Sunday, November 10, 2013

Kerry Scolds Israel

Kerry Blames Israel for Lack of Progress - Raphael Ahren

We all got a much better look at what John Kerry really thinks about progress - and blame - in the new peace effort he worked so strenuously to revive. In a joint interview with Israel's Channel 2 TV and the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation, Kerry basically blamed the Israeli government for stealing the Palestinians' land.

Kerry seemed to place the blame for the failure to make rapid and major progress in negotiations overwhelmingly on Israel, with no acknowledgement of two intifadas, relentless anti-Israel incitement in the Palestinian territories, the Hamas takeover of Gaza and the constant rocket fire from the Strip.

In lamenting the IDF's presence in the West Bank, Kerry positioned himself directly opposite Netanyahu, for whom an ongoing Israeli security presence in the Jordan Valley is a stated crucial condition for an agreement. He showed no evident concern over the danger of a Hamas takeover in the West Bank were the IDF to withdraw.

His line of thinking reflects much international conventional wisdom on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - the assumption that Israel could attain peace with the Palestinians if only it wanted to, but that it just doesn't want to enough. 

Israelis counter that Israel cannot impose terms on a Palestinian leadership that still demands a "right of return" that would constitute suicide for the Jewish state. Israel is only too aware of how easily the relative calm could deteriorate, and thus is wary of relinquishing territory to a Palestinian leadership that might not be in a position to retain power and honor any accord amid sweeping regional instability.
(Times of Israel)

Ya'alon: Palestinian Claims Don't End at 1967 Lines - Mitch Ginsburg

Regarding the prospect of solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon said, "We are handling an open-ended and ongoing conflict, which from the Palestinian perspective does not end with the 1967 borders." Depicting Palestinian society as unwaveringly attached to Sheikh Munis and Majdal - the Arab names for the Israeli cities of Tel Aviv and Ashkelon - and Palestinian youth as educated to believe that Akko and Haifa are Palestinian ports, he said, "There's a situation here that does not have a solution now, but in the long term."

"There are those who know and explain to us what the solution is, and they know how to reach it in a short period of time. There are some who say this conflict is only territorial, that it began in '67 and will end along the '67 lines, but I haven't heard any Palestinian leadership, including [Abbas], say that it is willing to consider any territorial concession as an end to the conflict and a culmination of claims, and to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people." 
(Times of Israel)


The demise of Pax Americana -Caroline Glick

It is hard to separate the rise in terrorist activity since Kerry's remarks last week with his remarks. What greater carte blanche for murder could the Palestinians have received than the legitimization of their crimes by the chief diplomat of Israel's closest ally?

Kerry's threats were so obscene and unprecedented that Israeli officials broke with tradition and disagreed with him openly directly, while he was still in the country. Normally supportive leftist commentators have begun reporting Kerry's history of anti-Israel advocacy, including his 2009 letter of support for pro-Hamas activists organizing flotillas to Gaza in breach of international and American law.

Of course, it wasn't Iran that rejected the American surrender. And it wasn't America that scuttled the proposal. It was France. Unable to hide behind American power and recognizing its national interest in preventing Iran from emerging as a nuclear armed power in the Middle East, France vetoed deal that paved the way a nuclear Iran.

Kerry's failure to reach the hoped-for deal represented a huge blow to America, and a double victory for Iran. The simple fact that Washington was willing to sign the deal — and lie about it to its closest allies — caused the US to lose its credibility in the Middle East. Even without the deal, the US paid the price of appeasing Iran and surrendering leadership of the free world to France and Israel.

Americans uninterested in surrendering their role as global leader to the likes of Tehran's ayatollahs, Russia's KGB state and Mao's successors, must take immediate steps mitigate the damage Obama is causing. Congress could step in to clip his radical wings.

If enough Democrats can be convinced to break ranks with Obama and the Democratic Party's donors, Congress can pass veto-proof additional sanctions against Iran. These sanctions can only be credible with America's spurned allies if they do not contain any presidential waiver that would empower Obama to ignore the law.

What Congressional steps can do is send a message to US allies and adversaries alike that Obama's radical actions do not represent the wishes of the American people and will not go unanswered by their representatives in Congress.
[Jewish World Review]

Lost Cause in Geneva - Ari Shavit

You want the real truth? The Americans are worn out.

Going to Geneva is an effort to postpone the end, so that a nuclear Iran doesn't emerge now, on Barack Obama's watch, but immediately afterward.

But what the Americans haven't taken into account is: Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Israel. These countries now feel cheated, betrayed and threatened.


LHwrites said...

I have read more balanced views if this exchange. There is no doubt that the West seems to put more pressure on Israel. they obviously think they are the more reasonable and responsible party, but they are incorrect if they think they can bring about peace on their own. However, actions speak louder than words. The Palestinians, through there actions, make it clear that they still value violence against Israel over peace. But Netanyahu, by allowing further settlement, is "saying" we don't really expect to ever have peace, and you will never get these lands. The actions of both parties makes it clear that neither is working towards, or expecting, a resolution.

Bruce said...

I don't think building on already existing settlements [that everyone knows will continue to be part of Israel following a peace agreement] is a communication by Netanyahu that he isn't serious. Every Prime Minister [left and right] including Rabin, allowed such construction.