Surprised by Bush’s Northern Ireland intervention? Don’t be.
After
a fairly quiet year of retirement, former President Bush was back in the news
this week after being asked to assist the Obama administration in Northern
Ireland. This intervention may have surprised many of the president’s critics,
but not those of us who had worked with President Bush on this issue.
President
Bush was heavily involved in the details of the peace process, knowing not only
the major actors like John Hume, Peter Robinson, Martin McGuinness and of
course Gerry Adams, but also the relatively less powerful political leaders
from the other parties in the North.
In
the annual St. Patrick’s Day ritual at the White House that came to be known as
the "stations of the cross," the president would meet in turn with
the leadership of each party as he made his way around the room. He had
mastered the alphabet soup of acronyms designating the myriad political
parties, and would discuss with each group its political prospects and major
challenges.
All
relatively minor stuff, critics might sniff. But this was more than just the
nuts-and-bolts responsibilities that come with the Oval Office. These moments
revealed the president’s deep respect for the everyday political courage and
physical bravery of these men and women who risked their lives in the cause of
peace.
This
was most clearly demonstrated when I invited the McCartney family to the White
House for the St. Patrick’s Day that immediately followed the brutal murder of
their brother, Robert, by IRA thugs outside a Belfast pub. The president was
deeply moved by their story and listened with compassion to the hardship they
had suffered and their quest for justice (a quest that sadly remains
unfulfilled to this day).
This
was the same president who would subsequently overrule his NSC staff in late
2006 when he believed that it would enhance the chances for peace if Gerry
Adams was allowed to visit the United States, a policy I supported because
Adams had fulfilled his promise to move his constituency to support the rule of
law. The decision also showed that Bush would reflexively favor no particular
religious, ethnic, or political group (even when it might have been
advantageous to do so for domestic political reasons). What mattered most was
advancing the cause of peace.
It
is therefore no surprise that the Obama administration has reached out to the
former president for his assistance. And the Bush’s prompt assistance should
remind everyone that the Northern Ireland peace process has been a bipartisan
effort for decades, and the better for it.
Israel must shift the battlefield from its security to its rights
Ted Belman – November 16, 2003 (first posted)
(This article may just as well have been written yesterday)
It is very clear to students of the Middle East, that the Quartet has decided that the Saudi Peace Plan is the object of all processes put forward. This plan provides for pre ‘67 borders (armistice lines) with negotiated trades of some land and a shared Jerusalem. The Plan itself doesn’t require the Right of Return but the endorsement of it by the Arab League does. The West wasn’t ready to kill the Right of Return, so Bush resisted Israel’s demand (request) that it be removed. Rather than to focus everyone’s attention on this end result, we are given (forced to accept) a Roadmap, which focuses on process, i.e. the steps toward “peace”. These include namely that the Palestinians dismantle their terror infrastructure and Israel cease settlement activity. When the US says they are committed to the Roadmap, they mean the Saudi Peace Plan.
Since the Palestinians do not want to implement the most basic demand on them, the Roadmap is being altered to get around the problem. Now, the only requirement is a Hudna. Even Israel seems to be going along with the changes. Anyone heard of Israel’s fourteen red lines lately? The fact remains, that the process or Roadmap is of no concern to anyone. What matters is that Israel be forced, by hook or by crook, by obfuscation or relentless pressure, to return to the pre ‘67 borders. The rest is smoke and mirrors.
By the way, the end result includes the notion that Israel is responsible for making the Palestinian State “viable”. Don’t underestimate the importance or effect of this requirement. In normal negotiations the Palestinians would have to make concessions to get Israel to agree to allow the Palestinians to work in Israel or to share water or to integrate the two economies, let alone the creation of a Palestinian state. The Roadmap gives these things to the Palestinians with nothing being exacted in return.
Both Bush and Sharon keep repeating that they will not sacrifice Israel’s security. I am not impressed. Israel’s security is threatened by returning to pre ‘67 borders and by the need to make the future state viable. To pretend otherwise is to be in denial. I am also disturbed that this balm is offered as a way to deflect Israel from its rights. The issue has become our security or our existence rather than our rights to the land or to Jerusalem. The contest has become their rights versus our security rather than their rights versus our rights.
The process (Roadmap) has all but been abandoned but the end result hasn’t. Therefore we see the Quartet’s support for the Geneva Understandings, which differ not at all from the Saudi Peace Plan. Do not be naive. The Geneva Understandings were worked out with not only a few Palestinians but also with the Quartet and many other Israelis who felt the need to reverse the results of the election in which they lost power. Also, the pilots who went public with their refusal or the Professors who publicly supported them, and the four former heads of Shin Bet who went public with their arguments for withdrawal or for confrontation with the settlers, or Ya’alon who criticized of Israel’s policies are all part of a co-ordinated policy or conspiracy to bring about the end result that has already been agreed upon. The Israelis are being conditioned to accept the end result so that they don’t choke on it.
Israel must make the centre piece of their policy their fourteen redlines which include retaining an undivided Jerusalem and no right of return. It should also state that no major settlement will be abandoned. These positions should be tenaciously held. There should be no compromise or hint of compromise.
The fence offers the only glimmer of hope. If Israel caves on the location of the fence, all is lost
Until Israel unequivocally abandons the Roadmap and therefore the end result mandated by the world, I have no confidence whatsoever that it hasn’t already conceded on all the major issues and is only going through the motions of resisting. It should not allow the process to be joined with or to obscure the end result. They are two separate matters. The Left argues, to Israel’s detriment, that the Palestinians must be given hope i.e. a good end result before the Palestinians can be expected to end the violence. This is nonsense. The offer of a State by Bush and the Roadmap did nothing to end the violence.
Only violence will end the violence.
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=21320
Comment: Ted was as correct years ago as he is now. Israel needs to become pro-active with respect to stating its legal,moral and historical rights. We are under a strategic plan by our enemies to de-legitimze our very existence-this is only round one. Unless we mount an appropriate defense and then go on offense we will not succeed. Time to abandoned the efforts to secure the international community’s support for who we are-rather, time to address, time and gain, the reasons why Israel exists today. It is equally important for the current young generation and future Israeli generations to understand why it is important and necessary to exist as a nation state for all Jews everywhere.
Announcing Construction of East Jerusalem Apartments: Stupid, Yes; Proof of Disinterest in Peace, No
Barry Rubin*
March 11, 2010
http://www.gloria-center.org/blog/2010/03/announcing-construction
There’s been a lot of nonsense written about an Israeli government announcement that 1600 apartments will be built in east Jerusalem. The timing was stupid, of course, since Vice-President Joe Biden was in town and didn’t like the idea. Moreover, to have such an announcement just when indirect talks were about to start between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) doesn’t make Israel look helpful.
But that’s about it. Anyone who knows Israel really well understands this to be what is called locally a “fashlan,” that is a stupid mess-up as often happens with the government there. Israel combines the candor of a First World country with the bureaucratic incompetence of a Third World one. The ministry simply didn’t think about what the impact would be nor did it consult with the prime minister’s office. It was sheer narrow-visioned incompetence.
Of course, though, Israel has announced since 1993, when the Oslo Agreement was signed, that it would continue building on existing settlements. And the government made clear all along that construction would continue in east Jerusalem. The action, if not the timing, was neither a provocation, the establishment of a “new settlement,” or proof that Israel didn’t want peace.
After all, everyone seems to have forgotten one simple fact: the U.S. government officially accepted Israel’s position that it would keep building in east Jerusalem. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton praised the resulting deal. So how all of a sudden can Joe Biden and the U.S. government say they are shocked, shocked to see that construction (in east Jerusalem) is going on when they agreed to that point months ago? (Doesn’t it seem rather important for the media to highlight that point rather than make it sound that–aside from the bad timing–Israel did something horrible and unexpected to the U.S. government?)
Actually, it’s sort of amusing that with the PA sabotaging negotiations for around 14 months while Israel was seeking them, the PA’s behavior isn’t taken as some proof that it doesn’t want peace while Israel’s single action demonstrates the opposite.
What this announcement really shows is that Israel doesn’t want or intend to give up all of east Jerusalem as part of a peace agreement, which is not exactly news.
Would it be better for Israel’s international position if the announcement had not been made? Yes. Because it allows the United States-which needs excuses for the failure to succeed at peacemaking-and the PA and Arab states-which need some rationale for their own policies to blame Israel
But does it really do any material harm to a peace process which is going nowhere due to Palestinian positions? Or does it make the PA and Arab states, which are supposedly salivating for a peace deal, change their mind? In both cases, no.
So, stupid yes. But deliberate sabotage or proof of warmongering? No.
*Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
Our Reset Reset Foreign Policy
HVictor Davis Hanson
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Almost every element of Barack Obama’s once-heralded new “reset” foreign policy of a year ago has either been reset or likely soon will be.
Consider Obama’s approach to the 8-year-old war on terror. Plans made more than a year ago to shut down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay by January 2010 have stalled. Despite loud proclamations about trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the architect of 9/11, in a civilian court in New York, such an absurd pledge will probably never be kept. Talk of trying our own former CIA interrogators for being too tough on terrorist suspects has also come to nothing. And why not put an end to the second-guessing of anti-terrorism protocols since the Obama administration, in a single year, has quadrupled the number of assassinations by Predator drones of suspected Taliban and al-Qaida operatives in Pakistan? After all, the targeted killing of hundreds of suspects is far more questionable than waterboarding three confessed killers.
The Obama administration seems to have embraced the once widely criticized Bush-Petraeus strategy in Iraq of gradual withdrawal in concert with Iraqi benchmarks. Indeed, Vice President Joe Biden in Orwellian fashion claims that our victory in Iraq may be one of the administration’s “greatest achievements.” Was it not a defeatist Biden who not long ago advocated the trisection of Iraq into separate nations?
And after months of waiting, Obama finally sent more troops to Afghanistan, adopting a surge strategy that looks a lot like Bush’s 2007 escalation in Iraq — this after he once assured the country that Bush’s surge, in a tactical sense, “wasn’t working.”
Almost all of the once derided Bush anti-terrorism protocols are still in place — wiretaps, intercepts, tribunals, and renditions. And given that there were more foiled radical Islamic terrorist plots in 2009 than in any year since 2001, President Obama will probably stop his outreach speeches to the Islamic world and his serial recitations of American sins.
Our efforts to reach out and negotiate directly with Iran failed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton effectively acknowledged the impasse, citing the unexpected de facto military coup by the Revolutionary Guard. In any case, does anyone believe that more Obama speeches, videos, new diplomacy and imposed deadlines will halt an Iranian nuclear bomb?
President Obama was once a fierce critic of the former administration’s Mideast policies. A year ago, he thought new outreach to the Palestinians and rebuke to the Israelis might lead to a breakthrough. It did not. In a Time magazine interview with Joe Klein, Obama confesses of the 70-year struggle: “I’ll be honest with you. This is just really hard.”
Obama assumed we could borrow a trillion dollars from the communist Chinese and then turn around and lecture them on Tibet, human rights, and international trade and currency — sort of like a debtor admonishing his lender about his bank’s shortcomings. Now the Chinese claim that their relations with America are “seriously disrupted,” as they seek to dethrone the dollar as the global currency.
I don’t think there will be anymore grand deals with the Russians either, the sort that saw the United States withdraw anti-missile defense accords with Poland and the Czech Republic in hopes of halting the Iranian nuclear program. Instead, Russia and China are blocking American efforts to impose tougher sanctions on Iran.
For all the outreach to Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan strongman is still causing trouble in Latin America.
So why is the reset foreign policy being reset?
First, too often Obama boxed himself into a corner by being against, in knee-jerk fashion, almost anything George Bush was for. Yet most of America’s problems predated George Bush, who, especially in his second term, followed mostly centrist policies. Old enemies were enemies for a reason — and it had nothing to do with Bush.
Second, Obama’s utopian rhetoric created impossible expectations of a new international brotherhood. So the disappointment became greater when nations simply acted like their usual self-interested selves instead of idealistic groupies at an Obama hope and change rally.
Third, the constant televised presence of Obama on his 24/7 bully pulpit has surely resulted in Obama fatigue. Most nations don’t seem to fear any of his deadlines or appear mesmerized by his soaring rhetorical flourishes.
Fourth, the nearly $2 trillion dollar annual deficit curbs both the moral and material power of the United States, which has gone into hock to unsavory nations.
Fortunately, for the country, Obama did not take three years to reverse course, unlike Jimmy Carter whose inaction led to a series of foreign policy catastrophes like the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the storming of the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
By voluntarily backtracking — or being rebuffed — on almost all his initiatives, an idealistic Obama is reminding the world that anti-Americanism abroad is not caused so much by what the United States does, but largely by preconceived hostility to the values of liberty, free markets, and individual rights that the United States represents.
Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Krauthammer on Wilders: ignorant, naive, and wrong
Geert Wilders, said Charles Krauthammer, is “extreme, radical, and wrong.” In reality, Charles Krauthammer is ignorant, naive, and wrong.
From “Krauthammer’s Take” at National Review, March 9:
…What he says is extreme, radical, and wrong. He basically is arguing that Islam is the same as Islamism. Islamism is an ideology of a small minority which holds that the essence of Islam is jihad, conquest, forcing people into accepting a certain very narrow interpretation [of Islam]. This is an artificial distinction imposed by non-Muslims like Charles Krauthammer onto the Islamic world; it is not a distinction that is generally made by Muslims themselves, at least outside the U.S. and Western Europe — or if it is, it is made in a different way. Muslims who object to Al-Qaeda and other groups like it generally speak of them as neo-Kharijites, referring to an early rigorist group in Islam that rejected both Sunni and Shi’ite authorities if they deviated from Muhammad’s example, or as takfiri, referring to the jihadists’ promiscuous use of the practice of takfir, that is, declaring other Muslims to be unbelievers. When Muslims have protested against contemporary jihadist activity, it has been when the jihadists murder large numbers of fellow Muslims; the murders of non-Muslims have not generally stirred similar outrage.
Those are essentially the differences between the Al-Qaeda types and other Muslims: the others object to the jihadists’ rigorism and tendency to condemn other Muslims, and to the jihadists’ killing of other Muslims (which violates the command in Qur’an 4:92 never to kill a fellow Muslim intentionally). That’s it. There is no widespread debate among Muslims, outside of a few professors and self-proclaimed reformers with tiny followings, about whether the umma should wage war against unbelievers and strive in various ways to impose Sharia upon the world.
But Krauthammer seems to assume that there is a sharp division between Muslims who are political and supremacist and those who are not — for that is the essence of his saying that the “Islamists” believe that “the essence of Islam is jihad, conquest, forcing people into accepting a certain very narrow interpretation [of Islam].” Jihad — however variously interpreted — is a key element of the Islamic faith according to every single Islamic authority on the planet. Krauthammer, of course, is referring to violent jihad, and assuming that Muslims who are not engaging in it are not rejecting it as a matter of practicality or strategy, or an indifference to their faith, or a failure of courage, but because they actually do not believe it legitimate as a matter of Islamic theology for Muslims to wage war against unbelievers. He would be hard-pressed to find any honest Islamic authorities who would back him up on that — as evidenced by what Islamic authorities say and write to their fellow Muslims, not by what they say and write to easily and eagerly fooled non-Muslim Westerners.
The untruth of that is obvious. If you look at the United States, the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the U.S. are not Islamists. So, it’s simply incorrect. Now, in Europe, there is probably a slightly larger minority but, nonetheless, the overwhelming majority are not.
So Krauthammer is taking the fact that most U.S. Muslims are not engaging in jihad violence to mean that they reject it in principle. This would be a naive assumption in any context. There may be any number of reasons why someone is not doing something, and it would be silly to assume that anyone who is not doing some particular thing is refraining because he believes that to do it would be wrong.
He never considers, of course, the fact that all the mainstream sects and schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach as a matter of faith that Islam is intrinsically political and that Muslims must wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law. But that is a matter of verifiable fact, and it is the cornerstone of Wilders’ argument. There is nothing extreme, or radical, or wrong about noting that fact, and Charles Krauthammer should have the intellectual fortitude to look into this matter; if he did, he would realize that Wilders is correct.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/krauthammer-on-wilders-ignorant-naive-and-wrong.html
France: 15-year-old Muslim student sprays teacher with tear gas after she describes al-Qaeda as a "terrorist group"
But Charles Krauthammer will tell you that Geert Wilders is “extreme, radical, and wrong.”
Eurabia Alert: “Teacher attacked after al-Qaeda comments,” from AFP, March 9 (thanks to Pamela):
Lyon, France – A 15-year-old French schoolboy sprayed a teacher with teargas after she described al-Qaeda as a “terrorist group”, she told reporters on Tuesday as prosecutors began their investigation. “I had just explained that the attacks on September 11, 2001 were carried out by the terrorist organisation al-Qaeda, as is written in the text book,” said the history teacher, speaking on condition of anonymity.
“He stood up and declared that al-Qaeda is not terrorist and that neither is the Taliban,” she said, adding that the boy had then pulled out a spray can and doused her and a teaching assistant with teargas.
Neither victim was seriously hurt….
Oh, well, then, the kid must be a moderate.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/france-15-year-old-muslim-student-sprays-teacher-with-tear-gas-after-she-describes-al-qaeda-as-a-ter.html
Nigeria: Lack of response by authorities aided slaughter of Christians
Jihad Watch
“For quite some time we have alerted the government to training grounds in some parts of the northern state where people are being trained to cause problems in the country… Nobody did anything about it.” More on this story. “Nigeria: Christian Muslim violence perpetrated by mercenaries?,” by Konye Obaji Ori for Afrik, March 10 (thanks to Twostellas): The return to sectarian violence in the Plateau State city of Jos has been largely described as a revenge from the deadly attacks in January. It has also been reported that some of the perpetrators were mercenaries from neighboring Chad and Niger.
Following the sacking of the country’s national security adviser, Sarki Mukhtar, in an apparent response to the sectarian killings by Nigeria’s acting president Mr. Goodluck Jonathan, reports have revealed that Mercenaries from Niger and Chad may have participated in the attacks on Christian villages that claimed hundreds of lives. Those who died were reported to be mainly women and children.
“Many people come into Nigeria under the pretext of being pastoralists, they are mercenaries [from Chad, Niger]. They follow pastoralist routes to gain entrance, carry out their activities and then leave,” the head of the northern area of Nigeria’s Christian Association Mr. Saidu Dogo was quoted as saying.
Mr. Dogo urged the international community to become more actively involved as, he said, the government was unable to protect its own people. “We feel that the world just has to do something. If the Nigerian government cannot do something then the world has to do something to stop this killing,” Mr. Dogo added.
Analysts have described the attack on the three villages near the Plateau state capital, Jos, as an act of revenge carried out by members of the mainly Muslim Fulani community who had fallen prey to violent attacks in January. Human Rights Watch had reported that the sectarian violence in January may have claimed the lives of at least “364 Muslims”.
Above is an extremely deceptive description of the situation in Jos, implying that Christians fired the first proverbial shot, and that the conflict is new. A prior report on the situation in January said “Two pastors and 46 other Christians were killed in the outbreak of violence in Jos on Jan. 17, triggered when Muslim youths attacked a Catholic church; 10 church buildings were burned, and police estimated more than 300 lives were lost in the clash.”
Another report elaborated:
Angry Muslim youths set fire to a church filled with worshipers, starting a riot that killed at least 27 people and wounded more than 300 in Jos, in northern Nigeria, officials said Monday. Sani Mudi, a spokesman for the local imam, said 22 people died in fighting between Christians and Muslims after rioters set fire to a Catholic church on Sunday.
Further background on Jos can be found here and here. The Afrik article continues below:
According to reports, Nigerian troops are patrolling the villages which were targeted on Sunday in a bid to prevent further violence and police say they have arrested more than 90 people suspected of inciting violence. Nonetheless villagers from the nearby communities have began to flee the area for fear of fresh bouts of violence.
“We are fleeing our village because we are afraid we might be the next target of attack by these Fulani. They have been making phone calls warning they are going to attack. We take these threats seriously. We don’t want to be caught off-guard,” AFP quoted a local resident as saying.
The Plateau State Christian Elders Consultative Forum complained that it had taken the army two hours to react after receiving a distress call: “For quite some time we have alerted the government to training grounds in some parts of the northern state where people are being trained to cause problems in the country… Nobody did anything about it.”
Governor of Plateau state Mr. Jonah Jang said he had warned the army about reports of suspicious people with weapons hours before they attacked, but they failed to take action. “Three hours or so later, I was woken by a call that they have started burning the village and people were been hacked to death. I tried to locate the commanders. I couldn’t get any of them on the telephone,” Mr. Jang was quoted as saying….
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/nigeria-lack-of-response-by-authorities-aided-slaughter-of-christians.html
Obama Aims to Impose a Solution on Israel
Ted Belman
President Obama intends to impose a solution to Middle East disputes on Israel. Obama has surrounded himself with a host of vehemently ant-Israel advisers including Lee Hamilton, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and Gen Jones, many of whom advocate imposing a solution on Israel.
So it was no surprise when he started his term of office by attacking Israel, America’s best and most steadfast ally, and demanding a complete settlement freeze east of the Green Line, including Jerusalem. He went so far as to repudiate the U.S. commitment set out in the Bush ‘04 letter to Sharon, saying that there was no agreement at all. Elliot Abrams and others involved in the negotiations which led to the letter testified otherwise.
In January ‘09, before Obama had gotten his act together, Haaretz reported that
Mitchell told Israeli officials that the new administration was committed to Israel’s security, to the road map, and to the 2004 letter by president George W. Bush stating Palestinian refugees would not return to Israel and the border between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would take into consideration facts on the ground, meaning large settlement blocs would remain in Israeli hands [emphasis added].
Within a few months, that commitment was history.
P.M. Netanyahu, who had campaigned on the rejection of the two-state solution and on continued settlement growth, attempted to deflect or resist the pressure. One can only imagine the Tools of Persuasion that Netanyahu was subjected to. Finally, on June 12, 2009, Netanyahu made a major speech at the Begin Centre in which he shocked Israelis by agreeing to a two-state solution.
We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them. In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other.
Never mind that Netanyahu had only limited sovereignty in mind.
He went on to demand as a precondition that “Palestinians must clearly and unambiguously recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people” and that a Palestinian state be demilitarized, “with ironclad security provisions for Israel.”
With respect to the contentious issue of settlement construction, Netanyahu affirmed that there would be no “building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements.” But he reserved the right to “natural growth” within existing settlements:.
As for Jerusalem and refugees, he declared: “Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel with continued religious freedom for all faiths.” And he totally rejected the return of refugees to Israel.
At the time, the concessions were warmly received or hotly debated. Many complained that Netanyahu had caved to the pressure without anything in return. After all, this was not the platform that Netanyahu had campaigned on.
A month later, Obama met with Jewish leaders to reassure them, and by all accounts, the meeting went well. But shortly thereafter, some Jewish leaders demanded that Obama also make demands on Arab countries. Obama publicly took up the challenge during the summer, thereby admitting that Israel should get something in return. He was soundly rebuffed.
Undaunted, Obama then focused on getting Abbas to accept what Netanyahu had offered in his BESA speech when they met in September at the United Nations. Abbas refused to go along. Obama crapped out.
So it then came as a surprise that Netanyahu, on Nov. 26, 2009, announced a unilateral ten-month freeze of settlement construction except for the 3,500 units already announced and natural growth. But he emphasized that the freeze did not include Jerusalem. In fact, a few days earlier, a new project of 800 units was announced for the Jerusalem suburb of Gilo. Although Obama complained about it, he probably agreed to it to help Netanyahu win over his right wing.
The right in Israel was incensed — first by the acknowledgment of the two-state solution and now by the freeze, all with nothing in return.
On the heels of Netanyahu’s speech, Sec Clinton made the following statement,
Today’s announcement by the Government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.
This is little different from Bush’s wording:
In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.
Clinton referred to these realities as “subsequent developments.”
Thus the borders probably will be moved to the east of these blocks, thereby limiting the number of Jews that have to be uprooted to about 50,000, give or take 20,000 depending on negotiations.
So why did Obama repudiate the Bush letter which his man, Sen. Mitchell, had two months earlier endorsed in his name?
There are two, and possibly three, major departures from the Bush letter. Bush had written that “Israel must have secure and recognized borders… in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338,” leaving open the possibility that Res. 242 did not require retreat from all territories. Clinton made no mention of 242 and said the borders must be “based on the 1967 lines.” This suggests that all the land is to be ceded, facilitated by mutually agreed swaps.
Whereas Bush wrote, “and the settling of Palestinian refugees there [Palestine], rather than in Israel,” Clinton was silent. Is this also a departure? I think so. Obama is clearly trying to stay as close to the Saudi Plan as he can. It requires the settlement of the refugee issue pursuant to UNGA Res. 194.
In the scheme of things, these differences are of little importance. Why take the heat for so little profit, especially when Bush had said that doing otherwise was “unrealistic”?
Perhaps there was another reason.
Bush had committed in said letter that “the United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan.” By challenging the whole letter in the first instance and endorsing most of it subsequently, save for this commitment, Obama has succeeded in ridding himself of the commitment. Is Obama thereby reserving the right to impose a plan, as many in his administration recommend he do?
In case you haven’t noticed, neither Obama nor his administration refers to the Roadmap. That is because the Roadmap precludes an imposed solution.
It would appear that the Obama administration has no confidence that a negotiated solution will be achieved. Most pundits and politicians believe likewise, and that includes Netanyahu.
The issues are too intractable, in part because the Arabs, and more specifically the “Palestinians,” are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. They haven’t compromised in ninety years. Why start now?
Abbas continues to reject negotiations. He prefers an imposed solution, too.
This standoff may lead to the disintegration of the P.A., which would invite unilateral moves by Israel, the U.S., or Hamas.
Will Obama push for a bi-national state or allow Israel to annex Judea and Samaria? Will he attempt to impose a solution? The New York Times, in a lead editorial this week, favored Obama: “Advancing his own final-status plan for a two-state solution is one high-risk way forward that we think is worth the gamble.”
Meanwhile, Obama has less than six months to decide to what extent he will cooperate with Israel in bombing Iran.
Ted Belman edits Israpundit.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/obama_aims_to_impose_a_solutio_1.html
Abbas’ posturing continues
Arab League chief: Palestinians pull of talks
Palestinians won’t be entering indirect talks with Israel at this time, Arab League Chief Moussa says Wednesday night, following organization’s urgent session held in wake of Israel’s east Jerusalem construction plans
Reuters
YNET News
Arab League chief Amr Moussa said on Wednesday that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told him he would not enter indirect talks with Israel. “The Palestinian president decided he will not enter into those negotiations now … the Palestinian side is not ready to negotiate under the present circumstances,” Moussa told a news conference following an urgent meeting of Arab delegates at the Arab League headquarters in Cairo.
The Arab League, which recently endorsed indirect talks between the Palestinians and Israel, convened on Wednesday an emergency session following Israel’s decision to build 1,600 new housing units in east Jerusalem.
Biden in Israel
Biden says Palestinians deserve ‘viable’ state / News agencies
During joint Ramallah press conference with Abbas, American vice president says Israel’s east Jerusalem construction plan ‘undermines trust needed for negotiations’; calls on both sides to refrain from ‘inflaming’ tensions. Yishai apologizes for ‘real embarrassment’ caused to Biden
Full Story
The league’s Arab peace initiative committee called on Arab foreign ministers to reconsider their support for the talks they extended on March 3.
“In case of the failure to stop the Israeli measures immediately … the committee concludes that the proposed talks are irrelevant,” the committee’s statement said.
Secretary-General Moussa cut short his visit to Qatar in order to attend the meeting. Syrian representative to the Arab League, Ambassador Yosef Ahamad said that Israel’s decision justifies Damascus’ objection to the renewal of negotiations with the Jewish State.
During a joint press conference with Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr al-Thani, Moussa said, “We will study Israel’s position and formulate recommendations that will be presented to the ministers and later on to the Arab Summit slated to convene in Libya at the end of the month.”
Al-Thani condemned Israel’s plan to expand construction around Jerusalem and said that a clear Arab response must be put forth. He added that Israel’s position is placing the Arab League’s decisions at risk.
“We demand peace with Israel, and demand an immediate peaceful resolution. This is not a warning but an advice for the leaders of Israel,” he said.
The construction plan, which was announced during US Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel, stirred a diplomatic flurry and embarrassed the Prime Minister’s Office.
Biden publicly criticized Israel’s decision and said during a news conference with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah, “Yesterday the decision by the Israeli government to advance planning for new housing units in east Jerusalem undermines that very trust, the trust that we need right now in order to begin … profitable negotiations.”
Abbas, for his part, urged Israel to commit to the peace process and refrain from taking steps that might impede it.
He had agreed to a proposal to resume the US-mediated negotiations after a 14 month hiatus due to the backing from Arab countries.
“The Palestinians remain committed to peace as a strategic choice on the basis of two states co-existing side by side according to the ‘67 borders, with Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state,” he said.
Roee Nahmias contributed to the story
Comment: With no respect given, I have had enough of Abbas and the media continuing to posture and attempt to leverage their ill-gotten stories. Let’s be clear: Abbas et al are not committed to peace-they continue to fund TV shows that denigrate Israel and Israelis; they fund terrorist groups, we have stopped multiple attacks in the recent weeks; they hold firm to their above pre-conditions for peace, e.g., Jerusalem as their capitol, ‘67 borders (there are no “67 borders yet the media never disputes this distortion). Furthermore Israel is not building any NEW villages or towns in the disputed territories of Samaria and Judea.The new units have been in process for over 3 years. Yes, in Israel we have a legal system that operates to systematically determine the true nature of any new building-it takes into account all of the necessary building codes, environmental impact and infrastructure needs-sound familiar to Americans? By now you should have figured out how distorted the facts are when they are constantly ranting the same mantra over and over. This blog and so many others have discounted and invalidated, with facts, the preposterous claims made by Abbas et al. It is up to my readers to engage in tough analysis and search for the truth and once found to have the courage to write the wrongs-a play on my other blog’s name!
Go West!
www.gowest2010.com
By Jerome S. Kaufman
Just a few days ago, I had the great privilege of listening to an American patriot. He reminded me of Jack Kennedy – bright, personable, easy and an eloquent speaker. No teleprompter, no notes, no microphone and yet he kept an audience of near 200 spell-bound for an hour and a half. His name is Lt. Colonel (retired) Allen West. He is the Republican candidate for Congressman in the 22nd District of Florida. Moreover, even if you do not vote in the Florida election, please read what Lt. Colonel West has to say on his web page listed above and support candidates in your own districts that believe as he does. He spoke before a non-partisan political group called Act! For America, Palm Beach County, Florida Chapter. Lt. Col West, like the current president is black. However, there, the similarity ends. He also speaks of the “dreams of his father” but his father was a little different. His father was born in Ozark, Alabama and his mother in Camilla, GA. His grandfather and father both served in the US military.
His parents’ primary ambition was that he become an officer in the US Army. Lt. Col. West fulfilled their ambition when he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the US Army, July 1, 1982. This American family tradition continues with Lt. Col. West’s son now serving as a Captain in the US Artillery corps. His father died at age 86 and his mother at 94. They are buried side by side in an Atlanta, GA cemetery.
The father also taught Lt. Col West free market economics – make your own living, do a competitive job to earn your keep and become a victor rather than a victim dependent upon the largess of the government. Don’t look for bail-outs. He also never heard the word, “entitlement” but rather the emphasis was always on achievement. Lt Col was educated within a strict Catholic school system, went on to graduate from the University of Tennessee and obtained a Master’s degree in political science from Kansas State University. He regularly attended a Methodist Church, experienced many different ministers but never recalls any of them damning the United States of America.
Lt. Col West is also proud to speak of this country as founded on Judeo-Christian principles, well documented in the works of our founding fathers. He has no animosity to any other religion and has no problem with its practice in the United States as long as it obeys the Constitution of the United States, the Federal Papers and the other basic instruments upon which this country was founded.
Lt. Col. West spoke of the abject failure of the current political leadership and listed the obvious reasons this country is losing in the International arena and in our war against Islamic terrorism. He never confused or obfuscated the identity of our enemy with the politically correct but fraudulent term, “War on Terrorism.”He stated our leadership has failed and we are losing when:
· The present administration wants to shut down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, grant Miranda rights and the civilian courts to foreign enemies that have no right to those privileges.
· Prosecutes CIA officers for using interrogation techniques disfavored by the American Civil Liberties Union
· Approaches the war on Islamic terrorism and supremacism as a legalistic exercise distorting its primary goal – our destruction.
· Surrounds the Presidency with people like Rahm Emmanuel who “ never let a crisis go to waste (especially one he has created himself, in this administration’s race to dismantle the American free enterprise system and turn us into a socialist state)
· Has the US government virtually take over the auto industry, the banking industry and attempt to take over the entire energy industry if they are able to pass so-called Cap and Trade.
· Turn the entire health care system over to the government and in one fatal blow assume control of 1/6 of the American economy.
· Appoint 110 additional government agencies and 30 plus Obama “Czars” thus by-passing the elected representatives of the American people.
· Fails to recognize Islamic terrorism as our mortal enemy and allow Islam to impregnate our entire culture, our school system and even the way we do banking.
· Allows the construction of gigantic, deliberately intimidating Islamic mosques financed by Saudi Arabia all over the United States while the Saudis allow not one church or synagogue or any form of worship or presence other than their own fanatical Islamic Wahhabism.·
Through taxes, dramatically increase the entitlement class vs. those that actually produce, adopting socialism as the government modus operendi, at least until, as PM Margaret Thatcher stated, “ You run out of other people’s money.”
It was a fantastic speech by a fantastic guy – hard hitting, direct and motivated in the best interests of the United States of America. Lt. Col. West ended his presentation by warning us that the 2010 election is crucial. If we continue with Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chas. Schumer, the Obama Czars in power and hundreds of other dedicated appointed lackeys in place, there will be nothing left to save by the time 2012 comes along. So, please get out to campaign, vote and donate to people in your own areas like Lt. Col. West, right this moment, before it is too late
Jerome S. Kaufman
Also, if you are a Palm Beach County resident, please send me your snail mail address and I will return a petition for you to sign and mail in making sure Lt. Col. West is included on the Republican Primary Ballot.
Send address to: israelcommentary@comcast.net
