Had Obama not supported ’67 lines plus swaps, Israel would not now be painted as the bad guy. Ted Belman
In anonymous briefing to top columnist, members of Kerry’s team slam Netanyahu, empathize with Abbas, warn Palestine will rise ‘whether through violence or via int’l organizations’
American officials directly involved in the failed Israeli-Palestinian peace process over the last nine months gave a leading Israeli columnist a withering assessment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s handling of the negotiations, indicated that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has completely given up on the prospect of a negotiated solution, and warned Israel that the Palestinians will achieve statehood come what may — either via international organizations or through violence.
Speaking on condition of anonymity to Nahum Barnea, a prominent columnist from Israel’s best-selling daily Yedioth Aharonoth, the officials highlighted Netanyahu’s ongoing settlement construction as the issue “largely to blame” for the failure of Secretary of State John Kerry’s July 2013-April 2014 effort to broker a permanent peace accord.
They made plain that US President Barack Obama had been prepared to release spy-for-Israel Jonathan Pollard to salvage the talks. And they warned that “the world will not keep tolerating the Israeli occupation.”
Barnea, who described his conversations with the American officials as “the closest thing to an official American version of what happened” in the talks, said the secretary is now deciding whether to wait a few months and try to renew the negotiating effort or to publicize the US’s suggested principles of an agreement.
Detailing how the US sought to solve disputes over the core issues of a two-state solution, Barnea wrote on Friday that, “Using advanced software, the Americans drew a border outline in the West Bank that gives Israel sovereignty over some 80 percent of the settlers that live there today. The remaining 20 percent were meant to evacuate. In Jerusalem, the proposed border is based on Bill Clinton’s plan — Jewish neighborhoods to Israel, Arab neighborhoods to the Palestinians.”
He quoted the Americans saying that while the Israeli government made no response to the American plan, and also failed to draw its own border outline, Abbas agreed to the US-suggested border outline.
The Americans said they had intended to begin the nine-month negotiating period with an Israeli announcement of a settlement freeze. But this proved impossible, an American official was quoted saying, “because of the current makeup of the Israeli government, so we gave up… We didn’t realize [that] continuing construction allowed ministers in [Netanyahu’s] government to very effectively sabotage the success of the talks. There are a lot of reasons for the peace effort’s failure, but people in Israel shouldn’t ignore the bitter truth: the primary sabotage came from the settlements. The Palestinians don’t believe that Israel really intends to let them found a state when, at the same time, it is building settlements on the territory meant for that state. We’re talking about the announcement of 14,000 housing units, no less. Only now, after talks blew up, did we learn that this is also about expropriating land on a large scale. That does not reconcile with the agreement.
“At this point, it’s very hard to see how the negotiations could be renewed, let alone lead to an agreement,” the Americans continued. “Towards the end, Abbas demanded a three-month freeze on settlement construction. His working assumption was that if an accord is reached, Israel could build along the new border as it pleases. But the Israelis said no.”
The Americans told Barnea that, in contrast to the hitherto unclear reports of whether the US was prepared to release American-Israeli spy Pollard to salvage the talks from collapse in recent weeks, Obama was willing “to prepare for Jonathan Pollard’s release. Such a move wouldn’t have helped his popularity in the American security system… There was a massive effort on our part to pull the wagon out of the deep quicksand it was stuck in. But the reality here hit us hard. Neither side had a sense of urgency. Kerry was the only one who felt a sense of urgency, and that was not enough.”
One bitter American official told Barnea, “I guess we need another intifada to create the circumstances that would allow progress.”
A third intifada, the Americans made clear, “would be a tragedy. The Jewish people are supposed to be smart; it is true that they’re also considered a stubborn nation. You’re supposed to know how to read the map: In the 21st century, the world will not keep tolerating the Israeli occupation. The occupation threatens Israel’s status in the world and threatens Israel as a Jewish state.”
Pressed by Barnea on perceived international hypocrisy over Israel’s presence in the West Bank, when the world “closes its eyes to China’s takeover of Tibet, it stutters at what Russia’s doing to Ukraine,” the Americans were quoted as responding: ”Israel is not China. It was founded by a UN resolution. Its prosperity depends on the way it is viewed by the international community.”
The American officials described to Barnea what they called Abbas’s loss of trust in the talks and in Netanyahu, and how his skepticism hardened as settlement-building continued, and as Israel demanded complete security control over the territories. From Abbas’s point of view, the Americans told Barnea, the sense was “that nothing was going to change on the security front. Israel was not willing to agree to time frames; its control of the West Bank would continue forever. Abbas reached the conclusion that there was nothing for him in such an agreement. He’s 79 years old. He has reached the last chapter of his life. He’s tired. He was willing to give the process one final chance, but found, according to him, that he has no partner on the Israeli side. His legacy won’t include a peace agreement with Israel.
“In February, Abbas arrived at a Paris hotel for a meeting with Kerry. He had a lingering serious cold. ‘I’m under a lot of pressure,’ he complained. ‘I’m sick of this.’ He rejected all of Kerry’s ideas. A month later, in March, he was invited to the White House. Obama presented the American-formulated principles verbally — not in writing. Abbas refused.”
Abbas, the officials told Barnea, had made concessions — in accepting that “Palestine” would be demilitarized; in agreeing to the US border outline that would see 80% of settlers coming under Israeli sovereignty, and in agreeing for Israel to retain control of sensitive security areas such as the Jordan Valley for five years.
“He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness,” the Americans said. “‘Israel won’t be flooded with refugees,’ he promised.”
In a rare attribution of some blame to Abbas, the Americans said they “couldn’t understand why it bothered him so much” to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. But here too, ultimately, the Americans were empathetic to Abbas: “The Palestinians came to the conclusion that Israel was pulling a nasty trick on them. They suspected there was an effort to get from them approval of the Zionist narrative.”
The final straw for Abbas was the late March announcement by Uri Ariel’s Housing and Construction Ministry of building tenders for more than 700 housing units in Jerusalem’s Gilo neighborhood. At that point, the Americans told Barnea, Abbas “lost interest. He turned to the reconciliation talks with Hamas and to the question of who would inherit his mantle.”
The Americans warned that, with the talks over, Israel might be facing “quite a problem. As of now, nothing is stopping the Palestinians from turning to the international community. The Palestinians are tired of the status quo. They will get their state in the end — whether through violence or by turning to international organizations.”
They also warned that if, as announced, Israel seeks “to impose economic sanctions on the Palestinians, it could boomerang. The West Bank economy will collapse, and then Abbas will say ‘I don’t want this anymore. Take this from me.’ There’s great potential for deterioration here, which could end with the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority. Israeli soldiers will have to administer the lives of 2.5 million Palestinians, to their mothers’ chagrin. The donating countries will stop paying up, and the bill of $3 billion a year will have to be paid by your Finance Ministry.”
Some of the warnings delivered by the Americans reflected a similar tone to that expressed by Obama in an interview he gave shortly before his last meeting with Netanyahu at the White House in March.
Israel can expect to face international isolation and possible sanctions from countries and companies across the world if Netanyahu fails to endorse a framework agreement with the Palestinians, Obama cautioned in an interview with Bloomberg at the time. If Netanyahu “does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach,” Obama said then. “There comes a point where you can’t manage this anymore, and then you start having to make very difficult choices,” he said.
The president went on to condemn Israel’s settlement activities in the West Bank, and said that though his allegiance to the Jewish state was permanent, building settlements across the Green Line was counterproductive and would make it extremely difficult for the US to defend Israel from painful repercussions in the international community. “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 — 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,” Obama warned.
@ yamit82:
yamit likes to repeat verbatim old code-stink talking points.
“Violated his parole” wasn’t a neocon talking point
— though most of what they DID say did not miss the target.
GWB’s real problem in re the neocons was not their position, but the fact that their most trenchant advocate & most penetrating thinker, Jeane Kirkpatrick, wasn’t part of the Administration to keep an eye on things; esp to insist that they do sufficient research — due diligence — before plunging ahead.
Then why didn’t we take the oil? — Carrot-poisoning on the brain?
Of course they did. We had first dibs on ’em (as it were) — and we failed to take them; so they did. But you still haven’t explained why we DIDN’T take them.
(They’re also drilling in the Florida Straits, 60 miles offshore — since we won’t.)
Didn’t say it was “ALL” because of that; don’t put words in my mouth.. I said it was because he failed to keep the commitment he had given in ’91.
Yes and no. That’s PART of it, but not necessarily all bad guys under all situations:
“The twin goals of our foreign policy are, first, ensuring our security and, second, promoting democracy and human rights. An appropriate balance between the two must exist, and that balance must be determined within the unique circumstances of any situation.” Jeane Kirkpatrick, Making War to Keep Peace (2007).
They’re smarter than you are, boychik. But they didn’t have to tell me what was called for. I saw what they saw. But seeing it wasn’t about smarts or stupidity; it was (and is) about vision.
BTW, not all of them approved of the Iraq War, or of how it was conducted. Kirkpatrick herself had serious misgivings about it.
@ yamit82:
Of course I believe what I wrote.
Are YOU truly so dense as to believe that the USA State Dept would not at the time have loved (as they would now) to have a pretext for stationing GI’s on Israeli soil?
@ yamit82:
LOLROF. Only “almost”? — I must be losing my touch.
Hey, that was MY line (write your own script)! — it’s you who have YET to refute a word of what I said.
Ultimately it ALWAYS comes down to belief & faith. Even for YOU, even if you can’t see far enough into yourself to know that.
You don’t trust GWB’s instincts in the matter; I do. (Not necessarily his judgment over the war, but his intentions concerning it, yes; you betcha.) And that’s what this discussion is about) Do I trust everybody in that Administration? — no. Do I trust GWB’s judgment in re OTHER matters? — some, yes; some, no.
“Patriotic”? — yes, always have been. But that’s not WHY I said what I did.
“Coward”? no, but then — unlike PresentCompany — I know the meaning of the word, and have no insecurities over it.
“Supports big capitalists”? — you make it sound as if big capitalism were an intrinsically criminal venture. Got any stocks? mutual funds? (Did your parents have any? ANYBODY in your family?)
“Fascists”? — Good God, shmendrick, even the lefties put THAT rusty sword to bed a couple decades ago; can’t cut thru a stick of warm butter in this context.
“Spin meisters”? — tell me: which spinmeisters said that we went after Saddam “because he ‘violated his parole’?” I should have my lawyer talk to them about a little matter of “violation of copyright,” and with all the money they apparently made, they’re sure to have deep pockets. . . . I recall NO talk of “violation of parole.” “WMD’s,” I do remember, but no ‘violation of parole.’
What I wrote related not so much to how things look as viewed in hindsight, but based on how things appeared to an onlooker at the time, 9-11. Oil — extracting it OR shipping it — simply was not on the impossibly unstable Afghan horizon in 2001. You view it strictly in hindsight and thru a darkened lens, and you see dark conspiracies. (Maybe you’re a Truther as well? You think the “big capitalist fascists & their spinmeisters” KNEW 9-11 was coming and they deliberately allowed it? so they could marshal the ensuing outrage to invade Afgh?)
Me, I see a cigar that sometimes really IS “just a cigar.”
(Hmmm. Do I smell burning? Is that the Reichstag that that smoke is billowing from?)
blockquote>”Re: Iraq… When the US invaded Iraq, many were screaming about war for oil.I was among the very few voices who said that one of the invasion’s goals was increasing, rather than decreasing oil prices.”
Increasing or decreasing, none of your speculations — interesting though they may be — addresses why we didn’t simply take the oil, if only to finance the war itself.
@ Salomon Benzimra: You are correct it is important to:
@ yamit82:
Lots of assertions. Few sources.
That may work for a novel; not for news, reportage, responsible journalism.
Novels don’t need sources.
NEWS, however (esp the kind that asserts, ‘he said this & this, they did that & that,’ etc), DOES need verifiable sources. . . . to be credible. I note that the article appears to rely on the “investigations” of Greg Palast, who’s made a CAREER of specializing in stories of class-warfare. . . . Here’s how it was looking shortly after 9-11.
@ yamit82:
And your point would be. . . .? (there was one, right?)
Well, of course America didn’t invade Pakistan, loksh; the Pakis had The Big One (since 1998). We’ve been forced to finesse them (not very well) ever since. That’s what happens when you let the grass grow under your feet.
Right. (When facts & logic are in short supply, pull out the left-wing catechism.)
Not likely. Toldja: the Paks already had the Bomb. But you produce the record you refer to, and I’ll have a look-see.
Don’t have such. I’m forbidden demi-gods (also semi-gods, hemi-gods, meta-gods, micro-gods, mini-gods, mostly-gods, slightly-gods, etc, etc, etc). So wipe your nose; the snot’s dripping onto your keyboard & gumming up your posts.
Some of the mujaheddin WERE freedom fighters (Abdul Haq, Ahmad Shah Masood, Rabbani, Rasul Sayyaf), some were not(Hekmatyar, Haqqani, et al.). The mujaheddin whom Reagan welcomed to the WH — Abdul Haq, Younis Khalis, et al — were NOT among the elements which later formed the Taliban. In fact, Hekmatyar refused to meet with RR.
After Reagan left office [Jan ’89], and we backed off of our support following the USSR pull-out from Afgh, the sympathetic mujaheddin who had met with RR were left with an exposed flank, and much of their leadership were picked off by the Saudi-backed, Taliban forces. Ahmed Shah Masood, Commander of the Northern Alliance, was killed in a Taliban suicide bombing just TWO DAYS before 9-11. Abdul Haq was captured by the Taliban a few wks later and executed as a “US & UK spy.”
But in any case, what’s your point? — that we made alliances of convenience, which occasionally proved unsavory? — That we shouldn’t do anything with mixed motives?
— So we shouldn’t have allied ourselves with Stalin in WW2?
We have BRZEZINSKI to thank for that. He met with him in ’79 when he was Carter’s NSC Advisor. There are photos of the 2 of them together — OBL in uniform (under the name of “Tim Osman),” and Zbig looking ‘reflective.’
@ honeybee:
Serious as a coronary.
(How serious are you?)
@ honeybee:
The Defense rests.
@ yamit82:
you hit the nail [or dweller] on the head. good post.
do you ever sleep??? No wonder your horns are grey and wrinkled, darlin.
dweller Said:
Taliban were paid to allow trainng bases for Al-Qaeda and there is no love loss between them especially Arabs.. Afghanis hate the Arabs and Arabs hate everyone.
The few hundred Terrorists at least the ones who survived the initial bombing moved to Pakistan and America didn’t invade Pakistan who have protected the Terrorists and the Taliban as well. America rewarded the Pakistanis with more money and more weapons. Good for business, keeps military Industrial complex operating providing millions of jobs and enormous profits….
America needed a stable government-in Afghanistan for that very pipeline out of the Caucus to Pakistan. According to the congressional record America had plans to invade Pakistan some 2 years before 9/11, which gave Bush and his oil cronies the opportunity. India was in on the deal as well and was reported in the Indian press and the BBC.
Even your demi-god RR welcomed the Taliban before they called themselves by that name to the white house and praised them as great freedom fighters and other inane superlatives. Bin Ladin was a CIA operative through 2001.
I have posted much on this issue check the archives I don’t have the energy to repeat it all again but you are almost 100% wrong in everything you stated and can’t back up a word of it. For you it’s all belief and faith…. I love it, a patriotic coward supports Big capitalist fascists and their spin meisters.
Unocal and the Afghanistan Pipeline / Players on a Rigged Grand Chessboard: Bridas, Unocal and the Afghanistan Pipeline
“Accept Our Offer of a Carpet of Gold, or We Bury You Under a Carpet of Bombs.”
Re: Iraq… When the US invaded Iraq, many were screaming about war for oil. I was among the very few voices who said that one of the invasion’s goals was increasing, rather than decreasing oil prices. Saddam’s biggest crime was steadily increasing Iraqi oil production. As the increasing production sent the price of oil below $10 in 1998, Iraq’s fate was sealed.
In the years following Desert Storm, Iraq was denied the right to export its oil. When the West could no longer resist Iraq’s natural right and allowed the Oil for Food exports, the price of oil plummeted. The devaluation from $22 to $10 brought oil corporations close to bankruptcy because labor costs and mammoth overhead cannot readily be scaled down: both workers and bureaucrats had become used to higher wages.
OPEC hysterically cut production by a huge 4.3 million bpd, and oil prices temporary tripled, only to be halved a year later due to the 9/11 recession possibility. The price recovered because of the Middle East tumult in the wake of the American threat to Iraq, and has continued to rise unimpeded since then.
There is no rational reason for the almost tenfold price increase since 2002. Worldwide oil demand and supply are stable. For several years after the Gulf War, the world had no problem living without Iraqi oil, except for a trickle on the black market. The ban on Iraqi oil exports was a boon to Saudi Arabia during the time of low oil prices.
The US oil corporations cannot dictate policies, but they are influential enough to swing the political balance toward invading Iraq and staying there. It’s not that Bush took a bribe from the Saudis or US oil producers for launching a war in Iraq (though he did). US oil interests are even more influential with congressmen than with the president through political donations, employee voters, and paying taxes into the local budgets. About taxes, by the way: The American scheme of paying for oil concessions comes with a twist: when oil prices rise too much, the concession payments are stable, thus allowing for super profits.
dweller Said:
Canada and Latin America provides USA with about 34.7% of imported oil. Africa 10.3% and entire Persian Gulf including Saudi Arabia (8.1%) about 12.9%. Going to Iraq for oil was a myth. USA has highest reserve of natural gas and oil. It is expected to be an oil exporter in a few years time!
@ yamit82:
Your foaming at the mouth, Darlin unfortunately, I like that.
dweller Said:
Even you can’t believe what you wrote!!! Then again maybe you do… Your belief track record ain’t nothing to write home about…
BethesdaDog Said:
There is so much oil in Texas, and the Dakotas that Middle-East has lost it power. If you want destroy the Arabs support fraking.
honeybee Said:
dweller likes to repeat verbatim old neo con talking points… Believe me if the major export of Saddam’s Iraq was carrots nobody would have touched him….he like Gaddafi were about to introduce the Gold dinar and he was selling too much illegal oil depressing the world price….
Stupid Americans did all the dirty work and the Chinese grabbed all the new oil leases in Iraq. But dweller thinks it was all because Saddam was a bad guy and America has a duty to topple bad guys. How does he know his stupid neo-cons told him so…or was that Jeezus???
@ BethesdaDog:
Trust me Darlin, the world turn on oil.
dweller Said:
You are kidding?????????Sweetie
dweller Said:
No!!!!!!!!!!
In stead of WASTING time and money with the “Pal” why not dedicate the same to the Kurds. We all know that they have the people and the lands. Is Kerry trying to tell IL that the US will give-up on IL if this is what it takes to create “Palestine” that the Palestinians want instead of Israel? Americans are POOR in geography and HISTORY!
What is funny the Palestinians say the negotiations were a farce because Indyk is a Zionist. He is just a naive fool and is bitter for him and his boss Kerry failing. He can go back to the Brookings Institute now.
He can yell all he want that the sky is falling but the only real danger is if the Prime Minister and government of Israel had done what he wanted.
That would have been truly dangerous and worse than Gaza.
Martin Indyk is the “US official”.
@ keelie:
When the top echelon of the Foreign Affairs Dept. of a Superpower is not aware of the fundamentals, I DO find it “astonishing.”
@ Salomon Benzimra:
While I agree with what you say, I question your use of the word “astonishingly”.
@ yamit82:
Primary reason?
Kuwait asked for help.
Israel didn’t.
Israel has NEVER asked for that kind of help.
— (Would you want her to?)
@ yamit82:
Oh, please. America invaded Afghanistan because, at the time, that’s where al-Qaeda, the perpetrator of 9-11, was HQ’d — and the Taliban, which had taken over the country, was giving them aid-&-comfort. The idea was that if we couldn’t bring them to justice
— we’d bring Justice to them.
Yes, Afghanistan has substantial untapped reserves of oil (also iron & copper), but even as recently as last September was unable to interest investors in exploration (let alone, actual exploitation). And a dozen yrs ago, when we were prepping to invade, the knowledge that the potential resources even existed was nowhere to be had.
If you’ve got the “Afghanistan pipeline” theory buzzing around inside your bonnet, just understand that if peace & stability were to return to Afghanistan any time soon, and a new pipeline to Central Asia were to have been built (or even YET to be built), the principal beneficiary wouldn’t have been USA; rather, undoubtedly it would’ve been (and would YET be) primarily the Afghans, as well as Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and the other Central Asians. (The Russians wouldn’t be very happy, however, about its potential competition with their own export pipeline operation — which at this point is the only game in town.)
As for Iraq, if, in fact, America invaded Iraq for “oil,” it seems rather curious that she didn’t use Iraqi oil to finance the operation. That would’ve been the rational thing to do, whether we were IN it for the oil or not.
America went after Saddam because he ‘violated his parole.’ He’d agreed, as a condition of his getting to remain in power and the Coalition forces’ proceeding to withdraw from Iraq in 1991, after the Gulf War, to allow for regular inspections of his weapons facilities. He eventually reneged on the deal. We invaded & finished the job we started in ’91. If we’d followed thru then instead of in ’03, it would’ve been easier — but the evidence has yet to be adduced that we took EITHER action against Iraq for “oil.”
PLANS and THREATS are not synonymous.
DOD had a contingency plan to invade Israel in 67. You know that there are ALWAYS contingency plans to do all sorts of wacky, inconceivable things; “war-gaming” was a virtual industry DECADES before the era of video games. There was, however, no actual THREAT to do so.
OTOH, IT looks like the Soviets not only had a contingency invasion plan against Israel too in ’67, but they also DID threaten just that.
In 73, the USSR did again threaten to attack Israel to save the Egyptian 3rd Army from annihilation. Once again, however, no USA plan or threat against Israel in ’73 seems to have yet come to light.
BethesdaDog Said:
That is the way radical leftist think. Even if all of us on this website disagree with them, Obama and his officials spoke what they sincerely believe. I hope Israel and its friends would take what they said seriously and get prepared for any eventuality. A well known enemy could force a person/country to have a better tactic/strategy than a pretender who acts as a ‘friend’.
Ted Belman Said:
Ted, what is outrageous about this interview is stabbing in the dead of night Israel in the back in complete anonymity. The US threatens Israel like they threaten Russia. Its inexcusable and the US wonders why it has no real friends and no one trusts them. This is all the proof you need, if you needed it, of Obama-Kerry’s visceral hostility to the survival of the Jewish State. The cynicism of American officials has hit a new low.
Agreed. All it is continuing to be, even accelerating, is a reason for increasing anti-Semitism throughout the world. It’s time to bite the bullet and simply annex Judea and Samaria and Eastern Jerusalem, establish permanent borders there, and screw the world opinion, which can’t get much worse anyway. Put an end to negotiations with those whose undying wish is to destroy Israel anyway.
Besides, it’s time for the death penalty for terrorists and murderers of Israelis. That would do the terrorists a favour in that they could get their 72 virgins and the PA a favour as well since they would no longer have to pay them an exorbitant salary while they’re getting their university education in Israeli jails. As well, the 1000 to 1 trade-off for kidnapped Israelis would no longer be so available for them so hostage taking would no longer be beneficial to those animals.
@ honeybee:
Sure, they’re beiing “realists” as they see what is important, but I know how leftists think, particularly people like Obama, and he truly believes Israel is in the wrong, or at least primarily and mostly, and that the Palestinians (and Arabs generally) are victims. Victims of the west, victims of imperialism, generally and Israel, in particular. That’s why Obama was so quick to visit Egypt soon after he assumed the presidency. He really believes in the leftist narrative that the Arabs and the Muslim world are victims of western power, arrogance and imperialism. He wants to change that. He sees reducing Israel’s power and autonomy as an essential part of that vision. The motivating factor here is what they see as Israel’s power role and unjustified dominion over Arab lands. That means stopping settlements and giving back land. Obama and his people see that as key to stability in the Middle East. They see the “injustice” of Israeli “occupation” as the source of a great deal of trouble in the world, including with Iran.
I don’t believe these nameless diplomats working for Obama are driven only or primarily by corporate interests. I think they genuinelly see a disorderly Middle East that is caused by Israel’s overreaching (as they see it) and they see the need to cut Israel down to size. To them, a few dozen Jewish settlements, and a few hundred apartments for Jews, are a greater source of world instability and turmoil. This has nothing to do with corporate interests. I think Obama and his people are genuinely troubled by Israel and its actions. I think they despise Bibi and his political allies, much as they do Fox or the GOP or the NRA. They see Israel as meting out injustice, and no leftist can’t abide by any injustice. It’s the leftist’s nature to respond to it and fight it.
Incidentally, I don’t buy into this nonsense that we invaded Iraq for oil. The people who had the most influence on GWB were not motivaed by oil, they were motivated by what they perceived as the danger posed by Sadam Hussein and what they believed was his connection to world terror. I know who influenced him, and how they think. I know something about the group who tutored Bush in foreign affairs before he took office. I had a discussion about it with the wife of one. It’s generally some of the people who some describe as “neocons.”
@ mrzee:
There’s more oil and gas in Israel and its territorial waters than in Massachussetts. Boston does not mean the same to Jews that Jerusalem does, although for assimilated American Jews, Boston, with Brandeis, Harvard, and all the other corrupt institutions probably means more. Most American Jewish families are probably more desirous of sending their children to live and go to school in that city than they are to send them to Jerusalem to connect with their heritage.
If you look at the reality of the American-Israeli relationship America has been more of an enemy than a friend to Israel while Israel has been a staunch supporter of this country. Perhaps a shidduch between Israel and Russia would better serve Israeli interests?
Ted Belman Said:
DID THE UNITED NATIONS CREATE THE MODERN STATE OF ISRAEL?
BethesdaDog Said:
America never fought for Israel but fought for Kuwait.
Why do ya think?
America never fought or supported Israel when they believed we’d be overrun in 1948, Threatened to invade us in 67 and 73 to protect Egypt and forced us to stop in each case from completeing our military victories. America forced us to allow Arafat to escape Sharon in Lebanon so he could live another day to kill more Jews. Why do ya think they did that?
America ordered Israel not to attack the Iraqi reactor and what do you suppose would have been if we didn’t?
America invaded iraq and Afghanistan for no reason other than Oil, Gas and other American corporate interests, but never demanded their puppet’s they installed to make peace with Israel. Why do ya think they did that?
The arms race in the ME is mainly an American project and for every dollar in weapons sold to our enemies or given to them free like Egypt forces Israel to spend 150% to maintain a parity. That’s an ally?
America has always done what is best in their perceived economic interests at the expense of any other justification or reasoning.
Do you believe for a moment that if the main export in Libya, Iraq Kuwait and Afghanistan was Broccoli that America would have involved themselves?
Get real!!!!
yamit82 Said:
A dance around the floor to “Folsom Prison Blues” and peek at you horns
yamit82 Said:
What has Rhode Island got to do with it?
honeybee Said:
How much do you want for it?
honeybee Said:
I have the album and the disk.
The UN? Jews are not accustomed to independce even when we have it. 2000 years did a job on our collective psyche.
It’s gong to take a long time before we accustom ourselves to our new situation and new identity. Our forty years in the desert might take a lot longer before we are ready to behve as a people who are independent and sovereign.
In the meantime we will have to muddle through and trust in providence.
BethesdaDog Said:
You can’t be that naïve, if you are however I have an oil well in Texas I want to sell you.
@ Salomon Benzimra:
OMG, you mean they [the world] won’t like the Jews and might ever try to exterminate us. WHAT CAN THEY DO THAT THEY ALREADY DONE.
@ yamit82:
I disagree with you. I believe the current administrations’ thinking is based on their own conception of right and wrong–and their conception is, Israel is wrong. I believe they truly believe Israel is wrong, that it was established on the land of and at the expense of the “Palestinians,” that Israel is “occupying” “Palestinian” land , i.e., the disputed or recovered territories in Judea and Samaria. That’s not to say they are not “realists” and are animated by what they see as the best interests of the U.S., but their worldview tells them that Israel is the source of much of the trouble in the world. They have adopted this European worldview shaped by leftism, and point the finger at Israel. It is “scapegoatism” and a form of blaming the Jews. I wonder who the “diplomat” is who made some of these offensive statements. It wouldn’t surprise me if it was Martin Indyk, because I believe it is most likely an anti-Israel leftist Jew who would not be constrained to utter something which smacks of anti-semitism such as the statement that “the Jewish people are stubborn…” In other words, we are “stiff necked.” I’m personally not religious, and have leftism in my own background. I don’t even necessarily agree that there should not be a two state solution. My main concern is that I don’t see a change in Arab mentality (and that includes the Palestinians) such that is ready for peace. Note that there is no mention of the end of incitement nor the conflicting statements by Palestinians that they accept a Jewish state or that they abandon the right of return. Over the years, I have always jumped at any opportunity to elicit from any Arab I meet–if it is appropriate to the situation–their attitude toward Israel as a permanent fixture in the region. Almost without fail, I am disappointed. Over the long haul, most Arabs are of the mind that a Jewish state should not continue to exist. It’s very sad and very disappointing, but my recent conversations, within the last ten years, have been what I heard in the 1960s and ’70’s. There’s been no change: Israel, eventually, will have to be replaced by a single state and it is envisioned that it will have an Arab majority. (They haven’t read Caroline Glick’s proposal for a single state, obviously, and wouldn’t buy her population data.)
@ yamit82:
Good.
yamit82 Said:
I have corrupted you language, you never used bad language before. Check Pamula Gellter[s Sat. night song. It’s Johnny Cash rom his “Folsom Prison ” album, best country album ever, trust me.
What right did the UN ever have to tell Jew where or where not they might live.
@ yamit82:
One approach doesn’t exclude the other. But politics and power are influenced by public opinion, and Israel would be mistaken if it neglects the latter.
@ Salomon Benzimra:
I don’t think knowing the truth as you put it will make any difference or change their opinions if the truth and history are in fact unknown to them. Their thinking and policies are political in nature and supported by inbred Jew Hared.
American diplomats don’t know or care who is right in the Ukrains, Syria or even between Sunni and Shia Muslims. They base their thinking on the dictates of corporate interests and right and wrong truth and lies have nothing to do with their World View and policies. That’s how it works in the real world.
My suggestion is that if you got the power and some chutzpa then use it and screw the likes of Kerry and Obama they will only be around for three more years less if you subtract lame Duck period.
@ bernard ross:
Lots of threats and historical spin here.
Ignores:
Deal Barak tried to make and Arafat tuned him daown and stated an intifada instead.
Ignores:
Deal Olmert tried to make and Abbas walked away.
Ignores:
9 month building freeze and practical building freeze since Olmerts abbreviated Term.
Ignores:
All the terrorists with blood on their hands BB paid for nothing and became even more unpopular with his own constituency for nothing.
Ignores:
The aid Israel provides the PA and Abbas economically and security wise keeping him in power and allowing his kpleptocracy to filch billions from their economy.
Ignores:
Breakdown in trust by Israel of Obama and America especially over Syria and Iran.
Ignores:
Most recent Israeli public opinion polls opposed to ceding anymore territory to the Arabs and a growing # who would vote to transfer them if a rational proposal would be presented to them.
Ignores:
Israels economy is doing better than either America and the EU, collectively and individually.
Ignores:
That Israel is only a few years away from being a global energy producer and exporter.
Ignores:
That Israel is less dependent on American aid than our leaders are willing to admit publicly.
Ignores;
That America has 3 branches of Government and Israel still has some weight with the American congress that can if Israel were to push limit much or some of the negatives Obama and kerry would loose on us.
Ignores:
That EU needs Israel more or at least as much as we need them. There collective economies could emplode at any min. What’s happening is not sustainable for much longer.
Putin would give his gold teeth to woo Israel away from America and if Israel dumps the F-35, the whole project could go south. Israel is still Americas best military sales promoter and many countries will not purchase any system if Israel rejects them especially those costing over $200 million apiece.
Ignores:
That it’s an open secret that like Clinton Obama wants to effect a regime change here in Israel for one who he believes and hopes will be more compliant to his will. He has 3 more years to show something he can claim as a success. Every other country has told him where he can go where the sun don’t shine… Only his Vassalage Israel offers him a chance to show how tough and clever he is.
Barnea is more anti BB than Obama and the Arabs. Just to put his crapola article in some perspective.
Now is the time to put a stop to the “peace process,” restore the truth on Jewish rights to the Land, and demolish the fake Palestinian narrative, if only to educate those American diplomats who, astonishingly, have no clue of the historic and legal evidence.
Doing so would be the best “diplomatic intifada” Israel could launch, with substantial resources and a worldwide reach.
@ Ted Belman:
The State of Israel was founded by the blood of those settlers who escaped the death camps for freedom and life.
The US official is wrong to say Israel was founded by a UN resolution. Wrong. It just passed a resolution recommending partition. Then Israel declared itself a state along the suggested borders and a majority of states recognized Israel. The UN did not create it or found it. Finally Israel had to win the War of Independence to solidify its hold on the state.
The whole Pollard issue is bogus. Why would the Israelis care so much about Pollard after they threw him to the curb when they were using his services? I read a good part of the CIA impact report, which has been declassified and is available on the George Washington University national security archives. The report is heavily redacted and I only read a good part of it but I came away with several conclusions. First, his spying did not have a significant impact on American security, if any at all. Obviously, the prosecutors and the American government threw the kitchen sink at him, lied and misled about what he did. This was despicable conduct and displays the level of anti-semitism in the US government and the judiciary, which many, including many in the American Jewish community, refuse to believe exists. Another conclusion is that Pollard’s handlers used and lied to Pollard, assuring the nervous amateur they recruited that what he was to do was not all that bad in the scheme of things and, if he were caught, the circumstances would not be that terrible. They lied and misled him. He was used, and when he turned to them for help, they wouldn’t let him in the embassy and threw him to the wolves. His handlers conveniently escaped on the next planes out of JFK. When the embassy did later give him some help by paying for his lawyer, it turned out to be Richard Hibey an Arab, who failed to file something as simple as a one page notice of appeal to challenge the excessive sentence, thus ensuring that Pollard would get a life sentence. Later, Hibey turned up as the lawyer for the Palestinian terrorists in American courts. One wonders if the embassy just paid for the lawyer that Pollard selected, or if the embassy recruited him, and knew about his pro-Palestinian proclivities. The activities of the Israeli government are not all that pure and I wonder why they would want Pollard now as an inducement to jeopardize their perception of their national security. Even Pollard does not want to be released under these circumstances, from what I understand. Keep in mind I have no connection to Pollard or his supporters, I just know what I have learned from my own reading, although I have been told by someone with credibility that the sentencing judge had been known as an anti-semite before the Pollard trial and that I have seen other indications that there are judges on the courts, including in D.C., who are hostile to Jews.
This just shows how despicable the current US administration is. All the supposed “grievances” claimed by Abbas are phony. Everything attributed to Israel as an impediment, such as building in Gilo, formalizing the character of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people, maintaining security control over the Jordan River area, are neither impediments nor barriers to peace. These are all excuses, and demonstrates the hostiity of the Obama administration to Israel. There is nothing unduly “stubborn” about wanting to create a rock-solid security arrangement for the state, given the history of violence and genocidal incitement. So, the Obama administration threatens an intifada against Israel by its proxies the Palestinians? This is just another form of the Samantha Power approach which threatened a “massive protection force” to confront Israel. The same Obama administration which has been trying to divide the American Jewish community with its JStreet proxy. Fortunately, its efforts to subvert the Conference of Presidents has failed, for now. (They’ll be back). The Obama Administration is trying to use psychological warfare against Israel to say, “Look, you might not be really legitimate….and the world will turn against you if you don’t give in.” Rather than try to bolster Israel’s support, it is trying to frighten this small country into submission. It is clear that the Obama totally blames Israel for the problems in the Middle East and is trying to intimidate it–this is just another form of scapegoating Jews for the region’s problems. The talk of the state as just a creation of the UN is a way of implying that the Jewish homeland is not really legitimate, it’s an artificial creation, unlike China. This is sinister psychological warfare and propaganda against the Jewish people and Israel of the most despicable sort.
C should have been annexed at the beginning and then the squabbling would now only be over A and B. BB appears too mediocre and seems to lack the will to be an assertive leader. He plays a game to keep the ball in play, to stall for time. Now that Abbas has moved proactively BB must sh*t or get off the pot. He cannot continue to stall for time and only play a game of reaction. Is there no Israeli leader with strength other than those who wish to give Israel away? I cannot belive they are thinking to give away parts of Jerusalem after having it under Israel sovereignty for decades.
The same Obama admin that armed the terrorists in Syria and Libya would think nothing of fomenting and funding an intifada. “Dirty tricks” is the US game to destabilize nations. Be careful of false flags such as attacks that appear to be done by Jews on muslims to foment a war. The US is quite capable of doing it and this quote is a warning that they will “create the circumstances that will allow progress”.
If they’ll settle for a commonwealth instead of a state, they can have Massachusetts. If not, how about Delaware?