Love of the Land: Farcical Proximity Talks#links#links#links

Farcical Proximity Talks

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
10 May '10

The “peace process” is underway, George Mitchell boasts. But the first “achievement” reveals how inane the entire exercise is. This report explains that the State Department crows that “Israel had pledged not to build in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood of East Jerusalem for two years.” But wait:

Sources close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to the American announcement later Sunday, confirming that the housing project intended for the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood would not be built in the coming two years. The sources added that even when the Ramat Shlomo crisis first erupted, when the housing project was announced just as U.S. Vice President Joe Biden was visiting Israel, Israel told the U.S. administration that the project was only in very initial stages and construction would not begin for at least two years.

So what was the cause of an international incident is now touted as a success. That’s the Orwellian world of peace talks. And the PA’s contribution? They promise not to incite violence. Hmm. Will they rename Dalal Mughrabi square after someone who did not slaughter 38 Israeli civilians? Will we hear a call to end the days of rage? For now, each party pretends something is happening. Meanwhile, the “achievements” remain ephemeral, their only purpose being to secure further employment for George Mitchell.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Farcical Proximity Talks

Love of the Land: Observation: Defining “Trust Undermining” Palestinian Action

Observation: Defining “Trust Undermining” Palestinian Action

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
09 May '10

“As both parties know, if either takes significant actions during the proximity talks that we judge would seriously undermine trust, we will respond to hold them accountable and ensure that negotiations continue.”

Statement on Special Envoy George Mitchell's Trip
The State Department
Washington, DC
May 9, 2010
www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/05/141637.htm

What constitutes Palestinian serious "trust undermining?

Just the amorphous "incitement"?

Well, what confidence can Israel have of Palestinian intentions when they continue taking a leading role in:

1. Efforts to keep Israel out of various international bodies such as the OECD.

2. Initiatives to condemn Israel in various international forums.

3. Promoting various economic sanctions against Israel.

4. Supporting and encouraging the harassment of Israeli official on campuses around the world.

And here’s one that the United States itself is guilty in aiding, abetting and encouraging: the absolutely stunning and appalling official Palestinian demand that every Palestinian held by Israel for terror activities – regardless of what they did (e.g. no matter how heinous the crime) or when they did it (including a minute ago) should be set free. That’s “set free”. Not handed over to the PA justice system. Set free. Period.

And the list goes on.

Question: Will the United States consider any of the above “trust undermining” or will President Obama’s and Secretary of State Clinton’s determination to give the Palestinians a passing grade come what may cause them to ignore all of this?

Better question: Will Prime Minister Netanyahu’s team limit its complaints regarding Palestinian behavior to Palestinian incitement and essentially give the Palestinians a free pass for everything else that they do that undermines trust?

Love of the Land: Observation: Defining “Trust Undermining” Palestinian Action

Love of the Land: Peace Process “Starts”?

Peace Process “Starts”?

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
05 May '10

This report tells you just how unserious — and unrelated to “peace” — is the process that supposedly started today: “United States special envoy George Mitchell met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday, as Israelis and Palestinians readied themselves for the start of long-awaited indirect peace negotiations.” Yes, after 15 months George Mitchell has gotten the Palestinians and the Israelis to do exactly what they have been doing — talking to him and not each other. Yes, they came up with a fancy name — “proximity talks” — but that’s not exactly truth in advertising. There is no talking between the parties, in contrast to what happened during the Bush and Clinton administrations, which at least got the two sides in the same room. It’s not even clear what authority the PA has to negotiate:

Despite media reports that Mitchell’s meetings with Netanyahu would kick off the talks, the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization has still to convene to give the go-ahead to Palestinian participation in the negotiations. The Arab League gave its backing to the talks on Saturday.

It is unclear when the Committee will meet. Abbas, the PLO head, was in Cairo and Amman on Wednesday for talks with President Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah II, and was not expected to return to Ramallah before Friday.

But just as the title of the talks signals that nothing much is going on, so does the pablum put out to the media after the first session: “A spokesman for the Prime Minister’s Office said that the two met for three hours and described the atmosphere as good. Mitchell and Netanyahu are scheduled to meet again on Thursday.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Peace Process “Starts”?

Love of the Land: Abbas Gets a White House Visit

Abbas Gets a White House Visit

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
25 April '10

Fox News reports:

President Barack Obama’s Middle East envoy wrapped up his latest diplomatic mission Sunday without getting the Palestinians to agree to indirect peace talks with Israel, but there were signs the impasse could be broken soon.George Mitchell said he would return to the region next week, signaling he is making progress.

Palestinian officials said President Mahmoud Abbas plans to consult with Arab countries at the end of the week and could soon be heading to the White House for talks with Obama. Abbas needs to decide whether to engage with Israel, with Mitchell as a go-between, even though Israel has rejected his demands to freeze new construction for Jews in east Jerusalem, the Palestinians’ hoped-for capital.

A senior Palestinian official said Abbas was inclined to agree to the talks, in large part because of personal appeals in recent days from Obama, Mitchell and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing internal Palestinian deliberations.

Wait. Abbas is meeting with Obama at the White House after the multiple snubs to Netanyahu? Yup. And it’s not hard to figure out why. The Obami are rewarding intransigence and bribing Abbas not to embarrass George Mitchell and crew by wrecking the proximity talks. Fox notes that the Obami hve been “trying to coax Abbas back to the table”:

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Abbas Gets a White House Visit

Love of the Land: The peace process is about to continue ... no it isn't ... arrgh!

The peace process is about to continue ... no it isn't ... arrgh!

Soccer Dad
25 April '10

What's the current state of Middle East negotiations?

According to the New York Times ... they're back on track ... maybe

The American envoy to the Middle East, George J. Mitchell, planned to meet on Friday with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, a sign that indirect Israeli-Palestinian peace talks may be getting back on track, officials from all three parties said.
In advance of encounters with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and, separately, with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, Mr. Mitchell met on Friday with the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, Reuters reported, but no details of the discussions were made public.

The talks with the two leaders had been expected to begin last month but were delayed after Israel announced plans to build 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem, where the Palestinians hope to build their capital. The Palestinians and President Obama were furious at the announcement, made during a visit to Israel by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., and the Americans made a number of demands of Israel aimed at restoring the negotiations.

According to the Washington Post, still no signs of life.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called Saturday for a resumption of peace negotiations with Israel and said he had asked the United States more than once to unilaterally "impose" a solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"I call upon the American administration, especially President Obama, to resume peaceful negotiations and to stop the settlements and to launch serious negotiations for establishing the Palestinian state," Abbas told leaders of his Fatah party in a speech.

"We asked them more than one time to impose the solution," Abbas said of U.S. officials, voicing frustration over the absence of progress toward a peace settlement.

What's interesting is that the Post acknowledges that Abbas is asking the United States to impose a settlement.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: The peace process is about to continue ... no it isn't ... arrgh!

Love of the Land: No American Troops Should Die Protecting Israel

No American Troops Should Die Protecting Israel

Marty Peretz
The New Republic
12 April '10

(Certainly a catchy title)

Almost before the celebrants at Barack Obama’s inauguration had gotten over their hangovers some 15 months ago, the president designated George Mitchell as his special envoy in the Middle East. I wrote then and several times since that he would be a flop, poor man. After all, it’s not the case that he had been a great success in any of his other high-minded missions, including the investigation into steroid use by baseball heroes. In his latest tussle with the now-almost-ancient struggle between Jews and Arabs over Palestine, he was also shackled by his boss’s stubbornly defective history of the region, which, of course, morphed into equally stubborn and defective formulae for fixing that history.

My guess is that this could be Mitchell’s final voyage to the Holy Land, and he may begin saying his goodbyes. Unless he is such a glutton for punishment that he can’t bear to leave. Senator, better take my advice. God bless and good riddance.

Maybe the Palestinian Authority will yet agree to participate in the “proximity talks” on which the president has staked so much. You need to keep in mind that it is the Palestinians--not the Israelis--who are rejecting these low-status negotiations. And not because they want higher-status talks. But because they want to extract concessions from Jerusalem as a precondition for participating even in this remote model for contact between the parties. Then, of course, they’ll try to extract more substantial concessions for attending direct talks. Maybe this is Obama’s plan as well.

But even he may be tiring of these prevaricative tactics. So, pushed by his (what should be) desolating failure even to get indirect contacts going, Obama may be tempted to spring his more-or-less detailed peace plan upon the world. As you surely have grasped, I am far from convinced that any such design will succeed. And it is not, as many in the media seem to assume, because Israel is intransigent. For that matter, I do not think one should blame the ongoing failures of diplomacy on the intransigence of the Palestinians, obstinate though they are. The real impediment to successful Israeli-Palestinians talks, even to unsuccessful talks, is that Palestine is a failed society.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: No American Troops Should Die Protecting Israel

Love of the Land: Arab States Lose Faith in the United States Over Lack of Action on Iran, Administration Blames Israel

Arab States Lose Faith in the United States Over Lack of Action on Iran, Administration Blames Israel

JINSA Report #: 973
16 March '10

Viral on the web yesterday was a blog post at ForeignPolicy.com about a briefing supposedly given to Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by CENTCOM senior officers following a trip through the Arab world. It contained the paragraphs:

The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM's mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that [U.S. envoy and former Senator George] Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) "too old, too slow ... and too late."

The briefers were careful to tell Mullen that their conclusions followed from a December 2009 tour of the region where, on Petraeus's instructions, they spoke to senior Arab leaders. "Everywhere they went, the message was pretty humbling," a Pentagon officer familiar with the briefing says. "America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding." But Petraeus wasn't finished: two days after the Mullen briefing, Petraeus sent a paper to the White House requesting that the West Bank and Gaza... be made a part of his area of operations. Petraeus's reason was straightforward: with U.S. troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military had to be perceived by Arab leaders as engaged in the region's most troublesome conflict.

This, according to the blog, was the background to Vice President Biden's tongue-lashing of Israel's prime minister and the outrageous slander that Israel is to blame for the difficulties the Obama Administration is having getting our Arab leaders to help us in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Damage done.

In our experience, there are three half-truths and an enormous, vicious lie in the post.

(Read full report)

Love of the Land: Arab States Lose Faith in the United States Over Lack of Action on Iran, Administration Blames Israel

Love of the Land: An American Ambassador in Syria

An American Ambassador in Syria

JINSA Report #962
09 February '10

Middle East envoy George Mitchell announced on a recent visit to Syria that the United States would be returning an ambassador to Damascus. A U.S. official in Damascus told a German press agency that the ambassador, "will help change Syria's attitude in the region in order to ensure stability and security. Washington hopes that Syria will play an essential role in eliminating U.S. concerns regarding its attitude in the region."

Mr. Mitchell, according to the BBC, did not appear to expect a breakthrough with Syria (that is a relief!), but does seem to have encouraged Syria to believe the United States is willing to listen to its concerns (that is NOT a relief!).

But why? Mitchell said he had told Bashar Assad that President Obama was "determined to facilitate a truly comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace... If we are to succeed, we will need Arabs and Israelis alike to work with us... We will welcome the full co-operation of the government of the Syrian Arab Republic in this historic endeavor."

The Obama Administration, often accused of having plans too far-reaching to be realistic, is quite short-sighted when it comes to the Middle East. While peace between Arabs and Israelis alike is to be ardently wished for (and if wishes were horses, beggars would ride, but that's another story) the region is much larger than Syria's interest in regaining the Golan Heights and an illegal toehold on the Sea of Galilee. Syria is fully an Iranian proxy and a fulcrum of anti-Western disturbance across the entire region.

This is, after all, the Syria that recently completed the humbling of pro-Western Lebanese president Saad Hariri, who now has Hezbollah in his cabinet and an independent Hezbollah army-supplied increasingly openly by Syria-in the south of his erstwhile country. And this is the Syria that appears to have transferred mobile surface-to-surface missiles to Hezbollah under the nose of UNIFIL. [That would be the UNIFIL whose outgoing commander told Ha'aretz that he was not empowered to talk to Hezbollah or patrol the Syria-Lebanon border to stop smuggling and didn't solve the problem of Hezbollah rockets aimed at Israel, but otherwise thought he did a great job.] This is the Syria that American military sources say still harbors al Qaeda, and the Syria that supports Hamas in Gaza. This is the Syria that has improved ties with an increasingly Islamist and Iran-oriented Turkey. And the Syria that was described by a senior American official in December as having traces of highly processed Iranian plutonium at the Syrian-North Korean facility bombed by Israel two years ago.

There are two ways to look at it. Because of all that Syria does out of the conviction that its alliance with Iran (and North Korea) makes it more important in the region than would otherwise be the case, the United States should send an ambassador back to show that we take its concerns seriously. Or, conversely, the United States could support those countries who find themselves under threat from an irredentist Syria; namely Iraq, Jordan, Israel and what remains of democratic Lebanon.

The Obama Administration has chosen the former. We ask again, why?

Archive of past JINSA Reports

Love of the Land: An American Ambassador in Syria

Love of the Land: Unsentimental Education

Unsentimental Education

What has Obama learned about peace?

Marty Peretz
The New Republic
29 January '10

(While not agreeing with some of his conclusions, this article just has too many good points to pass by. Y.)

“The cruel God of the Jews has you beaten too.”--Racine

An interview by Joe Klein in Time magazine is hardly a historical event. But, when the interview is with Barack Obama, it lays claim to some newsworthiness. This is especially true when it is ballyhooed as a firstanniversary event. Since, moreover, (right after awarding himself good grades on Al Qaeda in Yemen and Somalia) it’s clear that Obama wanted to make a point: “The other area which I think is worth noting is that the Middle East peace process has not moved forward. And I think it’s fair to say that for all our efforts at early engagement, it is not where I want it to be.”

Klein then throws the president an easy ball, which Obama hits just outside the third baseline. “I’ll be honest with you. ... This is just really hard. Even for a guy like George Mitchell, who helped bring about peace in Northern Ireland. This is as intractable a problem as you get.” I suppose this is an admission of sorts for the president. But, as he goes on, you find that his understanding of “the problem” is not an understanding at all. It is a disposition, and the disposition is his. Not his alone, mind you. Still, it is his, and that’s what counts.

How does one characterize this disposition? Of course, you can read the interview. Or let me quote briefly: “Both sides--the Israelis and the Palestinians--have found the political environment, the nature of their coalitions or the divisions within their societies, were such that it was very hard for them to start engaging in a meaningful conversation. ... Moving forward, though, we are going to continue to work with both parties to recognize what I think is ultimately their deep-seated interest in a two-state solution in which Israel is secure and the Palestinians have sovereignty and can start focusing on developing their economy and improving the lives of their children and grandchildren.” One is tempted to ask what Arab model the Arabs of Palestine will use as a prototype for their own prosperity and freedom. Is there such anywhere in the Arab world? Perhaps the president will himself propose one.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Unsentimental Education

Love of the Land: When Peace Is Not a Priority

When Peace Is Not a Priority

P. David Hornik
Frontpagemag.com
25 January '10

U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell is here in Israel again, and it’s not stirring much excitement or even interest. On Sunday he met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with the latter saying Mitchell had “interesting ideas” on how to get Israeli-Palestinian talks going again but not saying what the ideas were.

On Friday Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas reiterated to Mitchell his refusal to talk with Netanyahu absent a total ban on Jewish building in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and East Jerusalem. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said the fact that Israel had positions at all—on not giving up every inch of the West Bank, on the demilitarization of a future Palestinian state—made negotiating with Israel impossible.

Based on his statements to Time magazine’s Joe Klein last week, it can be surmised that President Barack Obama is not all that surprised by Mitchell’s inability to get anything moving.

“This is just really hard,” Obama told Klein.
“Even for a guy like George Mitchell…. Both sides—the Israelis and the Palestinians—have found that the political environment, the nature of their coalitions or the divisions within their societies, were such that it was very hard for them to start engaging in a meaningful conversation…. From Abbas’ perspective, he’s got Hamas looking over his shoulder and, I think, an environment generally within the Arab world that feels impatient with any process.
“And on the Israeli front—although the Israelis, I think, after a lot of time showed a willingness to make some modifications in their policies, they still found it very hard to move with any bold gestures….”

It is easy to poke holes in Obama’s evenhandedness here: the fact that while Netanyahu has been ready at all times to negotiate with Abbas, with not even his most right-wing coalition partners objecting to negotiations per se, it is Abbas who has stonewalled; the fact that it was not “after a lot of time,” but very quickly—in a matter of months since taking office—that Netanyahu made quite bold gestures of reversing his lifelong opposition to a Palestinian state and then announcing an unprecedented ten-month settlement freeze in Judea and Samaria, none of which has sufficed to lure Abbas back to the table.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: When Peace Is Not a Priority

Love of the Land: Masters and donkeys

Masters and donkeys

Sarah Honig
Another Tack/JPost
22 January '10

Consciously or otherwise, the carrot-or-stick motif conjures images of masters and the dumb donkeys they try to prod and move along. Those lucky enough to be in position to choose between inducing or punishing are obviously the power-wielding honchos.

Those to be tempted or whacked into submission are clearly the brutish troublesome beasts which must be disciplined - one way or another.

Therefore, when US President Barack Obama's special Mideast envoy fails to object to carrot-and-stick speak - and even bothers to specify one stick's characteristics - he implies that he's in charge, while we, threatened with a severe whack on the rump, are his asses.

So forget the nitty-gritty of George Mitchell's January 7 gibber-jabber in the PBS interview with Charlie Rose about withdrawing loan guarantees if we Israelis don't obey pronto. Plenty of ink has been spilled on whether this constituted a serious signal. The point has been honed that we don't desperately depend on said guarantees, that Israel repays all its debts dutifully and that it can get along just fine, thank you, without Washington's grudging favor.

That's almost the lesser issue.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Masters and donkeys

Love of the Land: The perils of presidential failure

The perils of presidential failure

Caroline Glick
carolineglick.com
23 January '10

(How this may impact Israel appears later in article)

US President Barack Obama is feeling the heat. His response to the current crisis threatening to sink his one-year-old presidency is telling for what it says about the future of both his domestic and foreign policies. Israel should take heed of his responses.

Obama's Democratic Party, and indeed the US political establishment as a whole, received a jolt on Tuesday when Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts seat in the US Senate that had been held by the Democratic Kennedy dynasty since 1952. The question now on everyone's lips is whether Brown's stunning victory will cause Obama to change his course and moderate his policies.

The Massachusetts Senate race was a real world example of what opinion polling data has shown. Since last summer, a consistently growing number of US voters oppose Obama's policies.

Brown's victory was nationally significant because it removed the Democrats' filibuster proof, 60-man super-majority in the Senate. With Brown as the 41st Republican senator, the minority party can now muster the votes to block legislation from being called to a vote before the full Senate and so prevent laws from being passed.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: The perils of presidential failure

Love of the Land: Over Confident

Over Confident

Marc Prowisor
Yesha Views
22 January '10

Posted before Shabbat

In President Obama’s recent interview to Time magazine, many media outlets translated the Presidents feelings to that he felt “over confident” regarding the Middle East Peace Process. I don’t think I would use the word “over confident”, I would change it to ”wrong”.

A quote from the article -

“I think it is absolutely true that what we did this year didn't produce the kind of breakthrough that we wanted, and if we had anticipated some of these political problems on both sides earlier, we might not have raised expectations as high”.

I think I would translate this as “ we failed because we didn’t study the conflict and history of the region, furthermore we have no idea or understanding regarding the Arab world”.

I do not blame the President for these mistakes, after all he hires “experts” to delve into this arena. Of course this team of “experts” he is working with have one of the worst records regarding Israel since the rebirth of the Jewish State. Maybe the fact that they are not objective, or are straight out supporters of the Arab nations has something to do with it, or maybe their negative attitude towards Israel? Wait, I could be wrong, he did hire these guys, so I guess I do blame him. But he can still make things right and hire people who do understand.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Over Confident

Love of the Land: Humility Isn’t in the Obami Repertoire

Humility Isn’t in the Obami Repertoire

Jennifer Rubin
The Weekly Standard
18 January '10

Elliott Abrams sums up the mess that is the result of a year of the Obami’s “smart” Mideast policy:

So the Obama administration’s Middle East adventures in 2009 came to a close with Netanyahu, whom the administration has never much liked or treated well, stronger politically; and Abbas, whom the administration wished to strengthen, weaker and talking of retirement. In Arab capitals the failure of the United States to stop Iran’s nuclear program is understood as American weakness in the struggle for dominance in the Middle East, making additional cooperation from Arab leaders on Israeli-Palestinian issues even less likely. A strongly pro-American former Israeli official shook his head as he evaluated the Obama record in 2009: “This is what happens when -arrogance and clumsiness come together.”

While George Mitchell prattles on about a time limit on peace negotiations that have no starting point, no attendees, and no hope of success, Abrams suggests there is another way: forget the “peace process,” the endless churning of diplomats in European capitals with the same impediments to meaningful progress (not the least of which is a viable Palestinian negotiating partner for Israel), and instead create “a Palestinian state from the bottom up, institution by institution, and ending with Israeli withdrawal and negotiation of a state only when Palestinian political life is truly able to sustain self-government, maintain law and order, and prevent terrorism against Israel.” Despite the inescapable logic of the idea and the presence of Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who is devoted to such an approach, the Obami seem insistent on trotting out Mitchell to rehash what has been tried not for only a year but for a couple decades.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Humility Isn’t in the Obami Repertoire

Love of the Land: Honest Broker, Anyone?

Honest Broker, Anyone?

Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
15 January '10

Nothing in George Mitchell’s interview with PBS last week received more attention than the envoy’s implied threat to revoke American loan guarantees to Israel. That’s a pity — because far more worrisome is the goal he set for the negotiations, as highlighted by Aluf Benn in today’s Haaretz. “We think the way forward … is full implementation of the Arab peace initiative,” Mitchell declared. “That’s the comprehensive peace in the region that is the objective set forth by the president.”

The Arab initiative mandates a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines — every last inch of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. It also demands a solution to the refugee problem “in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194,” which Arabs interpret as allowing the refugees to “return” to Israel.

Later in the interview, Mitchell says this initiative requires “a negotiation and a discussion,” and that you can’t negotiate by telling “one side you have to agree in advance to what the other side wants.” Yet by saying his goal is “full implementation” of this initiative, he’s effectively saying, “You can have your negotiation and discussion, but Washington has no intention of being an honest broker: it fully backs the Arab position on borders, Jerusalem, and even (to some extent) the refugees.”

This is the administration’s clearest statement yet that it’s abandoning the position held by every previous U.S. administration: that Israel needs “defensible borders” — which everyone agrees the 1967 lines are not. Mitchell also thereby abandoned the position, held by every previous administration, that any deal must acknowledge Israel’s historic ties to the Temple Mount via some Israeli role there, even if only symbolic (see Bill Clinton’s idea of “sovereignty under the Mount”). The Arab initiative requires Israel to just get out.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Honest Broker, Anyone?

Love of the Land: US Loan Guarantees Cost US Nothing - Yet Cost Israel Her Sovereignty

US Loan Guarantees Cost US Nothing - Yet Cost Israel Her Sovereignty

Manhigut Yehudit
Press Release
10 January '10

American Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell stated last week that if Israel doesn't advance the peace process, "[the United States] can withhold support on loan guarantees to Israel". Manhigut Yehudit applauds Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz for telling Mitchell that "We don't have to use those guarantees; we are doing very well without them" and Israeli Education Minister Gideon Sar for stating that "We will act in accordance with our own interests and not in accordance with external pressures."

Though US Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman sought to minimize the threat, Mitchell's statement sheds light on years of attempted American blackmail by which the United States placed financial pressure on Israel to gain the Jewish state’s surrender to and continuation of the ongoing false peace process.

In conjunction with the loan guarantees are the roughly 2.7 billion dollars that Israel receives annually from the United States. Moshe Feiglin, leader of the Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) faction of the ruling Likud party, has been clear for years regarding US aid - that all US aid to Israel should be ended. The loan guarantees and the financial aid have come at a high price to Israel. By following this fraudulent Oslo “peace” process, Israel has suffered almost 2,000 dead and over 10,000 maimed at the hands of her so-called Arab “peace partner”.

Excellent related article: The American Aid Myth (25 May '01)

Moreover, since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993 (by which Israel willingly offered to give away the Land where 93% of the places mentioned in the Jewish Bible are located), an ever increasing portion of world opinion (including Jewish opinion) questions whether justice is on Israel's side. This "peace process" has therefore had a deleterious effect vis-à-vis anti-Semitism as well as strengthening terrorism and eroding Israel's military security.

American aid to Israel comes at a heavy price with onerous strings attached. Seventy-five percent of all monies must be spent in the US thus making it a make-work program for America’s defense industry. These conditions have cost Israel 100,000 manufacturing jobs and Israel has been prevented from using its technology for the development of its own economy. The ending of American aid would solve Israel’s unemployment crisis and free Israel to reap a tremendous profit in arms sales that would more than offset any benefits of American largesse. Currently, Israel upgrades virtually all of the military equipment that it receives from the US and yet the American companies own the technology and are the only ones able to profit. Former Israeli Minister of Economic Affairs Ron Dermer publicly confirmed these assertions at the 2006 AIPAC Conference in response to a question from Manhigut Yehudit’s US Director, Rob Muchnick.

Israeli leaders typically state that they must continue the Oslo Process or else the financial spigot from the US will be shut, even though they know that the premise is false. As a case in point, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stated in 2005 that if Israel did not implement the “Disengagement from Gaza”, the United States would make Israel “do something worse”. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued this trend by freezing Jewish construction in all parts of the Land of Israel liberated from the Arabs in 1967. When asked at the aforementioned AIPAC conference for his opinion as to why Israel continues to take American aid, Dermer - now a senior advisor to Netanyahu - responded that this "was a political decision made by each Prime Minister".

Manhigut Yehudit does not blame America for attempting to co-opt Israel. The Jewish state must stand on its own feet and be led only by its devotion to its heritage, its Land, and its Creator.

This duplicity on the part of Israel’s leaders has caused her to give up her sovereignty to such an extent that many people now simply think of her as nothing more than an extraneous 51st state of America.

Love of the Land: US Loan Guarantees Cost US Nothing - Yet Cost Israel Her Sovereignty

Israel Matzav: Mitchell leaves empty-handed again

Mitchell leaves empty-handed again

The United States' special Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, returned home on Sunday night, presumably to report to Secretary of State Clinton as the United States committed to do after the tripartite meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Obama and Abu Mazen on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly two weeks ago. Mitchell's press conference with 'Palestinian' bottle washer negotiator Saeb Erekat in Ramallah on Friday night gave as clear an indication as any just how far apart the sides are:

At a press conference in Ramallah with PA negotiator Saeb Erekat on Friday night, Mitchell said, "We do not underestimate the difficulties for us or for the parties, but we all have obligations to do everything we can to help achieve the goal of comprehensive peace that will be good for the Palestinians, good for the Israelis, good for all the people in this region.

"We discussed our common vision of a viable and independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are deeply committed to that," he said.

Erekat, in an indication that the Palestinians have not dropped their demand for a total settlement freeze before restarting direct negotiations, said that if Israel "wanted to resume the peace talks, it should first express clear commitment to implementing the road map plan, which includes stopping settlement, and be committed to the two-sate solution."

Netanyahu has made clear that although he would agree to a temporary moratorium on new housing starts in the settlements, he would not freeze construction of some 2,500 units currently being built, or another 500 that were approved last month. He also has made clear that he would not stop construction for public buildings such as schools, synagogues and health clinics. Moreover, Netanyahu has said he would not agree to any settlement freeze in Jerusalem.

Mitchell, expected to leave the region on Sunday after his meeting with the prime minister, said the sides had been invited back to Washington to continue the talks, with Erekat telling reporters this would likely take place within two weeks.

Jennifer Rubin comments:

At some point, the gap between the president’s rhetoric and the reality in the region will become too glaring to ignore. Eventually the absence of progress, even by Foggy Bottom standards, becomes a reminder of the impotence of the president. Why invest so much energy and rhetorical effort for so little result? It is not clear that trying really, really hard gets Obama anywhere. It simply highlights that he lacks the means to implement his utopian vision.

No matter how badly Obama distorts history, and no matter how much daylight he puts between the U.S. and Israel, there isn’t any evidence that his persona really matters. The “Cairo Effect” is a bust. It seems there are facts, ignored by Obama, that trump the speeches and posturing. Hamas has dug in, the “reasonable” Palestinian Authority isn’t so reasonable and lacks “Authority,” and there is no fundamental commitment to recognize the Jewish state and end terrorism.

But where will Obama find his foreign policy success? Not here, that's for sure.

Israel Matzav: Mitchell leaves empty-handed again