This article from London's Jewish Chronicle is spot-on. On December 28, Judge Gladys Kessler, sitting in Washington DC, delivered an unprecedented and withering rebuke to the Obama administration in relation to a civil action brought against the PA by the relatives of the late Mr. Esh Gilmore. On October 30 2000, Mr Gilmore, an American citizen, was shot dead in Jerusalem. He was 25 years of age, married with a young daughter.
His relatives — the plaintiffs — allege that his murder was carried out by a faction controlled by the PA, from which they seek damages. The PA has sought to delay the determination of the case and, on November 28 2006, Mahmoud Abbas himself wrote to the then Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, asking her to intervene. She refused to do so but replied, on January 12 2007: “I encourage you to respond to US legal proceedings in good faith and in a timely manner.”
The PA decided not to defend the suit. Judgment was therefore entered against it in absentia. Thinking better of its inaction, the PA then appealed to Judge Kessler. The learned judge, knowing that any order she might make could affect the peace process, turned (as she was entitled to do) to the Obama administration for guidance. The curt response she received was (in her own words) “particularly unhelpful”. Indeed, she accused Hillary Clinton’s state department of being “mealy-mouthed” in declining to furnish the court with any authoritative pronouncement. But the state department’s brusque response did contain one comment of note. It warned Judge Kessler that the USA “remains concerned about the potentially significant impact that these default cases may have on the defendants’ financial and political viability.”
Liability for damages and ability to pay them are two different, though obviously not unrelated matters. However, it seems to be the policy of the Obama government to shield the PA from the consequences of its action, or rather inaction — whether it be a petulant refusal to defend itself in an American court or a calculated unwillingness to sit opposite Israel at a negotiating table.
Let us be clear. During 2009, Mr Abbas negotiated eagerly with the USA, the UK and the EU. But not with Israel. He must be made to realise that the international community — but above all the USA — will not do his negotiating for him.
Until he is disabused of his evident belief that peace lies in this direction there will be no meaningful negotiations. And no peace.
Andrew Sullivan is showing off his ignorance again. The slow cultural shifts in Israel - toward ever more arrogance, more fundamentalism, more Russian immigrant racism, contempt for the Muslim world, military adventurism, and the daily grinding of the Palestinians on the West Bank and pulverization and inhumane blockade of the people of Gaza ... well maybe some others can explain it.
All I can say is: it saddens me, as a longtime lover of the Jewish state. It does not represent the historic mainstream of liberal Jewish society, it is a betrayal of many Jewish virtues that goyim like me deeply admire, and it seems designed for war as some kind of eternal and uplifting state of mind.
The government of Canada has decided to cut off all funding to Christian and Muslim organizations that support or promote anti-Israel hatred. One such organization is the Kairos welfare agency, which lost $7 million – half of its annual budget. Kairos is a social apparatus serving 11 Catholic and Protestant groups and churches promoting the "liberation theology" within the Canadian legal and educational establishments.
Canadian Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said that the agency's budget was cut back in light of its anti-Semitic positions, adding the group preaches for recognition of such terror organizations as Hamas and Hezbollah while rejecting the Jewish people's right for a state.
Kairos denied Kenney's claims and charged that the Canadian government's decision was motivated by political considerations. It further argued that criticism of Israel should not be regarded as anti-Semitism.
Another organization whose funds were cut back was the Canadian-Arab Federation, which provides aid for immigrants from Muslim countries. The claim against the group was that it promoted hatred and extremism. The Federation claimed in response that by withdrawing funds from its budget, the Canadian government is shunning Arab immigrants.
The Palestine House Educational (PHE), which has enjoyed $750,000 a budget in the last two years, has also been targeted by Canadian authorities.
Two years ago, I warned that the 'Palestinians' may try to adopt the model that Kosovo adopted with the Serbs by unilaterally declaring independence. Here's some of what I wrote in a very lengthy post. All of which brings us to what Israel's response to Kosovo's declaration of independence ought to be. Here, there is little doubt that Israel ought to refuse to recognize Kosovo for two reasons I have discussed before, namely the implications that the Kosovo situation has for the 'Palestinians' and the implications it has for 'Israeli Arabs.' First, the 'Palestinians':
There is a small piece of disputed land, that is rich in history but poor in everything else. Its preponderant population of two million Muslims wants to turn it into a sovereign state. The United States, the European Union, and much of the 'international community,' are in favor of creating a sovereign state on that piece of disputed land, but doing so would open a Pandora’s Box of geopolitical, legal, moral and security issues, and create a black hole of lawlessness, endemic corruption and jihad-terrorism.
Sounds like Judea and Samaria or Judea, Samaria and Gaza, doesn't it? But it's not. It's Kosovo, the southernmost province of Serbia.The 'Palestinians' were quick to understand the implications of a western recognition of Kosovo's independence. 'Palestinian' negotiator Yasser Abd Rabbo suggested last week that the 'Palestinians' should follow Kosovo's model and declare their
statereichlet unilaterally. But 'moderate' 'Palestinian' PresidentMahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen was smarter than that.Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas quickly dismissed a top aide's call Wednesday for a unilateral declaration of statehood if negotiations with Israel fail.
The Palestinians are committed to reaching a negotiated peace agreement this year, Abbas said in a statement.
"If we are unable to do that... We will return to our Arab [brothers] to take the appropriate decision," he said.Abu Mazen is waiting for one of two things to happen. He is waiting either for Israel to recognize Kosovo, which could happen at any time, and which would make it much more difficult for Israel to argue that the 'Palestinians' do not deserve their own
statereichlet. Or he is waiting for negotiations to break down completely, which could force the Americans to recognize an independent 'Palestinian'statereichlet due to this statement on Friday by US State Department spokesman Sean McCormick:Asked why Kosovo had to wait just nine years under UN administration to obtain its independence, while the Palestinians have been waiting since 1948, McCormack said the situations were different.
"The situation in Kosovo had run its course, in terms of trying to find a solution, a negotiated political solution," McCormack said.
"We believe that there still is the possibility of a negotiated settlement" in the Palestinian territories, he said, citing peace talks held in Annapolis, Maryland last year under the auspices of President George W. Bush.For those who can't read between the lines, Daled Amos explains what this statement means:
So, if it becomes clear that a negotiated settlement is not feasible, would the US likewise contend that the situation "had run its course" and ultimately back the establishment of a Palestinian state?
I think the obvious answer to that question is "yes." And if Israel recognizes Kosovo, that makes it even easier for the US to do so.
In late 2008, the collapse of the Annapolis peace negotiations between Abbas and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who, as Abbas acknowledged publicly, had made unprecedented concessions,6 further motivated the Palestinians to embrace a unilateral approach to statehood as a default option. Abed Rabo confirmed at the time that, "we have another option. Kosovo is not better than Palestine."7
...
Two leading international jurists have suggested that the cases of Kosovo and the Palestinian Authority are historically and legally different.10 However, from a Palestinian point of view, it seems that legal and historical context are less important than the sympathetic political perceptions that can be created in the international community by promoting what appear to be some external similarities.11 The Palestinians liken themselves to Kosovo's profile in the West as a besieged, indigenous population seeking freedom and independence from its brutal Serbian sovereign overlord, which in the Palestinian analogy is the State of Israel's "occupation" of the disputed West Bank.12
True, both Palestinians and Muslim Kosovars enjoy international support for their respective bids for independence.13 Both have established internationally-sanctioned, self-governing authorities, receive European security backing and UN financial support, and work with UN-appointed special envoys, while each has penned a constitution. However, Kosovo enjoys a NATO security presence, which Palestinian negotiators have failed to introduce into the West Bank despite several attempts to do so in past peace negotiations with Israel.14
Another point of similarity between Kosovars and the Palestinians involves territory. The Kosovo model did not require a territorial compromise on the part of the Albanian Muslim Kosavar government to take into account areas where concentrations of Serbian Christian population remained.15 Similarly, the Palestinian leadership has been reluctant to compromise with Israel over Israeli population centers and vital security requirements in the West Bank.
Politically, many in the Palestinian leadership assess that adopting a unilateral "Kosovo strategy" and seeking international legitimacy to impose the 1967 borders on Israel is their best option, which, in their view, would automatically solve the issues of Jewish settlements and the status of Jerusalem without having to negotiate with Israel, while leaving the refugee issue to be decided according to the "agreed-upon solution" specified in the Arab peace initiative.16
...
The Palestinian leadership did not adopt the unilateral "Kosovo strategy" ex nihilo. Leading members of the European Union encouraged the Palestinians to move in this direction. PA chief negotiator Saeb Erekat credited former EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana with engineering the idea.28 In July 2009, Solana told a British forum that after a fixed deadline, the UN Security Council should unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state along the 1967 lines.29 Palestinian unilateralism also received a boost in early December 2009 when Sweden, in the final thirty days of its rotating EU presidency, proposed that EU foreign ministers back its draft proposal recognizing east Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, thus implying EU acceptance of a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood.30
The EU Foreign Policy Council partly softened its final statement days later. However, as former UN ambassador Dore Gold notes, the final EU statement still retained the proposal that envisioned Jerusalem as the future capital of two states. Additionally, the statement said that the EU "would not recognize any changes to the pre-1967 borders including with regard to Jerusalem," thereby enshrining the 1967 lines - a key Palestinian demand - as a previous political border.31 Palestinian unilateralism has also drawn encouragement from the United Nations itself. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has reportedly issued expressions of support for such moves, according to former PA security chief Mohammed Dahlan and Saeb Erekat in a November 14, 2009, interview with the Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam.32
Despite Palestinian disenchantment with Washington, there are signs that the Obama administration position supports the Palestinian demand for a state along the 1967 lines and a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem,39 which are central objectives of the Palestinian "Kosovo strategy." According to one assessment, Obama may have even supplied the Palestinians with a letter of guarantee to that effect.40 While the U.S. is publicly committed to the principle of a negotiated solution between the sides, it has grown impatient with the bilateral process. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly expressed deep frustration with both the PA and Israel, which supports the Palestinian sense that they are on the right track in pursuing a unilateral "Kosovo" option.
Former Bush administration Middle East adviser Elliott Abrams talks with the Council on Foreign Relations about the 'peace process.' Some of this is about Iran, but most of it is about Israel and the 'Palestinians.' The bottom line is that Obama, Mitchell and Clinton are going about this all wrong. Sure, they can force the parties to the table, but unless the parties both want to be there, nothing is going to happen. Coming back to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, is anything really possible until Hamas and Fatah can get their act together?
Well, I would put it another way. There is a lot of pressure from the Saudis and some other Arab governments for Hamas-Fatah reconciliation. But the Israelis have made clear that they are not going to negotiate with a government that is half terrorist, a government that includes representatives of Hamas. So I don't think that Hamas-Fatah reconciliation would be good for negotiations. I would argue that negotiations progress only when there has been progress on the ground. Or to put it another way, diplomacy has got to reflect what is happening on the ground and not vice-versa. If the Israelis see the development of a representative system of government, a legal system, law and order, and a thriving economy in the West Bank, that is much more likely to make them willing to negotiate successfully for establishing a Palestinian state. That is what has to come first.
So you think that just trying to get talks going for the sake of talks is a mistake?
I do, and the example I would give you is Annapolis [where the United States in November 2007 launched a meeting with all Middle East nations to get peace talks started]. The United States can always get talks going if it tries hard enough. The question then is where do they go? And we saw in the case of Annapolis that they did not go anywhere. I suppose that if the administration concentrates almost exclusively on getting a negotiation going, it can get a negotiation going, but it isn't going to go very far. Both the Palestinians and Israel will ultimately decide that their relations with the United States are important enough to sit at the table together, but that's not a formula for successful negotiations; that's just a formula for keeping the United States off your back.
It does recall the efforts of the Carter administration to try to get a grand negotiation going, but it wasn't until Egypt's President Anwar Sadat took the initiative for direct Israeli-Egyptian talks that things got rolling.
That is an important point because the real impetus for those talks, which led to the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement in March 1979, didn't come from the United States, but from Sadat. It would suggest that when the parties are ready to have a successful negotiation, they will do it whether we like it or not. And our pressure on them, while it leads them to the table, does not lead them to successful negotiations if they're not ready.
And you think at the moment they're not ready?
That's right. I think that the Palestinians are not ready to go back to the table until there is a settlement freeze first; second, they are divided between Hamas-Gaza and Fatah-West Bank, and thirdly, one has to remember that Fatah and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, which runs Fatah, are facing a generational leadership change. President Mahmoud Abbas, who is the head of the Fatah party, the head of the PLO, and the head of the Palestinian Authority, has announced that he is not going to run again. In fact this month, his term and the term of the legislature are, by anybody's definition, up. They will stay in office until an election can be held. But sooner or later, an election does have to be held, and if Abbas doesn't run again, there is no obvious candidate for replacing him. So they are in the middle of a kind of political crisis, and that is not a great moment for negotiations with the Israelis.
Four years ago, I was in Paris for the Sabbath, and found myself at a communal meal sitting opposite the daughter of Mrs. Carl's and my wedding photographer. This woman was in Paris with her mother who lived in Israel and her sister who lived in the US. She was attached to an Israeli embassy in an African country, which flew her to Paris once a month to buy meat and other Kosher foodstuffs. She said that she and her husband had started in the foreign service in Jordan, which was considered a plum assignment because "you get to come home every weekend." After Thursday evening, it may not be considered such a plum assignment anymore.A bomb exploded near a small convoy of vehicles belonging to Israel's embassy in Jordan on Thursday afternoon. No one was hurt in the incident, which occurred some 20 kilometers from the border crossing at Allenby Bridge, and the vehicles continued on to Amman [the previous link says they continued to the bridge, which makes more sense. CiJ].
...
Two Jordanian security sources said the attack targeted a top Israeli diplomat in Jordan. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.
The spokeswoman at the Israeli Embassy in Amman, Merav Horsendi, confirmed that there was a blast next to a convoy carrying embassy employees.
"All I can say now is that everyone is fine," she said.
The Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) was cooperating with Jordanian security authorities to investigate the explosion.
“It is a serious threat. It is not an existential threat. It is not within the power of Iran to destroy the state of Israel — at best it can cause Israel grievous damage. Israel is indestructible. I believe that Israel has a sufficient capability, both offensive and defensive, to take care of any threat, including the Iranian threat.”
The party sent to set up the hospital will include 40 doctors and 24 nurses, and is scheduled to leave Thursday evening. The hospital, capable of treating 500 patients, will include an intensive care unit, two operating rooms, a pharmacy, and an X-ray lab.
Search and rescue agents from the Homefront Command will also be included in the party.
Levy said a Home front Command delegation was currently making its way from the Dominican Republic to the quake-struck country.
The number of victims resulting from the quake has not yet been announced. The Foreign Ministry has stated that all of the Israelis deemed missing after the disaster have been contacted but for Sharona Elsaieh, daughter of late peace activist Abie Nathan.
Maybe I haven't been following this enough, but the only other country I've seen sending people there is the United States, although I did see that the UN and Cuba already have people there.
Posts
All Comments
