Sen. Ted Cruz blames Palestinians for failed peace talks

By Lahav Harkov, JPOST

CruzAmerica has no business dictating terms on issues of vital national security to Israel, US Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a possible candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, said in the Knesset Monday.

He placed the blame on the Palestinians for the recent failure of peace talks, saying “the principal impediment to peace is that, to date, the Palestinians have refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and have refused to renounce terror.

“Unless and until the Palestinians can agree on those very basic starting blocks, no lasting peace solution is likely,” he stated.

Cruz described US President Barack Obama administration’s approach to Israel-Palestinian talks as “to criticize and harangue and pressure the Israeli government.”

“The US should stand with Israel,” the Texan senator, who sported black cowboy boots and a Lone Star belt-buckle, said.

“Terms of peace should not be dictated by outsiders,” Cruz explained. “America has a role facilitating negotiations, helping bring the parties together and providing a fair and neutral forum where booth sides can engage, if they wish, in good-faith negotiations, but any decisions about the terms of a peace deal should be made by Israel and the Palestinians.”

Settlements, for example, are “a question for the government of Israel,” said Cruz, who doesn’t “think it’s America’s role to try to impose a policy about where Israeli settlements are located and where they’re not.”

The senator was on a two-day trip to Israel, followed by Poland, Ukraine and Estonia, which is thought to be an attempt to boost his foreign policy bona-fides. He met with Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein, Economy Minister Naftali Bennett and opposition leader Isaac Herzog (Labor) in the Knesset.

Cruz maintained his call for US Secretary of State John Kerry to resign earlier this year for using the term “apartheid” in a doomsday prediction of what will happen to Israel if it does not make peace with the Palestinians.

For the secretary of state to use a loaded term like ‘apartheid’ with regard to Israel was grotesquely inaccurate and deeply harmful,” Cruz said.

“Those words will be repeated by enemies of Israel, by Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran, and all of them will say ‘this is not our characterization, these are the words of the US secretary of state.’” According to Cruz, Kerry’s comments were “part of a long string of foreign policy blunders, which have consistently alienated and abandoned our friends and allies, and embraced and appeased our enemies.”

One of the ways the Obama administration does that is to ignore laws about sending funds to foreign countries, Cruz explained, expressing concern that the president will find ways to continue to fund the Palestinian Authority despite the expected Fatah- Hamas coalition government.

US law forbids funding terrorist organizations, including Hamas.

“As long as Hamas embraces terrorism, they should not be receiving US taxpayer dollars.

Whether congress as a whole will agree is still an open question,” Cruz said. “It’s always a good prediction that people will look for loopholes, particularly those who want to continue funding regardless of changed circumstances.”

Cruz pointed to a law forbidding the US from sending funds to countries that have undergone a military coup, with which “the administration refused to comply and actively sought loopholes to get around it.

“One can make a powerful argument that it is a matter of public policy, supporting the new Egyptian government is far more in America’s interest than supporting the Muslim Brotherhood government,” the senator said, “but in my view, if we were going to do that, we should have changed the law.

“If the administration is willing to ignore current US law with regard to Egypt, no one should be surprised to see them willing to do the same with regard to Hamas,” he stated.

The senator added that he is not sure Republicans will fight against funding Hamas.

On Iran, Cruz said he agrees with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that the outcome of recent negotiations is “a historic mistake and a very bad deal.”

“The threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapon capabilities is the gravest national security threat faced by Israel and by the US,” he stated.

Cruz called to immediately reinstate and strengthen sanctions and make clear that they will only be lifted when Iran disassembles its centrifuges and hands over its enriched uranium.

“If there’s one principle from time immemorial it is that bullies and tyrants don’t respect weakness,” he said.

“Appeasement is a foolhardy strategy with regard to Iran and the president of the United States should make unequivocally clear that under no circumstances will Iran be allowed to acquire nuke weapons capability. It will either stop trying to develop that capability or we will stop it for them.”

Cruz said he is committed foremost to restoring American leadership in the world, saying that since Obama was elected, it had receded from that role and Iran, Russia and China had stepped in instead.

“The world has become a much more dangerous place,” Cruz warned. “The most frequent thing I hear from our allies across the globe is ‘Where is America? What happened to American leadership?’” Cruz posited that the US should “stand by its friends and allies and be resolute with those who would do us harm.”

As for Sheldon Adelson, owner of Israel’s most popular newspaper Yisrael Hayom and a major donor to GOP candidates and to Netanyahu, Cruz smiled when asked why he was not invited to the so-called “Adelson Primary” – to give a speech at an event the casino magnate attended and court his support for the 2016 primary.

“I like and respect Sheldon a great deal,” Cruz replied. “At this point, I’m not running for anything. I’m serving in the US Senate.”

Cruz also deftly dodged an issue that made New Jersey Governor Chris Christie stumble at the “Adelson Primary”: What does he call the land east of Jerusalem and west of the Jordan River?

“I’ll leave geography to the mapmakers,” Cruz quipped.

May 27, 2014 | 46 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

46 Comments / 46 Comments

  1. @ yamit82:

    “The subtext, of course, is that you shouldn’t leave it at wounding [the Prince]. . . . and that you shouldn’t set out in the first place without a high prior prospect of success.”

    “Define success? Success is defined by attaining the objectives of the mission.”

    Success is defined by attaining the objectives of the mission

    — while sustaining a minimum of casualties to one’s own men & materiel; infrastructure & interests. (With respect to which, Google: Pyrrhus of Epirus…)

    “Israel still could attack from Azerbaijan, Georgia, Saudi Arabia…”

    The Azeris are ok with this? (I recall them having had to do some fancy diplo footwork a couple yrs ago when word got out that they might have such an arrangement w/ GOI.)

    And the Georgians?

    “…or none of the above and attack through sirspace of the Saudis, Syria, Jordan/Iraq territories and we need not ask for permission as they would never know we over flew their space. You are still supposing we use the air-force for attacks and I say not necessarily so.”

    I’m still thinking about Fordow specifically.

    You’d said that a conventional bomb could make the initial penetration and then be followed by a tac nuke delivered via a cruise missile. I had gathered from this that you meant the initial penetration would be accomplished by a piloted plane.

    Are you saying, then, that this is not so?

    — and instead that BOTH actions — the initial shot AND the nuke chaser — would be delivered courtesy of Cruise Inc.?

    “I would destroy Iran’s sources of income which finance their nuke program, Syrian and Hezbollah proxies and Their Revolutionary guard, their command and control abilities and senior cadre, their military retaliatory capabilities and Industrial complex which builds the Missiles and Rockets.”

    I can’t deny that this is a worthy objective, long term — esp if it had been actively pursued until maybe 5 yrs ago (which it wasn’t; by anybody). At this juncture, however, it would appear that they’re too close to the goal posts to justify putting focus or resources on anything other than snatching the ball away.

    Or are you resigned to the Mullahs putting a completed nuke online

    “The problem is not the Nukes it’s the regime…”

    Well, of course.

    But disposing of it — REGARDLESS of how — could never (short of a ground war) be anything other than an inside job.

  2. yamit82 Said:

    Who do you think I am, Willy Wonka

    Front coming through, Loki ll always goes down for a while. It depends, Sugar, on how well you can wonk !!!!!!!

  3. @ yamit82:

    I have a friend ,who is a Captain in the USAAF, that I send your post too. As of now she is at Aveno,Italy taking special classes.

  4. dweller Said:

    Are we talking about the same thing here? (or are you off into those tired old double entendres again?)

    Take a double talker to know a double talker. I impressed you realized it. I took you for a bone head
    Oops bone head could that yet another double entendres ????? Stop me before I double entendres again !!!!!!!

  5. dweller Said:

    Perhaps the real question here should be, do YOU have the “goods” for staying on-point

    From your point of view, not bloody likely !!!!!!!!!

  6. dweller Said:

    n their nature, allow for no second chances. . . .

    I see no reason for discounting 2nd chances or a third or fourth.

    The subtext , of course, is that you shouldn’t leave it at wounding him. . . . and that you shouldn’t set out in the first place without a high prior prospect of success.

    Define success? Success is defined by attaining the objectives of the mission.

    The subtext , of course, is that you shouldn’t leave it at wounding him. . . . and that you shouldn’t set out in the first place without a high prior prospect of success.

    Not subtext it’s the main text. Again the mission must be rationally attainable and tailored to what is believed attainable. If only seriously wounding the enemy is attainable than it’s within the scope of the mission objectives.

    Any comparable improvement in the refueling capabilities of the planes that would be used for the initial penetration?

    Israel has produced her own mid air tankers by converting commercial airplanes for that purpose. Obama was supposed to have delivered additional air to air refueling planes. I assume this was done otherwise it would have been reported and I haven’t seen any complaints of non compliance by Israel. Israel still could attack from Azerbaijan, Georgia, Saudi Arabia or none of the above and attack through sirspace of the Saudis, Syria, Jordan/Iraq territories and we need not ask for permission as they would never know we over flew their space. You are still supposing we use the air-force for attacks and I say not necessarily so.

    A lot if not most depends on the mission objectives. You are making assumptions with no basis again!!!!

    I would destroy Iran’s sources of income which finance their nuke program, Syrian and Hezbollah proxies and Their Revolutionary guard, their command and control abilities and senior cadre, their military retaliatory capabilities and Industrial complex which builds the Missiles and Rockets. The problem is not the Nukes it’s the regime…Israel cannot destroy their intellectual property which can always be used to reconstitute in time any destruction we or even the Americans could inflict on them

    Israel’s Air Force Capabilities to Increase 400%
    According to the Israel Air Force chief, the IDF’s offensive capabilities will quadruple by the end of 2014. In a single day, Israeli planes can strike thousands of terror targets and exceed the IDF’s achievements during extended operations

  7. @ honeybee:

    “I was INDEED paying attention”

    “Your so poor you can’t pay attention”

    “Au contraire: I’m so poor (these days) that attention is all I can pay. It was [yamit] that was apparently unable to pay attention — too angry to have the patience for it.”

    “That is obvious…”

    What is ‘obvious’?”

    “… you can’t pay attention.”

    “Oh, but I can — and I do.”

    “Show me, Cowboy !”

    “Why?”

    “Ahhhhhhhh you don’t have the goods?”

    Don’t have the “goods” for WHAT? — for paying attention?

    Attention to what?

    (to YOU?)

    Are we talking about the same thing here? (or are you off into those tired old double entendres again?)

    If we ARE talking about the same thing, then the evidence is more than ample that I can pay attention

    — paying attention IS, after all, what staying on-point is all about. . . .

    Perhaps the real question here should be, do YOU have the “goods” for staying on-point?

  8. @ yamit82:

    “One concept is we use the [conventional bombs] we have to penetrate as far as they can followed by a tactical nuke which should do the job even better than the big one.”

    “Yes, that’s precisely what I was referring to when I said you’d discussed creative options before. However, it sounds very Buck Rogers, and until it’s been tested out first, it will continue to have the aura of a pipedream about it.”

    “Accuracy of modern cruise missiles for example is they can put a missile through a 3rd story window of a building from a standoff of a hundred miles. Jericho 3 is considered to be high accurate. No Buck rodgers we are doing much the same in every combat attack…”

    Sounds quite good if its precision is that reliable — as there are some kinds of undertakings which, in their nature, allow for no second chances. . . .

    “Never wound the Prince.”

    He doesn’t say you shouldn’t attack the Prince; only that you shouldn’t ‘wound’ him.

    The subtext , of course, is that you shouldn’t leave it at wounding him. . . . and that you shouldn’t set out in the first place without a high prior prospect of success.

    Any comparable improvement in the refueling capabilities of the planes that would be used for the initial penetration?

    Residual overfly issues? — would there still be the problems of getting ‘permission,’ etc?

  9. dweller Said:

    Yes, that’s precisely what I was referring to when I said you’d discussed creative options before. However, it sounds very Buck Rogers, and until it’s been tested out first, it will continue to have the aura of a pipedream about it.

    Accuracy of modern cruise missiles for example is they can put a missile through a 3rd story window of a building from a standoff of a hundred miles. Jericho 3 is considered to be high accurate. No Buck rodgers we are doing much the same in every combat attack and we have improved our strike capability to over 400 % since the 2nd Lebanon war. Modern ordinance allows it with direct Sat targeting.

    According to the Israel Air Force chief, the IDF’s offensive capabilities will quadruple by the end of 2014. In a single day, Israeli planes can strike thousands of terror targets and exceed the IDF’s achievements during extended operations.

    Major General Amir Eshel, Commander of the Israel Air Force, spoke last week at the Tenth Annual Conference for National Security on the contribution of air power to Israel’s strategic capabilities. Maj. Gen. Eshel discussed the air force’s attack and defensive capabilities during times of war and routine operations.

    “I believe our capabilities are only second to the United States – from both an offensive and defensive standpoint,” the IAF commander said, referring to a significant leap in capabilities over the past two years. The commander based his assessment on an evaluation of IDF abilities and conversations with officials from foreign militaries.

    http://www.idfblog.com/2014/05/27/unprecedented-strength-air-israels-capabilities-increase-400/

  10. @ honeybee:

    “I was INDEED paying attention”

    “Your so poor you can’t pay attention”

    Au contraire:
    I’m so poor (these days) that attention is all I can pay.

    It was he that was apparently unable to pay attention — too angry to have the patience for it.

  11. @ yamit82:

    “What would it take for IAI to develop a full-out bunker buster — 30,000-lb MOP (and suitable carrier), capable of taking out Fordow?”

    “You as usual are not paying attention or are you really naturally obtuse? Israel could develop a Big bertha if they haven’t already but they are very expensive and we don’t have the planes powerful enough to use them.. They are just too heavy for what we got.”

    I was INDEED paying attention. That’s WHY my orig. question specifically included the detail “and a suitable carrier.”

    “One concept is we use the ones we have to penetrate as far as they can followed by a tactical nuke which should do the job even better than the big one.”

    Yes, that’s precisely what I was referring to when I said you’d discussed creative options before. However, it sounds very Buck Rogers, and until it’s been tested out first, it will continue to have the aura of a pipedream about it.

    “I also said by bringing millions of tons of debris of the mountain on the site means you can’t get out or in…”

    Yes, I HAD noted that at the time when you said it. But if you really think that all the trouble they must have gone to in preparation of the site didn’t INCLUDE a variety of alternative access & egress provisions, then you’re kidding yourself.

    “PS if you are hoping for and anticipating your messiahs return pls [don’t] hold your breath. “

    PS You truly ARE paranoid (I’m serious, literal; not being hyperbolic here, for effect). My question to you had had absolutely NOTHING of the apocalyptic about it by way of inspiration OR espression. The messianic thing is strictly the product of your OWN perfervid imagination.

    “He is dead…”

    Has never BEEN dead except for a few hours in another dimension during Pesach in roughly AD 30.

    “… dead and never coming back for you, sucker.”

    Doesn’t HAVE to come back for ME.

    As far as YoursTruly is concerned, he never left.

    OTOH, if mine DOESN’T come back for me, then YOURS will never come at all for you

    — as they are one-and-the-same.

  12. You as usual are not paying attention or are you really naturally obtuse????

    Israel could develop a Big bertha if they haven’t already but they are very expensive and we don’t have the planes powerful enough to use them.. They are just too heavy for what we got. One concept is we use the ones we have to penetrate as far as they can followed by a tactical nuke which should do the job even better than the big one. Added benefit to such a plan it would render the site useless in the future due to radiation.

    I also said by bringing millions of tons of debris of the mountain on the site means you can’t get out or in and would finish off all who are inside especially if radiation seeps in.

    There is no doubt that Israel to accomplish such a mission would have to use Nukes (low yield types) accurately delivered… That said, as Long as BB is PM Israel will never never attack Iran, of this I’m sure.

    Living with Iran: Israel’s Strategic Imperative
    In response to the almost inevitable Iranian nuclear bomb, Israel must suitably integrate a clear nuclear deterrence posture with multi-layered active defenses.

    PS if you are hoping for and anticipating your messiahs return pls hold your breath. He is dead… dead and never coming back for you, sucker. 😛

  13. @ yamit82:

    “What would it take for IAI to develop a full-out bunker buster — 30,000-lb MOP (and suitable carrier), capable of taking out Fordow?”

    “Israel Is Set To Receive 5,000 US Bunker Buster Bombs After Delaying Its Attack On Iran.”

    This was from 2012, and those were BLU-109’s (2000 pounders) and GBU-39’s (precision capable) but neither capable of handling Fordow, which is

    — as far DOWN as a football field is LONG. . . .

    “Israel already produces Bunker buster Bombs using advanced technology rendering them lighter and payloads with extended punch. Video: Israel Tests Its Own Bunker Buster Bomb… Israel has developed and tested its own bunker buster bomb, described as ‘a very credible military option,’ to use against Iran.”

    This stuff may have its value in assaulting other sites, and in an attack on Iran generally, but I was referring to taking out Fordow specifically
    : busting thru 80 meters of rock & concrete is a bite of a whole ‘nuther bagel, pancho.

    “A 1/2 to 1 kt tactical nuke little radiation and short half life. can be delivered by cruise missile from a submarine or Jericho rocket IAF Jet fired from a safe ddistance and even by commando attack.”

    Penetrative capacity?

    “many options. Fortifications buried deep under mountains can be buried under the debris of the mountain blown to hell too. Dropping a dirty bomb on each site would render them inaccessible and useless for a 100 years. EMP attack would destroy Iran’s capability to retaliate and set them back 500 years. Destroying their oil fields would ensure they never recover economically and militarily.”

    Yes; we talked about this kind of thing about 18 months ago — creative approaches to Tehran, etc. — including some improvisatory ideas you mentioned for IAF to improve on limited penetration, and so on.

    However, my question [above] was focused explicitly on whether Israel could develop the capacity (and if so, how soon) to produce an MOP capable of taking out Fordow. And that would be a 30,000 pounder, carrying well over 5300 lbs of explosive

    — as indicated in the same article you linked to (but those were NOT part of what was provided for Israel at the time).

    A beast like that would have to complete its penetration BEFORE detonating.

    What’re the prospects for producing it in Israel?

  14. dweller Said:

    What would it take for IAI to develop a full-out bunker buster — 30,000-lb MOP (and suitable carrier), capable of taking out Fordow?

    A 1/2 to 1 kt tactical nuke little radiation and short half life. can be delivered by cruise missile from a submarine or Jericho rocket IAF Jet fired from a safe ddistance and even by commando attack. many options. Fortifications buried deep under mountains can be buried under the debris of the mountain blown to hell too. Dropping a dirty bomb on each site would render them inaccessible and useless for a 100 years. EMP attack would destroy Iran’s capability to retaliate and set them back 500 years. Destroying their oil fields would ensure they never recover economically and militarily. Russia would not be unhappy about it either. They expect us to do it in any case.

    Israel already produces Bunker buster Bombs using advanced technology rendering them lighter and payloads with extended punch.
    Video: Israel Tests Its Own Bunker Buster Bomb

    Israel Is Set To Receive 5,000 US Bunker Buster Bombs After Delaying Its Attack On Iran

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-sale-of-5000-bunker-buster-bombs-to-israel-israel-bunker-busters-in-exchange-for-not-striking-iran-2012-12#ixzz333tlqXXh

    Israel has developed and tested its own bunker buster bomb, described as “a very credible military option,” to use against Iran.

  15. @ yamit82:

    “Egyptian aid is thus predicated upon Israel receiving aid.”

    And vice versa?

    — Is it strictly a package deal?

    “Israel within three years should phase out that aid…”

    Why THREE yrs specifically?

    “… and that would leave Egypt hanging unless a new agreement is made bilaterally. Not so sure Congress would approve.”

    I’m not so sure either.

    What would it take for IAI to develop a full-out bunker buster — 30,000-lb MOP (and suitable carrier), capable of taking out Fordow?

  16. dweller Said:

    Another argument for removing all Camp David-based military assistance from the Foreign Aid budget and placing it under Defense (like NATO aid). That way, ANY armament that goes to anybody will be that much more apparent and have to be justified strictly on its own merits.

    Israeli and Egyptian military aid is based on the Camp “David Agreements” Which America is a signatory and guarantor to those agreements. Egyptian aid is thus predicated upon Israel receiving aid. Israel within three years should phase out that aid and that would leave Egypt hanging unless a new agreement is made bilaterally. Not so sure Congress would approve. Russia won’t and can’t supply for free arms sufficient to replace America and Egypt is more dependent on American arms than is Israel. They don’t have the money to make their own or buy from Russia China or any other supplier and then it would take ten-twenty years to change over from American. Don’t see it happening. Don’t know how long the Saudis will be willing to hold back the sea from crashing Egypt. It’s a hole with no bottom and the Saudis have always proven to be unreliable financial supporters.

  17. @ yamit82:

    “Want peace? Stop supplying the Arabs with advanced weapons and systems.”

    We’re agreed on that.

    “Egypt needed food fuel and foreign currency not F-16?s that will eventually be turned against Israel.”

    Another argument for removing all Camp David-based military assistance from the Foreign Aid budget and placing it under Defense (like NATO aid). That way, ANY armament that goes to anybody will be that much more apparent and have to be justified strictly on its own merits.

  18. dweller Said:

    Abrams Tanks

    Strange Egypt produces Abrams tanks under licence. Egypt needed food fuel and foreign currency not F-16’s that will eventually be turned against Israel. Giving them weapons supports American Industry and helps keep unemployment down and corporate profits up. Obamas aid package was in conformance with long standing American policy of keeping the arms race robust and weakening Israel. Supplying the Arabs forces Israel to spend 50% more to maintain a qualitative edge. Want peace? Stop supplying the Arabs with advanced weapons and systems.

  19. “One can make a powerful argument that it is a matter of public policy, supporting the new Egyptian government is far more in America’s interest than supporting the Muslim Brotherhood government,” the senator said, “but in my view, if we were going to do that, we should have changed the law.

    Wouldn’t be necessary to change the law if we’d cut off funding when the Morsi-Muslim Brotherhood govt came to power. Instead we gave ’em F-16’s & Abrams Tanks & lotsa bucks.

    Notwithstanding all the hype to the contrary, there was nothing democratic about THAT election either. There is no way that an election whose Elections Commission is permitted (as this one was) to decide on ideological grounds who may or may not run may rightly be called ‘democratic.’


  20. Israel reportedly adopting pro-settler study

    Government said to be embracing some provisions of report that recommended relaxing settlement building restrictions

    Israel is adopting certain recommendations of a report that claims Israel is not occupying the West Bank, according to an unsourced report in an Israeli newspaper Tuesday.

    The government-commissioned Report on the Legal Status of Building in Judea and Samaria, authored by former Supreme Court Judge Edmond Levy in July 2012 and often referred to as the Levy Report, says that Israel is not an occupying power in the West Bank.

    Based on that conclusion, the report recommended relaxing building restrictions for Israeli settlers.

  21. It ain’t over till ….???

    Hamas Talks to US, “Senses Change in US Position”

    There’s no change at all. The only question is how the new Hamas-PLO government will be repackaged as Israel’s mandatory peace partners by Obama Inc.

    A Palestinian terror government

    According to unconfirmed reports from Washington, the U.S. intends to recognize the Palestinian unity government when it is established, even if Hamas does not accept the Quartet’s conditions (recognition of Israel, cessation of terror and adherence to past Israeli-Palestinian agreements). The official excuse will be that the Palestinian government will be one comprised of “technocrats,” that is to say experts, not political figures. This argument is not exactly convincing, as half of the ministers will be appointed by Hamas, a group that the U.S. itself has defined as a terrorist organization. The practical result is that the U.S. will ipso facto become a dialogue partner with a terrorist government.

  22. ppksky Said:

    Ted Cruz, like Barak Obama, are shills propped in the US to undermine the foundations of our constitution, its laws and our political culture.

    What the hell are you saying?

  23. Ted Cruz, like Barak Obama, are shills propped in the US to undermine the foundations of our constitution, its laws and our political culture. US citizenship is not something you get for free with a Big Mac. Get Cruz and people like him OUT of US government. Get them OUT of the country.

    US citizenship is for those born of parents who are BOTH US citizens.

  24. @ Bear Klein: I believe that he is a friend. He also attended a gathering of Christians United for Israel (www.cufi.org). Other potential GOP candidates did not attend.

  25. “What does he call the land east of Jerusalem and west of the Jordan river?”

    “COMMUNITIES”