President Obama reportedly has made no fewer than 13 demands upon Israel for concessions to jump start peace talks with the Palestinians, including release of 1,000 terrorist prisoners held in Israeli jails. It gets even worse, as Obama's New Mideast War heats up....
The Guardian reports on a leaked assessment of President Obama from a Netanyahu insider (which Bibi denies, but he has to, and it rings true). It cites a Jewish newspaper in Israel:
After stating that Obama and Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, had "adopted a patently Palestinian line" the source said:
"We're talking about something that is diseased and insane....The situation is catastrophic. We have a problem with a very, very hostile administration. There's never been anything like this before. This president wants to establish the Palestinian state and he wants to give them Jerusalem … You could say Obama is the greatest disaster for Israel, a strategic disaster."
Former Mideast senior official Elliott Abrams identifies five Mideast peace lessons ignored by Team Obama. Specifically, Abrams writes: 1. Israel’s flexibility is dependent on its sense of security. 2. The failure to set standards for Palestinian conduct hurts the cause of peace. 3. Israeli withdrawals do not lead to peace unless law and order can be maintained by responsible security forces. 4. The Israeli-Palestinian dispute is not the center of world, Arab, or Muslim politics. 5. The ‘peace process’ retards peace.
Abrams notes the "unprecedented snub" that the White House & State inflicted upon Israeli PM Netanyahu, and dissects Hillary's one-sided performance at the AIPAC conference:
For her part, Secretary Clinton told the giant AIPAC meeting, “Our credibility in this process depends in part on our willingness to praise both sides when they are courageous, and when we don’t agree, to say so, and say so unequivocally.” Several recent Palestinian actions, she said, were “provocations” that are “wrong and must be condemned.” That was nice, but saying it to a Jewish audience in a kiss-and-make-up session in Washington fools no one, not after her famous 43-minute telephone call to Netanyahu. These “provocations . . . that must be condemned” (note the passive voice) did not after all elicit a timely call to Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas condemning them, nor did she use the Quartet meeting in Moscow on March 19 for that purpose.
Abrams provides detailed examples of the pernicious double standard applied to Israeli versus Palestinian actions. One example, the text under Point 2:
In the Bill Clinton years, the foreign leader who visited the White House most often was Yasser Arafat—13 times. Who can blame Arafat for failing to take seriously criticism of his “alleged links” to terrorism when the invitations kept on coming? For years, American officials of both parties have said the “incitement must end,” but they have imposed no penalty for its failure to end. When in March the Palestinian Authority (PA) named a square for a terrorist involved in an attack in 1978 that killed 38 Israelis, including 13 children, Obama, Biden, and Clinton were silent. Lower-ranking officials tut-tutted. In Palestinian society, the veneration of this terrorist, Dalal Mughrabi, is widespread; Fatah, not Hamas, is the one celebrating Mughrabi. PA radio and television incite hatred of Israel and Jews with regularity, as Palestinian Media Watch and MEMRI document every month.
In recent weeks the Obama administration has stated that both sides have responsibilities to meet, but it made no serious demands of the PA. Had there been early and regular insistence that incitement end, the Mughrabi incident would never have taken place. The price for such negligence is being paid in both Israeli and Palestinian society: Every such action and every vicious broadcast helps persuade Israelis that Palestinians do not truly seek peace and helps raise a new generation of Palestinians who see Jews as enemies to hate, not neighbors with whom to reach an accommodation. This infantilization of Palestinian society, moreover, moves it further from the responsibilities of statehood, for it holds harmless the most destructive elements of West Bank life and suggests that standards of decency are not necessarily part of progress toward “peace.”A tough demand that all the incitement end now—no more terrorist squares, a clean-up of Palestinian broadcasting, the replacement of offending school textbooks—would both help Palestinian moderates undertake these actions and reassure Israelis that President Obama shares at least some of their concerns about the ability of Palestinians to negotiate and sustain a peace deal. The silence thus far, the unconvincing and rote handling of this issue, leaves the impression that Obama simply wants a deal signed and doesn’t much care about what happens after that. Like his distancing himself from Israel and his apparent lack of concern for Israeli security, this undermines any chance of successful peace talks.
Of Islamists & the peace process, Abrams eviscerates Team Obama's claim that they are related:
Israelis listening to official American remarks hear an amateurish interpretation of Arab politics, which as Lee Smith reminded us in his recent book (quoting bin Laden himself) is basically about backing the strong horse. Arab leaders want to know what we will do to stop Iran; they want to know if their ally in Washington is going to be the top power in the region. Israelis wonder where the “uh oh, this will make Islamic extremists angry” argument stops. Does anyone think al Qaeda or the Taliban would be mollified by a settlement freeze? The Islamists are not interested in “1967 issues” related to Israel’s size, but in “1948 issues” related to Israel’s existence. If henceforth we mean to engage such people rather than to defeat them, Israel’s existence—not its settlement policy—comes into play.
Abrams's 5-pager merits a full read. Last June 25 Abrams had another op-ed in the WSJ, recounting the precise understanding regarding "natural growth settlements" Bush 43 reached with Israel, refuting SecState Hillary Clinton's claims to the contrary. Ace diplomat John Bolton said that the nasty White House reception is due to a deep & irreconcilable division between Obama & Netanyahu: Obama believes that the Palestinian problem is the key to Mideast progress, while Netanyahu believes stopping Iran's nuclear quest is. Put simply, there is no bridging this gap. Thus, Israel will not offer any nuclear program concessions at the upcoming (May) Nuclear Security Summit in DC.
Also note re Jerusalem issues that in the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act (1995) the US recognized Jerusalem as a united city under Israeli rule, and committed to move its Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Act passed the House 374-37 & the Senate 93-5. The move was to be completed by May 31, 1999, but the President is allowed to waive the requirement "if he determines and reports to Congress in advance that such suspension is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States." Thus the embassy move remains unconsummated, eternally hostage to peace process hopes.
Haaretz reports that the Obama administration intends to impose a settlement by blocking direct talks, breaking longtime commitments made the Israelis and egging on allies to ratchet up pressure on Israel. On Fox News report from Jerusalem even said Obama may refuse to use the US veto in the UN Security Council to block blatantly anti-Israeli resolutions, further increasing international pressure. All this is to force a final settlement of all issues within two years.
Hillary fantasizes that China will help re Iran. In his Jerusalem Post column, David Horovitz captures the yawning gulf between Team Obama and Israel:
For all its honey coating, the secretary of state’s speech was replete with advice and demands that rang awkwardly, and worse, in the Israeli prime minister’s circle. She lectured on the untenability of the status quo, as though this was news to Israel. She urged Israelis, like their ancestors leaving Egypt, to take risks and seek new avenues to peace, as though Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert had not sought compromise and been rebuffed. She disingenuously misidentified Hamas, rather than Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah, as the prime force behind the honoring of the perpetrator of the Coastal Road massacre with a square in al-Bireh.
But it was the two sentences on those ostensibly shared Netanyahu and Abbas “paths” that fell flattest of all.
If only, was the bitter response to the top American diplomat’s assertion that Abbas had placed the Palestinians firmly on that peaceful route. In Binyamin Netanyahu’s view, underlined by his public comments during this fraught visit to the US, the Palestinians haven’t shown the slightest readiness to progress.
The Israel-US dispute may have exploded over 1,600 homes in Ramat Shlomo, it may be rumbling on viciously around the incendiary wider issue of any and all Israeli building in east Jerusalem, but it is essentially rooted in this stark difference of perception between Jerusalem and Washington as to the Palestinian Authority’s peace-making readiness and intentions.
Succinctly put, the thrust of Clinton’s speech, and of the succession of Netanyahu’s meetings with the secretary, with Vice President Joe Biden and, most crucially and problematically with President Barack Obama, reflected Washington’s contention that Abbas wants a deal, that he is ready to make the compromises necessary to forge one, and that Israel’s vital interests mandate that it does all that it possibly can to ensure the deal is done. Ironically, for an administration so starkly hostile to most everything it inherited from the Bush administration, one of the very few channels of continuity is the insistent belief that an accord with the Palestinian Authority beckons.
For the Israeli leadership – encompassing not just Netanyahu but Defense Minister Ehud Barak as well – this assessment is unfathomable.
In Washington’s eyes, Abbas can be forgiven for spurning Olmert’s “take it all” offer because the outgoing prime minister was a lame duck, and who knew whether a successor Israeli government would honor any hurriedly signed principles of an accord? In the contrary view of the now-very-tight Netanyahu-Barak partnership, an Abbas who truly wanted a deal would have been begging for the opportunity to put his name alongside Olmert’s, desperate to sign on to the unprecedented territorial offer, ready to challenge the next Israel coalition to honor the terms, and poised to run to the international community in injured protest if such a successor tried to evade the prior commitments.
DH notes that 2009 was the first year of no direct talks since 1993!!!! Whose policy changed in 2009? Ours. So chalk up to the One's grand accomplishments killing Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
At TAS, George Neumayr gives the back-story of Barack-Bibi last week. Re Jerusalem housing, Team Obama had been fully briefed on Israel's position:
More importantly, according to the former Israeli UN ambassador Dan Gillerman, development in East Jerusalem has never been considered by Netanyahu and Israel's right wing as part of the settlement phase of "land for peace."
Biden had been briefed on this; Obama had been briefed on this; Hillary Clinton had been briefed.
As to Iran, Barack told Bibi that the Palestinians are the key:
This fantastical idea has evolved out of the strong White House belief that Iran can be cajoled into an agreement on nuclear weapon development if only the Palestine "problem" was solved. Any action appearing to inhibit the current campaign to bring Israel and Palestine closer is perceived by President Barack Obama as contrary to his plan to prevent Iran from "going nuclear." Contrary to the oft-stated theme of keeping the military option on the table, the Obama Administration is committed to avoiding a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear development targets.
The key to the Obama strategy (as reportedly explained to PM Netanyahu) is the expectation that there is a real possibility that the current Iranian clerical regime will be overthrown and replaced with a secular republic that that will include perhaps only a clerically dominated judiciary. All that is needed for the Obama plan to work is time, he told Netanyahu.
Bibi pushed back:
And here is where Obama's recent conflict with Bibi Netanyahu comes in. Netanyahu's real purpose in meeting with the U.S. president was to explain Israeli thinking on the need for and possible timing of an Israeli strike on Iran. From the Israeli standpoint the new developments in East Jerusalem were an unimportant side show, and Israeli estimates of the ability of the Iranians to have nuclear weapons is at most by the end of this year.
Obama's view was firmly anchored in the importance of the peace talks while Netanyahu was equally adamant and unmoving in disagreement. He said quite clearly that Israel has to plan on using its military power to prevent the Persian attack. Well-informed sources in the Israeli PM's camp indicated that while repeating the pledge of United States commitment to Israel's defense in perpetuity, the American leader tried to use verbal strong-arm tactics to challenge the position of Israel's American-educated, former IDF special forces officer-turned professional politician prime minister. This was definitely the wrong thing to do.
THEN the President threw his childish tantrum and went to dine with family.
Mideast ace Barry Rubin sees Obama following a "single-payer option" Mideast strategy: Make Israel alone pay for the region's problems and solve them by paying more. Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch asks where NY senators Chuck Schumer & Kirstin Gillibrand have been during the blow-up; the answer, alas, is silent. WSJ pundit Bret Stephens sees Western culture as the target of Muslim rage, not Israeli settlements, in a witty, perceptive column. In the UK, pressure is building to curtail arms exports to Israel, on the grounds that UK products were used in the 2008-2009 Gaza War.
An article in Jewish World Review reveals the full extent of separation from Israel Team Obama is making. First, diplomatically:
....Last May, National Security Advisor James Jones conveyed to a senior European official that "an endgame solution" would be formulated by the U.S., EU, and moderate Arab states, with Israel and the Palestinians relegated to the role of bystanders. He happily allowed that Israel would "not be thrown under the bus."
For the Obama administration, pressure on Israel is win-win. Even if the president fails to deliver a Palestinian state, the administration's evident hostility creates "the space" Obama told Jewish leaders last July he seeks between the United States and Israel.....
Second, militarily, altering the regional balance in Arabs' favor:
On the substantive ledger, Israel's quantitative military edge has been allowed to wither: According to the Jewish Instititute [sic] for National Security Affairs (JINSA), every Israeli request for upgraded weapons systems since Obama took office has been denied, while the Arab states, most notably Egypt, have been provided with numerous advanced systems on par with Israel's. Most recently, bunker busters necessary for any Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities were diverted. The only foreign policy agreement the current administration has succeeded in securing was a statement two weeks ago by the Quartet two weeks ago condemning Israeli building in Jerusalem. (A treaty with Russia to reduce nuclear arsenals, as French President Sarkozy dismissively pointed out to Obama, is profoundly unserious while rogue states like Iran and North Korea edge ever closer to going fully nuclear.)
Perhaps Obama's nasty view of Israel is best captured in a Dry Bones 'When Bibi Met Obama" cartoon. I would put it this way: How come President Obama comes down like a ton of bricks on Israeli PM Netanyahu over Jewish housing but makes nice with Afghan President Hamid Karzai when asking him to curb the corruption that is undermining America's Afghan project?
Bottom Line. Team Obama juxtaposes harsh slamming of Israel with feeble tut-tutting of the Palestinians. Israelis and Palestinians will both take notice. Israel now has an adversary in the White House & at the State Department. Palestinians see a pal & patsy, and will push for maximal gains at Israel's expense. Such will not produce a peace accord consistent with Israel's security and which Palestinians will honor.
Letter from the Capitol, LFTC, 9/11, National Security, Foreign Policy, UN, Conservative Politics
Comments