officials were quoted as saying
in response to Abbas's renewed demand for the release of Palestinian
prisoners and a total settlement freeze.
Abbas was speaking to a meeting of top leaders in the Palestine
Liberation Organization (PLO) gathered for a two-day conference to asses
the Palestinian strategy to achieve statehood after US-backed talks
began to unravel this month.
...
Abbas, for the first time since the suspension,
said he was still open to re-starting the talks and pushing on beyond
the deadline so long that Israel freed Palestinian prisoners and froze
settlement building in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. There was no
immediate response from Israeli negotiators.
"How can we restart
the talks? There's no obstacle to us restarting the talks, but the 30
prisoners need to be released," Abbas said referring to a fourth batch of long-serving Palestinian prisoners Israel in early April said it would not free.
"On
the table we will present our map, for three months we'll discuss our
map. In that period, until the map is agreed upon, all settlement
activity must cease completely," he told the officials, who were
gathered for a two-day conference to asses the Palestinian strategy to
achieve statehood.
Abbas also reiterated his position that the Palestinians would never recognize the Jewish identity of Israel, AFP reported.
The
PA leader said the Palestinians had recognized Israel in 1993 and
should not have to acquiesce to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's
demand for a public declaration of Israel as a Jewish state in order to
make peace.
Abbas stressed that unity among the Hamas rule in
Gaza and the Ramallah-based PLO was necessary to establish an
independent Palestinian state," Al Jazeera reported.
Despite
expressing his hope to progress peace talks, Abbas charged that Israel
was not interested in reaching an agreement for a two-state solution.
Of course, his new partners in Hamas say that they will never recognize Israel as anything....
Arutz Sheva
adds:
The PA chairman declared that the new unity government would
not continue peace talks - rather he stated that it was the
responsibility of the PLO to negotiate.
"I recognize Israel and reject violence and terrorism, and recognize
international commitments," Abbas claimed, even while re-declaring that
he and his government would never recognize Israel as the Jewish state.
Abbas's outright refusal to recognize Israel as the homeland of the
Jewish people has brought the talks, which are days before their April
29 deadline, to a constant halt, even before he breached conditions by
applying to 15 international conventions at the start of the month.
Abbas continued by declaring that his unity government would not
agree to receive a state in the heart of Israel, unless eastern
Jerusalem was its capital.
In conclusion, Abbas reiterated his threats, made twice last week, to disband the PA and turn over responsibility to govern Judea and Samaria over to Israel.
"If they (Israel) don't want to commit there is the other solution - for them to take over everything," Abbas said.
The 'talks' are definitely over. What will come next?
Labels: Abu Mazen, Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Judea and Samaria, Middle East peace process, settlement freeze
Jewish Home to quit government?
Jewish Home party leader Naftali Bennett is
threatening to quit the government (and take his party with him) in the event that it approves the release of hundreds of terrorists - including 'Israeli Arabs' - and a 'settlement freeze' in exchange for continuing 'talks' and the release of Jonathan Pollard.
"Israel has been facing a new situation in recent days with the
Palestinian appeal to the UN which flagrantly violated all the
agreements with them since the Oslo Accords until today,” said Bennett.
“The emerging deal, if it includes the release of murderers with
Israeli citizenship, harms Israeli sovereignty, and not only that - it
is done being when the Palestinians have not cancelled their requests to
join international organizations,” he added.
"Therefore, if a proposal for release of Israeli murderers comes
before the Cabinet, the Jewish Home will oppose it,” Bennett declared.
“If the proposal will pass - the Jewish Home will resign from the
government, which frees murderers with Israeli citizenship. Enough is
enough.
“On this evening of Passover, it is important to remember that we
went from slavery to freedom so we that we can have an Israeli legal
system which will protect the citizens of Israel - not a system that is
being blackmailed by a gang of terrorists and which releases murderers,”
said Bennett. “This is an act of extortion and surrender to terrorism
which we cannot accept.
“I wish the citizens of Israel a Happy Passover, and I hope that our
brother Jonathan Pollard will be released soon, but not in the immoral
way that is this currently being suggested,” he concluded.
The Jerusalem Post reported last week that
Bennett had issued similar threats to Netanyahu then but had purposely confined them to private conversations with the prime minister. When
talks became more serious on Thursday, Bennett upgraded his threat to a public warning.
Anonymous 'Likud officials' are telling Bennett to
go right ahead and leave.
"We are not keeping anybody in the government by force," the officials declared.
"This is a well-known method used by Bennett: to make threats when it
is clear to him that they are false threats that will not come to
fruition," they added.
But other Likud officials, who were speaking on the record, had
a very different take.
Deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin warned Netanyahu on Thursday not
to return to a diplomatic deal that would involve the mass release of
terrorist murderers and restraining construction in Judea and Samaria,
if the Palestinians did not withdraw their petitions to join UN bodies.
Signing
such a deal under the current conditions could cause political shock
waves and lead to elections, the deputy minister said.
Elkin thus
became the first high-ranking Likud politician to warn of early
elections, four days after Yisrael Beytenu chairman Avigdor Liberman
spoke at Sunday’s Jerusalem Post Conference in New York about the possibility of Israel going to the polls.
“Returning
to the deal would project weakness and give the Palestinians a reward
for their stubbornness,” Elkin said. “It would result in them attacking
Israel internationally even more. We cannot turn the other cheek when
they spit at us in the face. Surrendering to Palestinian hostility has
only brought upon us disasters.”
Deputy Defense Minister Danny
Danon (Likud) said he intends to resign from his post if a diplomatic
arrangement to extend the talks with the Palestinians is reached. But
other politicians are not expected to follow suit, because the deal
would be softened by the inclusion of Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard.
According to a new poll, the Likud would gain in new elections... but so would
Jewish Home.
The Dialogue Institute survey, published in Friday morning's Haaretz,
shows that Jewish Home would tie with Labor as the second-biggest party
in the Israeli government, in the event that elections were held
today.
Likud-Beytenu would receive 37 seats - compared to 32 in a previous
poll, the survey reveals. Meanwhile Jewish Home would receive 15, as
opposed to 12 in the last poll. Likewise Labor would receive 15 seats,
down from 16 in the last poll.
Yesh Atid would remain stable from the last poll at 14 seats, and
both Shas and Meretz would drop a seat from the previous poll, from 10
to 9. United Torah Judaism would gain an extra seat, for a total of 7,
Hatnua would lose two seats and have only 3, instead of 5 in the last
poll, and Kadima would not pass the threshold.
All of the Arab parties would retain their previous projected number of seats: Raam-Taal - 5, Hadash - 4, and Balad - 3.
Yes, but if these were the results, Likud, Labor and Yesh Atid could make a coalition without anyone else (assuming that Likud's MK's were willing to stay on board)....
As for American hostage Jonathan Pollard, yes, he could be released over the weekend.
Well-placed sources involved in efforts to bring about Pollard’s
release said they were cautiously optimistic about the diplomatic
developments and were hoping to welcome him home to Jerusalem. His
medical condition required him to leave prison and seek urgent medical
care in Israel, they said.
Should Pollard be allowed to fly to
Israel in time for the Passover Seder, the last El Al flight that would
arrive in time departs from New York at 7 p.m. local time on Sunday.
Using a private plane or the government of Israel sending an airplane
are also possibilities.
Hmmm....
I sure hope Bennett doesn't leave the government before the seder. He'd ruin a lot of really good Torah for the seder if he did.... והמבין יבין.
Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, Israeli elections, Jewish Home party, Jonathan Pollard, Likud party, Middle East peace process, Naftali Bennett, Palestinian terrorists, settlement freeze, Yesh Atid party
Would you tell the British government to stop building in London?
Naftali Bennett blasts calls for a 'building freeze' in Jerusalem and US Secretary of State John FN Kerry's 'poof speech' in an interview on CNN. This is pretty good, not perfect. He correctly identifies the problem, but his solutions aren't strong enough.
Let's go to the videotape.
Labels: Israel is a Jewish state, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Judea and Samaria, settlement freeze, two-state solution
Pass the popcorn: Lapid threatens to leave government if Netanyahu responsible for 'peace process' collapse
Yesh Atid party leader Yair Lapid is
threatening to leave the government if it turns out that Prime Minister Netanyahu was responsible for the collapse of the 'peace process.' He also said that he prefers a 'settlement freeze' to terrorist releases.
[O]n Monday, Lapid told JTA that he would sooner agree to freeze
settlement growth than free Palestinian prisoners, as Netanyahu has done
previously in an effort to advance the process. A fourth round of
prisoner releases was due to take place March 29, but Israel reneged.
“I would choose, every day of the week, freezing the settlements over
freeing prisoners,” he said. “But in this coalition, in this particular
moment, this was the favorable option.”
...
“If I would think this coalition did not exhaust all options and it is
our fault that the negotiation is not in progress or process, then I
can’t stay in this government,” Lapid said. “We decided we’ll do
everything in our power to back up the negotiations.”
Let him withdraw. I can think of 12 MK's who would go in to replace him... for a price....
Labels: Middle East peace process, Palestinian terrorists, settlement freeze, Yair Lapid, Yesh Atid party
So much for the 'Palestinians' not pursuing a 'diplomatic intifada'
Part of the 'deal' that called for the release of over 400 'Palestinian' terrorists and a 'settlement freeze' in exchange for Jonathan Pollard and extended talks was a provision that the 'Palestinians' would not apply to join the United Nations or any of its agencies while the talks continued. That condition has already been violated. On Tuesday, the 'Palestinians'
applied to join fifteen United Nations agencies claiming that their actions were in response to Israel 'forgetting' to release their terrorists.
In a surprise address at a meeting of the Palestinian Liberation
Organization's action committee, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas
announced that he had signed 12 documents that the PA would use to
petition the UN.
Before signing the documents, Abbas asked the
members of the PLO leadership present at the address to vote yea or nay -
and the vote was unanimously in favor. Abbas then signed the papers,
under which the PA will be joining 15 international organizations.
Abbas said the leadership made its decision after Israel neglected to announce a fourth round of prisoner releases.
No word on which agencies are on the list.
Labels: Abu Mazen, John Kerry, Jonathan Pollard, Middle East peace process, PLO, settlement freeze, United Nations
Jewish Home party to leave coalition?
The JPost is reporting that seven of the Jewish Home party's 12 MK's want to leave the coalition if Israel trades
420 terrorists and a settlement freeze for Jonathan Pollard and prolonged talks.
A Bayit Yehudi party source said Tuesday that seven of the party's 12
MKs think the faction should leave the coalition if the government
agrees to free 400 prisoners, even if Pollard is also freed as party of
the deal.
A right-wing senior minister who was supposed to meet
with Almagor Terror Victims Organization chief Meir Indor on Tuesday
canceled the meeting citing a coalition crisis over the deal as the
reason.
Construction and Housing Minister Uri Ariel of Bayit Yehudi said on Tuesday
he would oppose any such accord that would see Pollard go free in
exchange for the release of more Palestinian prisoners, telling Army
Radio that Pollard himself was against being part of a prisoner
exchange.
"I was personally told he is against being released in
such a disgraceful deal," said Ariel, arguing that Pollard deserved
unconditional freedom and not to be swapped for Palestinian "murderers."
I doubt that the Jewish Home party will leave the coalition - Bennett and Shaked are too rooted to their government seats to allow that to happen. A faction of MK's - maybe even seven - could break off and form a new party outside the government (I think that's still allowed - you need at least a third of the faction).
But that wouldn't bring down the government. The real question here is how many Likud-Beiteinu MK's - if any - would leave the government over this. There are only two MK's from among the Likud who are on record as favoring a two-state solution: Binyamin Netanyahu and Tzachi HaNegbi. Will the others have the courage to jeopardize their careers by walking out?
Don't hold your breath.
Labels: Ayelet Shaked, Binyamin Netanyahu, Jewish Home party, Jonathan Pollard, Likud party, Naftali Bennett, Palestinian terrorists, settlement freeze
As odious as this deal sounds, I doubt the 'Palestinians' will agree to it
The JPost has
details of the 'deal' for Jonathan Pollard's release before Passover, and I'm reproducing them below. The highlights in the list are the reasons why I think the 'Palestinians' won't go for this deal.
1) Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard will be released before the first Passover seder on Monday April 14.
2.
The negotiations will continue into 2015, during which time the
Palestinians will committ themselves not to engage in diplomatic warfare
against Israel by going to international organizations for recognition.
3)
Israel will release the fourth batch of 26 Palestinians convicted of
terror acts before the 1993 Oslo Accords. Some Israeli-Arabs will be
included in the release, although it is not yet certain how many.
4)
Israel will release an additional 400 Palestinian prisoners during the
continuing negotiation period. These prisoners will be picked by Israel,
will include many minors and women, and will not include those with
"blood on their hands."
5) Israel will "exercise restraint" in
releasing government tenders for new homes in the West Bank. This policy
will not include Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem beyond the Green
Line. This policy will also exclude public building projects such as
roads. Israel has rejected a total settlement freeze.
No definition of what "restraint" exactly means was provided.
I will guarantee you that the 'Palestinians' will reject this proposal before the end of the day.
Kerry has left the country. Good riddance!
Labels: Jonathan Pollard, Judea and Samaria, Middle East peace process, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Palestinian terrorists, settlement freeze, unilateral concessions
Today I am ashamed and embarrassed to be an American citizen
The time has come - indeed it probably
came about 15 years ago - to refer to Jonathan Pollard as a hostage. All of you who are still arguing that Jonathan Pollard is being held in a US Federal prison because of some deep, dark secrets he holds about the United States 30 years after the fact - and you know who you are, but I don't have the time to search the comments to find out - should now understand that was pretense, if not less. It's not a question of whether Jonathan Pollard will be released. It's a question of the price and of Israel's willingness to pay it before, God forbid Pollard dies.
The US has confirmed that the release of its hostage (and yes, hereafter I will refer to him that way), Jonathan Pollard, is on the table. But
the price will be steep and I have my doubts about Israel's willingness to pay it.
US officials confirmed Tuesday that the release of long-time captive Jonathan Pollard is on the negotiating table with Israel.
The catch: Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) would be forced
to resume peace talks, and Israel would have to make "significant
concessions."
IDF Radio reports that American media has already been
briefed on the possibility of Pollard's release - which is still a
possibility and "far from being assured," according to a source close to
the White House. One of the concessions may include a building freeze
in Judea and Samaria while talks continue.
Anyone want to take a shot at what a building freeze has to do with whether it's 'safe' to release Jonathan Pollard without compromising the security of the United States? I didn't think so. But it gets worse....
On Monday, Deputy Foreign Minister Ze'ev Elkin (Likud) stated that
while Israel has an obligation to secure Pollard's release, he is
against the idea of releasing a large batch for the sake of a single
prisoner.
"If there is a chance to fulfill the State of Israel's moral
obligation to Jonathan Pollard, I'd be willing to give them many
terrorists, if it would make them happy," he continued. "I do not
understand why Americans are happy over murderers being released, but
that's their problem."
Elkin also clarified that his position on Israel's obligation
to Pollard, in his opinion, is not the same as its obligation to protect
IDF soldiers. As such, he said, he would only agree to such a deal if
it were "a one-to-one ratio or close to it," and is opposed to "insane
deals like we made with [Gilad Shalit]."
MK Danny Danon reiterated reservations about the exchange Tuesday morning.
"It turns out we are now caught in a conflict between the cynicism of
Kerry and the morality and logic of Pollard and Israeli society," Danon
wrote, in a Facebook post. He reminded readers that Pollard himself has
asked not to be exchanged for terrorists, citing risks to Israel's
security.
I've never felt this way before, but today I am ashamed and embarrassed to be an American citizen. The country of my birth, the land of the free and the home of the brave is holding a Jew hostage to gain the release of terrorist murderers and to deny Jews the right to live in their homeland.
Does it get any worse?
PS I'm expecting some mea culpas in the comments.
Labels: Jonathan Pollard, Palestinian terrorists, settlement freeze
MK's from Left urge Netanyahu to freeze 'settlement construction' rather than release terrorists
Fifteen MK's from Labor, the Tzipi Livni party and Shas (yes, on the 'peace process,' they lean Left) have urged Prime Minister Netanyahu to cancel the fourth terrorist release - scheduled for Sunday - and
freeze 'settlement construction' instead.
"A settlement freeze can always be stopped and 'thawed'," the MKs
wrote. "But to undo the release of more prisoners and murderous
terrorists cannot be undone. To the contrary, in releasing them there is
the danger that they will return to terror activities and will continue
to hurt Israeli citizens," they added.
"Therefore, we call on you
to act immediately in order to switch the gesture of freeing prisoners
and terrorists with the gesture of freezing settlements."
The MKs
wrote that the move would be welcomed by the Zionist Right and the
bereaved families whose relatives were victims of the terrorists.
In
addition to [Labor MK's] Bar and Bar-Lev, the letter was signed by Labor's Eitan
Cabel, Shelly Yacimovich, Nachman Shai, Moshe Mizrahi, Stav Shaffir,
Itzik Shmuli, Erel Margalit, Miki Rosenthal, Michal Biran and Avishai
Braverman. From Hatnua, MK David Tsur signed the letter and from Shas,
MKs Ya'acov Margi and Yitzhak Cohen signed.
Arutz Sheva has
more of the letter.
"Before the negotiations with the Palestinians began, Israel was
given the option of choosing between one of two gestures to the
Palestinians. One Israeli gesture was to freeze construction in the
settlements. The second option was the release of terrorist prisoners in
several batches,” wrote the MKs.
"Unfortunately," they continued, "the government chose the gesture of
releasing terrorists and not the other gesture it was offered - a
settlement freeze."
The MKs called on Netanyahu to “replace the gesture” and freeze construction in Judea and Samaria.
Well, yeah, if that was the choice at the outset, the government should have chosen the freeze. But it has never been clear that was the choice. It was more like the 'Palestinians' wanted both and were persuaded to make due with getting one officially and being able to protest the other.
In any event, there is no way that Obama-Kerry will let Israel do that without the 'Palestinians' consent, and you can bet that consent will not be forthcoming. Moreover, given that the 'negotiations' are doomed to failure (and were from the outset, but that's almost beside the point now), why should we make any substitute 'gesture' at all. Just cancel the terrorist release! So says Jewish Home MK
Motti Yogev (with whom I agree on this one).
"I'm not in favor of continuing negotiations. I am in favor of us
creating peace on the ground, first and foremost by annexing Judea and
Samaria in stages, first in area C,” he told Arutz Sheva. “The
Arabs would have better lives under Israeli sovereignty than anywhere
else. Am I in favor of blowing up the talks? Absolutely. Let’s take
things into our hands and give the Palestinians better lives than they
would get in any other state.”
Yogev added that contacts with the Palestinian Arabs should be ongoing, but certainly not with the PA, which continues to incite against Israel even as talks are held.
"We should continue our relationship with the Palestinians, but not
necessarily with the PA which seeks our destruction, and educates its
children and its future generations towards that destruction,” he said.
“There's nothing to talk to them about and certainly we should not make
any ‘gestures’ to them. As for the American pressure, we have to know
how to handle it.”
Yogev also made clear that he opposes the idea of releasing Jonathan
Pollard in exchange for Israel releasing more terrorists, in the wake of
recent rumors that the United States was considering releasing Pollard as a way of convincing Israel to continue the talks.
Tying the Pollard issue with the peace talks and with releasing terrorists is wrong and immoral, Yogev declared.
"Pollard should have been released a long time ago,” he said. “His
punishment has been far beyond proportional for such an offense. He is
in his thirtieth year in prison. They wouldn’t even let him go to his
father’s funeral or shiva. If we take into account the fact that he is
ill, there is a humanitarian issue here."
Yogev continued, "If the Americans are thinking about using Pollard
as a bargaining chip, then this is yet another step in the moral
deterioration of the foreign policy of President Obama and his Secretary
of State, John Kerry, and we should not cooperate with this. I do not
want to insult them. There is a lot of strategic cooperation between
Israel and the U.S., but they have been showing their immorality bit by
bit.”
“Pollard should be released unconditionally and murderous terrorists
should not be released under any circumstances,” he added. “The U.S.
would never release terrorists who carried out such cruel acts. Their
pressure on us to release terrorists so negotiations continue, as well
as pressuring us for a construction freeze, is one-sided and unethical,
and tying Jonathan Pollard into it is grossly immoral.”
Yogev also said that he believed that Pollard himself would not want to see terrorists released in exchange for his release.
There's just no point to these talks. In eight months, they have gone nowhere and accomplished nothing. In exchange for the privilege of talking to the Americans, Israel has released 78 murderous terrorists. A little common sense folks... Enough is enough!
Labels: Abu Mazen, Binyamin Netanyahu, Jonathan Pollard, Labor party, Palestinian terrorists, settlement freeze, Shas, Tzipi Livni
