It's not that Kerry doesn't get Israel - he's enraged he can't get rid of it
In an editorial this morning, the Wall Street Journal blasts John Kerry's 'marathon speech' on Wednesday in which he reserved rage only for Israel in the entire Middle East.
We recite this history to show that it’s not for lack of U.S.
diplomacy that there is no peace—and that mishandled diplomacy has a way
of encouraging Palestinian violence. In 2000 then-President Bill Clinton
brought Israeli and Palestinian leaders to Camp David to negotiate a
final peace agreement, only to watch Palestinians walk away from an
offer that would have granted them a state on nearly all of Gaza and the
West Bank. That failure was followed by another Palestinian terror
campaign.
Israelis remember this. They remember that they elected leaders—Yitzhak Rabin in 1992, Ehud Barak in 1999, Ehud Olmert in 2006—who made repeated peace overtures to the Palestinians only to be met with violence and rejection.
In his speech, Mr. Kerry went out of his way to personalize his differences with current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
claiming he leads the “most right-wing” coalition in Israeli history.
But Israelis also remember that Mr. Netanyahu ordered a settlement
freeze, and that also brought peace no closer.
The lesson is that
Jewish settlements are not the main obstacle to peace. If they were,
Gaza would be on its way to becoming the Costa Rica of the
Mediterranean. The obstacle is Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right
to exist as a Jewish state in any borders. A Secretary of State who
wishes to resolve the conflict could have started from that premise,
while admonishing the Palestinians that they will never get a state so
long as its primary purpose is the destruction of its neighbor.
But
that Secretary isn’t Mr. Kerry. Though he made passing references to
Palestinian terror and incitement, the most he would say against it was
that it “must stop.” If the Administration has last-minute plans to back
this hollow exhortation with a diplomatic effort at the U.N., we
haven’t heard about it.
Contrast this with last week’s Security Council resolution, which the Obama
Administration refused to veto and which substantively changes
diplomatic understandings stretching to 1967. Mr. Kerry claimed
Wednesday that Resolution 2334 “does not break new ground.”
The
reality is that the resolution denies Israel legal claims to the
land—including Jewish holy sites such as the Western Wall—while
reversing the traditional land-for-peace formula that has been a
cornerstone of U.S. diplomacy for almost 50 years. In the world of
Resolution 2334, the land is no longer Israel’s to trade for peace. Mr.
Kerry also called East Jerusalem “occupied” territory, which contradicts Administration claims in the 2015 Supreme Court case, Zivotofsky v. Kerry, that the U.S. does not recognize any sovereignty over Jerusalem.
The
larger question is what all this means for the prospects of an eventual
settlement. Mr. Kerry made a passionate plea in his speech for
preserving the possibility of a two-state solution for Jews and
Palestinians. That’s a worthy goal in theory, assuming a Palestinian
state doesn’t become another Yemen or South Sudan.
But the effect
of Mr. Kerry’s efforts will be to put it further out of reach.
Palestinians will now be emboldened to believe they can get what they
want at the U.N. and through public campaigns to boycott Israel without
making concessions. Israelis will be convinced that Western assurances
of support are insincere and reversible.
It's not that Kerry doesn't get all those things. He does. It's that in Kerry's 60's radical mind - like his boss' - Israel is a neo-colonialistcreation of the West that has no right to exist among the 'natives' of the Middle East.
The only reason Kerry doesn't come right out and say it is because while that kind of talk is acceptable in Europe, it's not acceptable (yet) in the US. Thanks to Donald Trump defeating Hillary Clinton in last month's election, it may never become acceptable in the US.
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.
'Most pro-Israel administration evah' going all out to destroy Israel?
Now that his administration has reached its final months, and little can be done to him personally, Barack Obama is pushing a harder line against Israel in an upcoming report about the 'settlements.'
The report, which is likely to be released in late May or early June,
will focus heavily on Israeli construction in Judea, Samaria, and
Jerusalem, senior diplomats told AP. The Quartet’s report will also take Israel to task for the demolition of illegal Arab buildings – many of which were built with the support of the European Union.
While in the past the US worked to soften some of the criticism
against Israel leveled by the EU, UN, and Russia, now, say officials
working on the Quartet report, US diplomats are pushing for harsher
language against the Jewish state.
One diplomat said the report was the Obama administration’s way of
putting Israel “on notice” that its patience was wearing thin.
Other officials involved in the drafting of the document claimed the
report will also criticize Israel for the legalization of some Jewish
communities in Judea and Samaria.
News of the Quartet report comes amid leaks indicating the Obama
administration is considering unprecedented moves to force Israel and
the Palestinian Authority to the negotiating channel. One option reportedly
on the table is a United Nations Security Council Resolution to layout
the frame work for a final status agreement – and force both Israel and
the Palestinian Authority into final talks.
Because the Iran deal that he rammed through Congress didn't endanger Israel enough.... 'Most pro-Israel administration evah'?
The Obama-Kerry State Department comes out in favor of BDS
Read the statement in the tweet below, and it becomes quite clear that the Obama administration has come out in favor of boycotting, divesting from and sanctioning Israel.
No, this administration is different than previous administrations. Previous administrations (with the exception of Carter) may have referred to Jewish settlement of Judea and Samaria as 'unwise' and may have called it 'illegitimate.' But only the Obama and Carter administrations have called it 'illegal.' (Which it's not). And the Bush administration did support some Israeli 'settlement' and did issue a letter saying that it expected that some of those 'settlements' would be made apart of Israel as part of a final agreement with the 'Palestinians.' But then came the Obama administration and disavowed the letter.
More importantly, every administration until the Obama administration has said that peace between Israel and the 'Palestinians' must come about as a result of a negotiated solution. Only the Obama administration - in a mad rush for a 'Palestinian state' that would immediately be consumed by terrorists - has attempted to impose a solution on Israel. Only the Obama administration has forced Israel to release terrorist murderers from its jail. And only the Obama administration has forced a 'settlement freeze' on Israel.
No, this is not the same as every other US administration.
The U.S. State Department on Tuesday punched a big hole in Israel-led
efforts to induce the Obama administration to regard boycotts of
settlements as identical to boycott
of Israel proper. In doing so, it provided the Israeli government and
the pro-Israel lobby with yet another painful lesson in the pitfalls of
being too clever by half and biting off more than one should chew.
A special statement issued by the State Department
Press Office on Tuesday afternoon made clear that while the
administration “strongly opposes” any boycott, divestment or sanctions
against the State of Israel, it does not extend the same protection to
“Israel-controlled territories.” Rather than weakening efforts to
boycott Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, as Israel
supporters had planned, the State Department was actually granting them
unprecedented legitimacy.
The statement came in the wake of President Obama’s
signing of the Trade Promotion Authority bill, which grants him the
authority he had sought to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership
accord. But as the bill deals with free trade agreements in general, a
clause was inserted in the Senate by Democratic Senator Ben Cardin and
Republican Senator Rob Portman and by Representative Peter Roskam in the
House of Representative that instructs American diplomats to include
opposition to any boycott of Israel - or of persons from “territories
controlled by Israel” - in their free trade negotiations with the
European Union.
The State Department statement, however, makes clear
that the bill will not change U.S. policy towards the settlements. “The
U.S. government has never defended or supported Israeli settlements or
activity associated with them, and, by extension, does not pursue
policies or activities that would legitimize them,” it said. It went on
to note: “Administrations of both parties have long recognized that
settlement activity and efforts to change facts on the ground undermine
the goal of a two-state solution.”
This anti-Israel administration cannot end soon enough. 'Most pro-Israel administration evah' my tuches.
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.'
It's come to this: Dutch government worried about terrorists'violent Jewish settlers'
The Dutch government is warning its citizens who travel in Judea and Samaria to be wary of 'Palestinian' terrorism 'violent Jewish settlers.'
The travel warning was placed online last month on the website of the Dutch central government for the Palestinian Territories.
“There are security risks for traveling all over the West Bank
including east Jerusalem,” the warning reads. “Be alert when traveling
there. Demonstrations and violent incidents occur regularly. Jewish
colonists live in illegal West Bank settlements and organize
demonstrations regularly around and on the road. These colonists are
sometimes violent. At times, these colonists throw stones at
Palestinians and international vehicles so be alert when traveling
around settlements of Jewish colonists, especially in the hills around
Nablus and Hebron.”
In referencing violence by Palestinians, the text states:
“Palestinians demonstrate regularly against occupation in various
places,” adding that “these demonstrations sometimes involve violence.
There are always Israeli soldiers present during demonstrations. Avoid
demonstrations. Recently, there have been violent incidents in the
border area between east and west Jerusalem. They are aimed at Israelis.
Be alert in those areas and avoid public transportation.”
The warning also applies to the Gaza Strip, where Dutch nationals are
advised not to go due to risk of being shot in fights between various
Islamist groups. “In addition, there exists a risk of becoming a victim
of an Israeli aerial attack,” the warning adds.
Trying to recall the last time anyone died as a result of 'violentJewishsettlers' throwing stones. (Hint: There haven't been any).
With Yair Lapid out as finance minister, the Knesset Finance Committee has released funding to the Jewish towns and villages in Judea and Samaria. Lapid, who was holding up the money, is furious, and has labeled the release 'bribery.' (He didn't really think he was going to get any votes from the 'settlers,' did he?
Yesh Atid is outraged at the request of Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu to transfer additional funds via the Finance Committee to
regional councils in Judea-Samaria, the party said in a statement on
Monday.
"This is an election bribery - this is an inappropriate course of
action in a democratic state," the party stated, asking the Knesset's
Legal Advisory to intervene over the issue.
Budgetary transfers to the regional councils had been frozen for months
by Finance Minister and Yesh Atid Chairman Yair Lapid, who was sacked
from his ministerial position last week and whose party left the
coalition in a dramatic political move.
Lapid's dismissal has finally paved the way for tens of cash-strapped
communities in the region to receive their funds, leaving leftists
livid.
But the issue is not the only budgetary transfer finally on the table
with Lapid's dismissal; the Finance Committee is expected to make
decisions on dozens of requests for government funding Monday in Lapid's
wake.
Rumor has it that the man behind the transfers is that 'settler' lover, Moshe 'Boogie' Yaalon.
Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon may be easing up on his own crackdown
on Judea and Samaria, it was revealed Monday, after leaks from closed
conversations Ya'alon had with unnamed officials indicated his support
for lifting a freeze on funds to Judea-Samaria regional councils.
"Our goal should be the immediate release of funds for the
development of settlements in Judea and Samaria, and I am working to do
this," Ya'alon allegedly stated. "These funds former Finance Minister
Yair Lapid held for political reasons, and now they [the Knesset - ed.]
have to release these funds."
Ya'alon's statements surfaced just as the Knesset Finance Committee announced that funds for Judea-Samaria regional councils had been unfrozen, after months of an on-and-off freeze instituted by Lapid for political purposes.
...
The report, if true, also shows a sharp reversal in Ya'alon's policies thus far. The Defense Minister has been personally behind the continuation of a military seizure of the Yitzhar Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva [Torah academy - ed.] and froze funds for a project to build new housing for IDF soldiers over 1949 Armistice lines just last week.
The [Oslo Accords] represented the last major breakthrough in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Martin Indyk told The Atlantic's
Jeffrey Goldberg in his first interview since stepping down last week
as the Obama administration's Mideast peace envoy. And that process is
now dead, he added, at least for now.
...
"There is a deep loathing of each leader for the other that has built up
over the years," Indyk told Goldberg at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which
is organized by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic.
"'Loathing' may be too strong [a word] for how Netanyahu feels about Abu
Mazen," he later clarified, "but it's certainly the way Abu Mazen feels
about Netanyahu. He refers to him as 'that man.'"
But no, Indyk doesn't blame Abu Mazen for the collapse of the 'peace process.' He blames the 'settlers.'
In the two decades since the Oslo Accords, a "a deep, deep skepticism"
about negotiations has taken root among Israelis and Palestinians,
particularly among younger generations for whom Oslo is a distant
memory, if a memory at all. In particular, young Palestinians, who have
"grown up under Israeli occupation" and "seen [Jewish] settlements
grow," have jettisoned hope "that the Israelis will ever grant them
their rights." The majorities on both sides that once supported a
two-state solution are no more.
Deep down, even Indyk knows that Abu Bluff is to blame. And yet he still blames the 'settlements.'
Initially, Israel agreed to release more than 100 Palestinian prisoners
in four stages in return for the Palestinians not signing international
conventions or attempting to join UN agencies. After six months of
direct negotiations between the parties, he explained, Netanyahu "moved
into the zone of a possible agreement" and was prepared to make
substantial concessions.
But then, beginning in mid-February, Abbas suddenly "shut down." By the time the Palestinian leader visited Obama in Washington
in March, he "had checked out of the negotiations," repeatedly telling
U.S. officials that he would "study" their proposals, Indyk said. Abbas later signed 15 international conventions and struck a unity deal with the Gaza-based militant group Hamas. These moves deflated the peace process.
What accounts for Abbas's about-face? The explanation, Indyk says,
lies in Jewish settlement activity during the talks. The U.S. had
anticipated limited activity in so-called settlement "blocks" near
Israel's 1967 borders, where roughly 80 percent of Jewish settlers live.
What caught Washington off guard was the Israeli government's
announcements, with each release of Palestinian prisoners, of plans for
settlement units, many of which were outside the blocks. "The Israeli
attitude is that's just planning," Indyk noted. "But for the
Palestinians, everything that gets planned gets built. ... And the fact
that the announcements were made when the prisoners were released
created the impression that Abu Mazen had paid for the prisoners by
accepting these settlement announcements." Netanyahu may have simply
been playing domestic politics and trying to placate the Israeli
right-wing, but these announcements effectively humiliated Abbas.
Indyk's implicit message appeared to be that Israel's settlement
policy inflicted the most harm on the peace process: The settlement
announcements undermined Abbas, who in turn walked away from the talks.
At one point in the discussion, Indyk observed that Israelis who are
moving to settlements for religious and nationalist reasons, especially
outside the settlement blocks, "are doing great damage to Israel's
future."
Martin Indyk is a bitter old man. Let's hope he doesn't visit Israel again.
It starts: Yaalon wants a Zionist response, Livni wants an international one
There was a fight in Israel's cabinet on Monday night over a proposal by Defense Minister Moshe Boogie Yaalon to build a new Jewish town in Judea, in the area from which the three teenagers were kidnapped. The woman who wants a Nobel Peace Prize strongly objected....
An Israeli defense official confirmed the details and said that
Ya'alon suggested the new settlement be established in the G'vaot
outpost, frozen in 2002, which is located between Alon Shvut and Beitar
Ilit. The Defense Ministry specified that the outpost is located on
state lands and that the government already made a decision to turn it
into a settlement.
During
Monday's cabinet meeting, Ya'alon presented a plan prepared by the
Civil Administration with various actions aimed at strengthening the
Israeli settlement enterprise. The suggestions include promotion of
planning procedures and the publication of construction tenders for
thousands of new units in the settlement blocs. The plan also includes a
proposal for a new settlement on state lands inside one of the blocs,
to be named after the three victims.
...
According to the senior official, Justice Minister Tzipi
Livni opposed the move and threatened to vote against the cabinet
decision. Livni said that if Israel presents settlement construction as a
sanction or punishment in response to the murder, it will hurt the
little bit of legitimacy Israel has from the international community to
retain the settlements blocs in any future deal with the Palestinians.
Livni
evoked the many condemnations of the murders expressed by a slew of
world leaders, and argued that settlement construction would damage
Israel's international backing and hurt the national consensus
surrounding kidnapping.
"It
is wrong to split the nation along ideological lines of construction
that the entire nation is not behind," Livni said. "Such a move could
also hurt our international legitimacy for a military operation against
Hamas. Settlement construction at this stage would minimize the murders
and transform it from a national issue to a political one."
Economy
Minister Naftali Bennett expressed a certain amount of support for
Livni's stance, stating that he objects to an Israeli response limited
to settlement construction that does not include a comprehensive
military operation against Hamas.
However, a heated erupted at the cabinet meeting, when Bennett called
the proposed actions raised "weak and disgraceful" and threatened to
vote against them. As a result, Netanyahu decided to postpone the vote
and schedule another meeting for Tuesday night.
Bennett is right - the proposed actions are weak. Read the whole thing. But I want to point out a statement that drips with irony....
Livni also rejected Bennett's proposal. "We've had harsh terror attacks
in the past, but you don't start a war because of it," she said.
Really Tzipi? Weren't you foreign minister in 2006?
Two different articles claim that the 'Palestinians' and the Americans, respectively, purposely brought about the collapse of the 'peace talks.' This is from the first linkfrom JCPA's Jonathan Dahoah HaLevi, who claims that the 'Palestinians' blew up the talks as part of a strategy of gradually accreting the indicia of statehood.
In
March 2014, Saeb Erekat, the head of the Palestinian negotiating team,
prepared a 65-page document that surveys the diplomatic process and
offers a list of recommendations for the PA to achieve Palestinian
sovereignty in the territories demarcated by the 1967 lines. PA Chairman
Mahmoud Abbas has recently implemented some of these recommendations.
The recommendations include submitting a request
to immediately join the Geneva Conventions; declaring the impossibility
of extending the negotiations after the end of the nine-month period on
April 29, 2014; and opposing the Israeli proposal that the settlement
blocs become part of Israel in any final agreement.
The plan also includes activating bilateral
committees with Russia, the EU, and the UN, and cooperating with the
monitoring committee of the Arab Peace Initiative, to muster support for
the Palestinian anti-settlement position; urging the states of the
world to uphold the European Union’s guidelines regarding settlement
activity; and escalating the peaceful popular struggle against
settlements and the [security] fence.
The PA’s latest moves reflect the long-term
strategy Abbas has been implementing, which involves using diplomatic
means to obtain international recognition of a sovereign Palestinian
state along the 1967 lines without the Palestinians having to make
concessions on the fundamental issues of the conflict, particularly the
refugee issue and what is called the “right of return.”
The signing of the 15 international conventions
is part of a gradual Palestinian move to statehood which, unlike a
unilateral declaration of statehood, does not occur with one move. Abbas
has previously made political moves in defiance of the United States
and Israel without fearing the pressures and threats directed at him, as
in his November 2012 appeal to the UN General Assembly for an upgrade
of the PLO’s status to UN nonmember observer state. Now, too, he feels
confident in his ability to take unilateral steps without incurring
serious damage.
The Palestinians believe they can use the
diplomatic-legal arena to overcome Israel’s power and gradually subject
it to diplomatic and economic pressures to unilaterally withdraw from
the West Bank in a way similar to Israel’s unconditional withdrawal from
Gaza in 2005.
Meanwhile, the Washington Free Beacon's Adam Kredo blames it on the Americans, saying that the White House has had a secret campaign to scapegoat Israel for the 'talks' failure.
Multiple sources told the Washington Free Beacon that top
Obama administration officials have worked for the past several days to
manufacture a crisis over the reissuing of housing permits in a
Jerusalem neighborhood widely acknowledged as Israeli territory.
Senior State Department officials based in Israel have sought to lay
the groundwork for Israel to take the blame for talks collapsing by
peddling a narrative to the Israeli press claiming that the Palestinians
were outraged over Israeli settlements, the Free Beacon has learned.
These administration officials have planted several stories in
Israeli and U.S. newspapers blaming Israel for the collapse of peace
talks and have additionally provided reporters with anonymous quotes
slamming the Israeli government.
The primary source of these multiple reports has been identified as
Middle East envoy Martin Indyk and his staff, according to these
insiders, who said that the secret media campaign against Israel paved
the way for Secretary of State John Kerry to go before Congress on
Tuesday and publicly blame Israel for tanking the talks.
“The Palestinians didn’t even know they were supposed to be
abandoning negotiations because of these housing permits, which are
actually old, reissued permits for areas everyone assumes will end up on
the Israelis’ side of the border anyway,” said one senior official at a
U.S. based pro-Israel organization who asked to remain anonymous
because the Obama administration has in the past retaliated against
critics from inside the pro-Israel world.
“Then Martin Indyk started telling anyone who would listen that in
fact the Palestinians were angry over the housing issue,” the source
said. “Eventually, the Palestinians figured out it was in their interest
to echo what the Americans were saying.”
One former Israeli diplomat familiar with Indyk’s tactics said that
he is a crass political player who has a history of planting negative
stories about Israel in order to undermine the Netanyahu government and
bolster his hand in the talks.
“I’ve seen this before and see his fingerprints,” said the source,
who referenced a separate story two weeks ago in which U.S. government
sources implied that newly installed Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer was
not performing his job effectively.
“It’s certainly in Indyk’s interest now [to undermine the Israelis],
but this was a game he also used to play when he was ambassador twice,”
said the former diplomat. “This is part of Indyk’s playbook.”
“There was only one person who would do this kind of thing and it’s Martin Indyk and his staff,” the former diplomat added.
Another Washington-based source familiar with the talks said that
Kerry’s peace team has a track record of trashing Israel anonymously.
“It’s one of the worst-kept secrets in Jerusalem that Kerry’s team
leaks anti-Netanyahu quotes and claims to the Israeli press—not that is
should be a mystery why Israeli reporters based in Israel keep producing
anti-Bibi quotes from ‘American officials,’” the source said.
“But just imagine the outrage if the roles were reversed and Bibi had a team on the ground in D.C. trashing Obama to the Washington Post on background,” the source said.
Maybe we should... Oh, wait. They'd probably declare Dermer persona non grata if we did that.
'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen returned to Ramallah on Thursday and announced that the 'peace talks' are at an impasse. As usual, he blamed the 'settlements.'
A spokesman for Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas
said on Thursday that Israeli construction in Judea and Samaria had
caused the U.S.-sponsored peace talks to reach an impasse.
"Israel's settlement activity caused the negotiations to fail and led
them to an impasse," the spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, told the AFP news agency.
He was reacting to a report earlier that Israel had advanced construction plans for over 2,000 new housing units in six Judea and Samaria communities.
...
The PA consistently blames
“settlement construction” as being an obstacle to peace. It does so
despite the fact that it was informed in advance that Israel will
continue to build as talks continue. The areas in which Israel plans to
build are areas that even the PA has previously accepted will be part of
Israel in a future deal.
Abbas threatened two weeks ago that unless a building freeze was imposed on
Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, the peace
talks would come to an end. Such a freeze was not stipulated as a
pre-condition to resumed talks.
There was never going to be a real peace agreement. But I hope that this 'impasse' becomes official. We have nothing to gain from these 'talks' continuing.
Here's an interesting and perceptive reaction from an Israeli official:
One Israeli government source responded to the rally by saying it was
reminiscent of Yasser Arafat’s return from Camp David in 2000, when it
appeared that the Palestinians were celebrating the failure of peace
talks. The second intifada broke out shortly thereafter.
“If the
Palestinians celebrate rejectionism, they’re closing the door to
Palestinian statehood, because the only way to achieve a Palestinian
state is through negotiations and agreement with Israel,” the official
said. “A rejectionist position makes Palestinian statehood impossible,
and in maintaining such a position ultimately the Palestinians are only
hurting themselves.”
One of the results of the lack of individual accountability for Knesset members is that Israel's government usually operates using the method of 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.' Now, we're seeing the opposite, and it's becoming a full-blown war.
Infuriated at Jewish Home's Ayelet Shaked's vote in committee on Wednesday for criminal sanctions against Haredi draft dodgers, Yated Neeman, the mouthpiece of the mainstream Lithuanian Haredi community, does an expose on the budget for 'settlements' in Judea and Samaria (link in Hebrew).
The article claims that the 'settlements' (which presumably does not include the Haredi 'settlements' of Beitar Ilit and Kiryat Sefer) are an economic and security burden.
The article claims that budgets are passed through hidden methods for 'isolated settlements' and for dangerous roads, and that doesn't even take the security costs into account. According to Moshe Gafni, a Haredi MK from the United Torah Judaism party and the former chairman of the Knesset Finance Committee, "the reality in which a company of soldiers [100-200 soldiers] guards one and a half 'settlers' at fantastical expense is a set way of operating."
"We're talking about the most sectoral group in the country," said Gafni. "They worry about themselves without end, and add paragraphs and sub-paragraphs [into the budget] that bring them billions."
The line beneath the headline reads:
So long as we are paying in the hard currency of damaging the Haredi yeshiva world - will their partners in Yesh Atid ask them 'where is the money'?
The article claims that in 2011, the number of 'settlers' increased by 5% while the government's cost of maintaining them increased by 38%.
The article is one of three in Yated this Friday against the 'settlers' and it says that it's the first in a series.
During the debate over drafting Haredim, Gafni warned that he had information that would show how much the government spends on 'settlers' - a contingency of the Jewish Home party, and that he would release it if Jewish Home was instrumental in bringing about criminal sanctions for Haredi draft dodgers.
'You scratch my back, I scratch yours. You kick my shins, I kick yours.' Sounds a lot like the period of the destruction of the Second Temple (which was destroyed due to baseless hatred). And no, that's not meant to exclude Jewish Home's actions on the draft from the definition of 'baseless hatred' either.
'Most pro-Israel President evah' says he can't defend Israel if 'peace talks' fail
President Hussein Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg on Sunday that he plans to tell Prime Minister Netanyahu that Israel faces a bleak future of international isolation and demographic disaster if it does not endorse the deal that Obama and his Secretary of State - John FN Kerry - want to impose on Israel and the 'Palestinians.'
Obama was blunter about Israel’s future than I've ever heard him. His
language was striking, but of a piece with observations made in recent
months by his secretary of state, John Kerry, who until this interview,
had taken the lead in pressuring both Netanyahu and the Palestinian
leader, Mahmoud Abbas, to agree to a framework deal. Obama made it clear
that he views Abbas as the most politically moderate leader the
Palestinians may ever have. It seemed obvious to me that the president
believes that the next move is Netanyahu’s.
“There comes a point
where you can’t manage this anymore, and then you start having to make
very difficult choices,” Obama said. “Do you resign yourself to what
amounts to a permanent occupation of the West Bank? Is that the
character of Israel as a state for a long period of time? Do you
perpetuate, over the course of a decade or two decades, more and more
restrictive policies in terms of Palestinian movement? Do you place
restrictions on Arab-Israelis in ways that run counter to Israel’s
traditions?”
During the interview, which took place a day before
the Russian military incursion into Ukraine, Obama argued that American
adversaries, such as Iran, Syria and Russia itself, still believe that
he is capable of using force to advance American interests, despite his
reluctance to strike Syria last year after President Bashar al-Assad
crossed Obama's chemical-weapons red line.
...
“If you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement
construction -- and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction
over the last couple years than we’ve seen in a very long time,” Obama
said. “If Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a
contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then
our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.”
This is not the first time that Obama has pulled a fast one while Netanyahu was enroute. Hopefully, Netanyahu has not forgotten how to respond. Of course, the difference between now and three years ago is that Obama cannot (at least as of now) stand for reelection.
David Horovitz says that this interview was no accident.
The timing could not have been any more
deliberate — an assault on the prime minister’s policies delivered
precisely as Netanyahu was flying in to meet with him, and on the first
day, too, of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC’s annual tour de force
conference across town.
At the very least, that might be considered
bad manners, poor diplomatic protocol, a resounding preemptive slap in
the face: I’ve just told the world you’re leading your country to wrack
and ruin, Mr. Prime Minister. Now, what was it you wanted to talk to me
about?
More substantively, the president’s comments
reinforce years of grievance that have accumulated in Netanyahu’s
circles and some distance beyond, to the effect that the president
ignores the inconsistencies, duplicities and worse of the Palestinian
Authority and its leader Mahmoud Abbas, while placing exaggerated blame
for the failure of peace efforts at the door of the Israeli government.
As they read through the transcript of the
interview, Netanyahu and his aides were doubtless bemoaning what they
see as Obama’s obsession with settlements, to the exclusion of almost
any other issue on which the Israelis and the Palestinians are
deadlocked. They would certainly have been lamenting that the
president’s public display of disaffection will hardly encourage the
Palestinians to adopt more flexible positions on such other core issues
as their demand for a “right of return” for millions of Palestinians to
Israel. And they might have been wondering if some of the Obama
ammunition had been fired precisely now as a mark of his displeasure
with AIPAC, the irritating lobby that just won’t keep quiet on
pressuring Iran.
I expect a lot of icy stares at Monday's press conference.
Glick disputed Obama's claims vigorously. "The demographic data
[Obama] is using to threaten Israel with destruction are phony. Even
officials at the U.S. Census Bureau privately acknowledge that
demographics work in Israel's favor and to the Palestinians' detriment,"
she said, noting that Palestinian growth had been inflated.
"When he talks about a permanent occupation, we speak of a permanent
liberation. We are not 'occupying' the West Bank of the Jordan. These
areas are part of the sovereign territory allocated to the Jewish people
by the international community as far back as 1922. They were never
granted to anyone else in a legally binding way.
"More than three quarters of the Jews of Israel believe in
incorporating all or parts of the West Bank into Israel on a permanent
basis," she added. "We know the two-state peace plan is a lie.
We know
the PLO wants to destroy Israel more than it wants a Palestinian state.
And we know that we will not lose our Jewish majority if we incorporate
the West Bank into Israel.
"He says, beware and we say, 'Bring it on. We aren't afraid of you.'"
Neither is anyone else. Although it's amusing that Washington Post editorial that accuses Obama of living in a fantasy world doesn't even mention his obsession with Israel and the 'Palestinians.'
The 'settlers' council' - the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea and Samaria - along with MyIsrael and the Binyamin Regional Council, has made a satirical video mocking US Secretary of State John FN Kerry. It's called John Kerry Solutions Ltd.
But there is danger in thinking that the removal of these settlements
would bring about a liberal, enlightened Middle East. The danger is
analytical: If you don’t understand what ails the Middle East, how can
you possibly fix it? It is also dangerous to scapegoat Israel for
problems it didn’t cause, in the same way that it has historically been
quite dangerous to blame the Jewish people for problems they didn’t
cause. Brzezinski’s native Poland provides lessons in this regard.
That's true. The problem is that Goldberg thinks that we should expel 500,000 Jews from their homes anyway, because it would put us on what he sees as a 'higher' moral plane.
Before I go on, the usual caveats: The settlement project -- especially
those settlements far from Jerusalem that have been planted in the
middle of thickly populated Palestinian areas -- is a strategic and
moral disaster for Israel. The settlements should be dismantled. They
threaten Israel’s standing in the world; they threaten to undermine the
very nature and purpose of Israel. And so on. I’ve written before about the threat that settlements pose, at great length.
What Goldberg misses is that not only won't dismantling the 'settlements' bring about a 'liberal enlightened Middle East.' Dismantling the 'settlements' will also do nothing for Israel's standing in the world. You see, the world only likes Jews when we're on the verge of being exterminated. The rest of the time, they consider us fair game.
Here's an important letter from former foreign ministry legal adviser Alan Baker to US Secretary of State John Kerry about 'settlements.' I've uploaded it to ScribD and am embedding it below.
After meeting with 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen, German Chancellor Angela Merkel called on Israel to 'slow down' 'settlement construction' because - get this - the 'Palestinians' 'gave up' unilateralism at the United Nations.
The Wall Street Journal quoted
Merkel as saying following a meeting with Palestinian Authority
President Mahmoud Abbas, "We call on Israel to opt for a restrained
approach in its settlement policy. I have said this repeatedly in talks
with Prime Minister Netanyahu, because we must not put at risk the
talks."
...
Abbas called on Israel to match the Palestinians seriousness in peace talks.
"I
stress the Palestinian side is very earnestly trying to conduct these
talks despite the challenge of settlements. We should accept this
historic opportunity. We appeal to the Israeli side to seize this
chance," he said at the joint press conference with Merkel in Berlin.
Merkel
stated that the Palestinians had made an up-front concession by
suspending efforts for unilateral recognition at the United Nations and
Israel should match the concession by restraining settlement
construction.
Israel made an 'up-front concession' by releasing 104 terrorist murderers from jail. We did not commit to stopping 'settlement construction' and there is no way in the world we should stop.
When the 'peace talks' inevitably fail, who will be blamed
Like most of the legacy media, the Washington Post is already preparing to blame the 'settlements' for the inevitable failure of the current 'peace talks' between Israel and the 'Palestinians.'
In the past five years, the population of Jewish settlements in the
West Bank has grown by about 20 percent, and pro-settler politicians
have become major players in Israel’s government.
Here in the
West Bank, which Palestinians claim as a basis of their future state,
settlers have built museums, a full-fledged university, archaeological
parks, shopping malls, heritage sites and wine bars. The
impossible-to-miss message: These settlements are here to stay.
...
[T]he growth of the settlements presents a particularly thorny
challenge. About 340,000 to 360,000 people live in Jewish settlements in
the West Bank, according to Israeli government data. An additional
300,000 Jews live in East Jerusalem, which Palestinians claim as their
future capital.
Although there are still rugged encampments of
tents and trailers on isolated hilltops, manned by youths with extreme
views, many of the settlements in the West Bank have taken on the air of
middle-class permanence: comfortable villas of white stone and red-tile
roofs, landscaped with olive trees and date palms. They are the kind of
gated communities that look more Southern California than Holy Land.
“Settlement
life is a great life,” said Veronica Gareleck, who moved with her
husband and family to the Ofra settlement. She tends to guests who want
to sample some Psagot chardonnay at the Binyamin Regional Council’s
visitor center — a 15-minute drive and only one checkpoint north of
Jerusalem.
Economy Minister Naftali Bennett,
the third most powerful member of Netanyahu’s coalition, was formerly
the director general of the Yesha Council, an umbrella organization of
Jewish settlement councils.
“As negotiations get underway, we
will insist on continuing construction in Jerusalem and the West Bank,”
Bennett said at an event in the Shiloh settlement this month. “History
has taught us that building produces life, while dismantling settlements
produces terror.”
Indeed, unlike the last time that the Obama
administration launched Middle East peace talks — a short-lived effort
in 2010 — there is no settlement freeze this time around.
Kerry
announced Monday that veteran diplomat Martin Indyk will run the talks
for the United States. Indyk, who will take a leave from the Brookings
Institution, maintains deep contacts in the region, particularly among
Israeli officials.
In his 2009 memoir of the Clinton-era efforts to win a peace deal, “Innocent Abroad,”
Indyk wrote that “future presidents need to insist that during final
status negotiations all settlement activity be frozen, including in the
settlement blocs, unless it is done in agreement with the Palestinians.”
But most Israelis don't see the 'settlements' as the fundamental issue. Seth Mandel argues that Prime Minister Netanyahu, who was apparently given a choice of releasing terrorists, agreeing to negotiate based on the 1949 armistice lines or imposing a 'settlement freeze,' should have imposed the 'settlement freeze' because it's the easiest of the three choices to undo when negotiations collapse. He also argues that Netanyahu should not have to have met any preconditions at all.
It’s difficult to argue that freeing murderers is preferable to
freezing settlement building–and I don’t intend to argue it. Indeed, a
simple comparison between the Israeli public’s response to the previous
settlement freeze and its viscerally aggrieved reaction to the prisoner
release makes clear which is the more painful concession to Israeli
society.
But it should at least put in stark relief how silly and
counterproductive it is to have such preconditions in the first place.
It’s fair enough to criticize a prime minister for choosing the worst
among three terrible choices. But what does it say about the peace
process, and the American diplomatic role in these discussions, that
Israel was forced to choose between three terrible options in the first
place?
Freezing settlements as a precondition would be unjustifiable this
time around on its own; it only seems reasonable in light of the
possibility of freeing child murderers instead. But a settlement freeze
has been tried before, and the talks still went nowhere. Employing it as
a precondition yet again would be a cartoonishly impractical
suggestion. It would also predicate the negotiations on a false premise
by elevating settlements as a primary obstacle to peace. What do Western
negotiators think will be the result of talks based on a lie?
That we even have to ask the question is dispiriting enough. That
Netanyahu would be forced by American pressure to choose between freeing
murderers or basing negotiations on a lie that delegitimizes the status
of Jews, most of whom are on land that would be part of Israel in any
final deal, reflects terribly on Secretary of State John Kerry and the
administration he represents. And it only encourages stories like
today’s Washington Post feature that distort the reality of settlements and undermine the chances for true peace.
Coinciding
with Kerry’s efforts to jumpstart the negotiating process, Palestinian
president Mahmoud Abbas laid out part of his vision for a future
Palestinian state, before a group of mainly Egyptian journalists in
Cairo:.“In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands,”the Palestinian leader said.
If
Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the Jewish state plans to evict a
minority religious group from its territories, there would be no
shortage of outrage from the European Union and violence would likely
emerge from pro-Palestinian quarters.
Meanwhile, Abbas gets a free pass for bigotry.
The
incorrigibly reactionary view of Abbas’s is hardly surprising. It is
worth recalling the remarks of Maen Rashid Areikat, the Palestinian
envoy to the United States, back in 2011 in Washington. Commenting about
the presence of Jews in the disputed territories, he said, “Well, I personally still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated . . .”
...
The persecution of Christians in the West Bank has
intensified under the rule of the Palestinian Authority, too. Dexter Van
Zile, an expert on Christians in the Middle East, brought the case of
the Bethlehem pastor Reverend Naim Khoury and the First Baptist Church
to the fore; the Palestinian government ruled that the church lacks the religious authority to operate.
In short, Israel simply
does not have a meaningful negotiating partner. Palestinian society is
divided between the undemocratic, scandalously corrupt Palestinian Authority and the Muslim Brotherhood and Iranian-backed Hamas organization in Gaza.
Of course 'Palestinian' bigotry against anyone for any reason other than the fact that they are Jewish would not prevent a deal. But when you combine that bigotry with the undemocratic nature of 'Palestinian' society and the fact that a 'Palestinian state' would be sitting on the outskirts of Israel's major cities, one has to wonder why we are starting these 'negotiations' at all.
Kerry's 'peace' plan: More demands from the 'Palestinians' more concessions from Israel
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.
The London pan-Arabic daily al-Hayat revealed on Saturday the elements of US Secretary of State John Kerry's proposal to resume 'peace talks' between Israel and the 'Palestinians.'
According to the newspaper, which quoted an
unnamed Palestinian official, the secretary’s proposal will also focus
on revitalizing the Palestinian economy. This initiative seeks to boost
joint Palestinian-regional projects and involves investments from
private firms that will spur growth in industries like agriculture,
tourism, and construction. The plan also calls on Israel to authorize
Palestinian projects in Area C, which is under full Israeli security and
civil control.
...
Other sources in the report were quoted as
saying that the plan includes a pledge by Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu to publicly commit to negotiations using the model laid out by
US President Barack Obama during his visit to the region: two states
living side by side, on the basis of the 1967 lines with land swaps, as
well as a Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
...
The Palestinian team has, for now, demanded
the release of all 103 prisoners — not in phases, but at the same time —
and a full settlement construction freeze, and not just a freeze
outside the main blocs, for the duration of the talks, the Al-Hayat
report added, quoting another Palestinian source familiar with the plan.
Netanyahu has reportedly been willing to
release many of the pre-Oslo prisoners, most of whom have Israeli blood
on their hands, but in phases, fearing that Abbas would abandon the
negotiations if all the prisoners went free at the start. He also
reportedly agreed to several concessions in his 14 hours of talks during
Kerry’s last trip, including a construction freeze outside the major
West Bank settlement blocs and a slowing down of building in East
Jerusalem and inside the settlement blocs. Part of Kerry’s staff stayed
behind to work with the Palestinian team in Ramallah on its demands and
Israel’s responses.
I'm not sure what it matters when the 103 terrorists are going to be released. If the 'Palestinians' continue to give nothing at the table, but continue to show up, is Netanyahu going to be the one to 'end the talks' by refusing to release any more terrorists? Moreover, what is a 'slowing down' of building in 'east' Jerusalem? There is no construction in 'east' Jerusalem now.
If Netanyahu actually agreed to all this, maybe it's time for new elections. What could go wrong?
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
