Yourish.com

03/19/2010

Bullying the neighborhood bully

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, The One — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim
That he’ll live by the rules that the world makes for him,
’Cause there’s a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac.
He’s the neighborhood bully.

Neighborhood Bully – Bob Dylan

Scott Wilson writing on the web for the Washington Post posits that Israeli leaders are not likely to win diplomatic battles with the United States.

Next, think back to 1992. Picking a fight with the Bush administration cost Shamir his job. Who succeeded him as prime minister?

Rabin, who immediately pledged to cease construction of what he called “political” settlements in the territories. Perhaps he, too, remembered 1975.

Of course one could also point to Ehud Barak who did all he could to cooperate with the Americans to the point of making an unprecedented offer to Yasser Arafat at Camp David in 2000. Arafat rejected the offer and, two months later, launched a war against Israel. None of President Clinton’s goodwill towards Barak helped him as months later he went down to the worst electoral defeat in Israel’s history.

The two previous paragraphs, though, give a hint to Wilson’s premises and the limitations of his analysis.

First, it’s worth keeping in mind that opinion polls often show that a majority of Israelis supports the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. That is the Obama administration’s policy, which Israeli building in the territories severely undermines.

Moreover, secular Israelis view religious settlers as a drain on the national treasury and certainly not worth a fight with a superpower ally that provides the Jewish state with $3 billion a year in military aid.

Of course, building in Jerusalem is different from building in the territories. (And even Wilson’s unsupported assertion that building in the territories “undermines” a Palestinian state is dubious.) It was expected – even by the Palestinian Authority – that Israel would continue building in Jerusalem. It was only when the Obama administration made an issue of Israeli building in Jerusalem, that it became an issue with the PA. And in this way, despite Wilson’s finesse, that the Obama administration differs quite a bit from Israeli public opinion.

Daniel Pipes offers a number of reasons that he expects Netanyahu to survive this crisis, but the fifth one is the best:

A recent poll of American voters shows an astonishing 8-to-1 sympathy for Israel over the Palestinians, so picking a fight with Israel harms Obama politically – precisely what a president sinking in the polls and attempting to transform one-sixth of the economy does not need.

A point that Pipes does not make is that over the past 16 and a half years Israel has made concessions; nearly every single one of them was met with violence or greater intransigence on the part of the Palestinians. Analysts like Wilson have been preserved in amber going back to 1992. They forget this. But Israelis remember. If it wasn’t Camp David that was followed by the “Aqsa Intifada,” it was the withdrawal from Lebanon that led to the 2006 war with Hizballah or the withdrawal from Gaza that led to Operation Cast Lead. Israelis are skeptical of the peace process now and won’t be well disposed to an American President who shows sympathy to their foes and ignores Israeli sensitivities.

Similar to Wilson is Mark Landler of the New York Times who writes in “Opportunity in a fight with Israel.”

For President Obama, getting into a serious fight with Israel carries obvious domestic and foreign political risks. But it may offer the administration a payoff it sees as worthwhile: shoring up Mr. Obama’s credibility as a Middle East peacemaker by showing doubtful Israelis and Palestinians that he has the fortitude to push the two sides toward an agreement.

Pay attention to that opening paragraph. Note how he wrote “two sides.” Here’s what’s included in the rest of the “analysis”

Mrs. Clinton did keep up the pressure on Mr. Netanyahu to demonstrate that he was committed to negotiations with the Palestinians

A senior administration official said the harsh rebuke of Mr. Netanyahu, delivered in a phone call last week by Mrs. Clinton, was important “to demonstrate we mean what we say when we enter these talks.” The announcement of a housing plan, the official said, undermined trust just as the United States was trying to open indirect talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.
…
Taking a tough line with Israel helps the administration counter a perception that it folded last summer when Mr. Netanyahu rebuffed Mr. Obama’s demand that Israel freeze all construction of Jewish settlements. When Mr. Netanyahu countered with an offer of a 10-month partial freeze on the construction on the West Bank, Mrs. Clinton praised the offer as “unprecedented.”

That soured the Palestinians and left much of the Arab world wondering whether Mr. Obama would ever deliver on the promise in his speech in Cairo of a new approach to the Muslim world. American officials worried that this credibility gap could hinder their campaign to rally support from Persian Gulf countries for new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.
…
That message was echoed by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of the military’s Central Command, who told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the lack of progress in the Middle East was a large challenge to American interests.

“The conflict foments anti-American sentiment due to a perception of U.S. favoritism toward Israel,” he said.

In all three instances, Landler writes (in different ways) that it’s necessary for the United States to pressure Israel – not “two sides” as he expresses in his opening paragraph. (And Gen. Petraeus, never said that line that’s attributed to him. It was in the briefing that was presented to the Armed Forces Services Committee, but it was not in his statement. For more on this point please see, JINSA, Barry Rubin and Max Boot.)

Landler does quote Rep. Ackerman on getting both sides to talk peace, but mentions no specific instance of putting pressure on the Palestinians.

Landler, like Wilson, is living in the past. Charles Krauthammer neatly shines a bright light on this willful ignorance:

Israel made peace offers in 1967, 1978 and in the 1993 Oslo peace accords that Yasser Arafat tore up seven years later to launch a terror war that killed a thousand Israelis. Why, Clinton’s own husband testifies to the remarkably courageous and visionary peace offer made in his presence by Ehud Barak (now Netanyahu’s defense minister) at the 2000 Camp David talks. Arafat rejected it. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered equally generous terms to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Refused again.

In these long and bloody 63 years, the Palestinians have not once accepted an Israeli offer of permanent peace, or ever countered with anything short of terms that would destroy Israel. They insist instead on a “peace process” — now in its 17th post-Oslo year and still offering no credible Palestinian pledge of ultimate coexistence with a Jewish state — the point of which is to extract preemptive Israeli concessions, such as a ban on Jewish construction in parts of Jerusalem conquered by Jordan in 1948, before negotiations for a real peace have even begun.

Under Obama, Netanyahu agreed to commit his center-right coalition to acceptance of a Palestinian state; took down dozens of anti-terror roadblocks and checkpoints to ease life for the Palestinians; assisted West Bank economic development to the point where its gross domestic product is growing at an astounding 7 percent a year; and agreed to the West Bank construction moratorium, a concession that Secretary Clinton herself called “unprecedented.”

What reciprocal gesture, let alone concession, has Abbas made during the Obama presidency? Not one.

So not only have the Palestinians refused to make any substantive concessions for peace, they are surrounded by a cocoon of sympathetic journalists, academics, diplomats and politicians who ignore every single step made by Israel and pretend that it’s Israel that’s intransigent. They then insist that Israel must do more for peace, which only convinces Israel’s enemies to sit tight.

Or worse.

Lee Smith writes in Slate (via memeorandum)::

When the Obama administration promised to engage the adversaries that the Bush White House had isolated, U.S. allies followed the strong horse’s lead and also changed course. Most notably, the Saudis patched things up with the Syrians after five years of intra-Arab discord. Riyadh pushed its Lebanese allies to reconcile with Damascus, and with Beirut’s pro-democracy and pro-United States March 14 movement now all but dead, Washington no longer has a Lebanese ally. When President Barack Obama indicated that the most important thing concerning Iraq was to withdraw U.S. forces, the Syrians and Saudis found a shared interest in attacking Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Even as Maliki, his Iraqi security officials, and Gen. Raymond Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, explained that the Syrians were behind a series of mega-terror attacks in Baghdad, the White House hushed them up for fear that identifying Syria as responsible for the attacks would jeopardize its efforts to engage Damascus. It is lost on no one in the region that Washington left two allies out on their own. But it gets worse.

Some U.S. commentators have praised the Obama administration’s recent condemnation of Israel for announcing, during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit, that it intended to build 1,600 apartment units in East Jerusalem. The White House’s response, they argue, sends a strong message that Washington won’t be bullied. In the Middle East, however, there is nothing that reeks so much of weakness as beating up on an ally in public. Moreover, this tongue-lashing comes shortly after the White House swallowed the open taunts of its adversaries. At a recent Damascus banquet featuring Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah, and Hamas’ Khaled Meshaal, Syrian President Bashar Assad openly mocked Secretary Hillary Clinton. He joked that he had misunderstood her demands that Syria distance itself from Iran, so instead, said Assad, he was waiving visa requirements for visitors from the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Of course, Washington shaming Israel will please the Arabs—even U.S. allies like Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and Cairo, Egypt, that cheered on Jerusalem when it took on Iran’s assets Hezbollah and Hamas. Remember, the Arabs have been compelled by the American strong horse to swallow their pride for decades. But given that Arabs do not air their own dirty laundry for fear it will make them look weak, our public humiliation of an ally will earn us only contempt.

Smart diplomacy at work.

Crossposted at Soccer Dad.

03/18/2010

Blood on Obama’s hands

Filed under: Gaza, Terrorism, The One, United Nations — Tags: , , , — Meryl Yourish @ 12:00 pm

The Palestinians used last week’s hissy fit by the Obama administration to implement a “day of rage.” Hamas has allowed kassam rockets to start firing out of Gaza again. The first attack only terrified a little girl. The second one killed a foreign worker in Israel.

His blood is on Obama’s hands. The Obama administrations confrontation with Israel encouraged the Palestinians to think that they could strike without fear of world reaction. Of course, they’re right. Notice the condemnation issued by the EU’s representative currently trying to find starving Gazans for their “end the seige” propaganda campaign:

Thursday’s attack came on the same day as a visit to Gaza by Europe’s top diplomat, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who had just crossed into the territory when the rocket was fired.

“I condemn any kind of violence. We have got to find a peaceful solution to the issues and problems,” she said.

Wow. She condemns “any kind of violence.” So if I accidentally step on my cat’s tail, Ashton condemns that act of violence. Yeah, that’s a relevant statement. It’s not like she could, say, “We of the EU wholeheartedly condemn the death of this innocent farm worker at the hands of Palestinian terrorists launching rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas.” Because then she’d have to admit that it was a terrorist act, and there are no terrorists in “Palestine,” right?

Ban Ki-Moon had a better statement. Kudos to him.

The Secretary-General condemns today’s rocket attack from Gaza which killed a civilian in Israel. All such acts of terror and violence against civilians are totally unacceptable and contrary to international law.

By the way, since Obama told Fox News that he condemned the Palestinian riots “in the same way” that he condemned the announcement of 1600 new apartments in Ramat Shlomo, I searched the State Department website for an immediate condemnation of the two latest rocket attacks from Gaza. I found—nothing.

“Yesterday, when there were riots by the Palestinians against a synagogue that had been reopened we condemned them in the same way because what we need right now is both sides to recognize that it is in their interests to move this peace process forward,” Obama told Fox.

Really, the man lies every time he opens his mouth. There were no such condemnations. The best they had was this:

I would say that we also have some concerns today about the tensions regarding the rededication of a synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. And we are urging all parties to act responsibly and do whatever is necessary to remain calm. We’re deeply disturbed by statements made by several Palestinian officials mischaracterizing the event in question, which can only serve to heighten the tensions that we see. And we call upon Palestinian officials to put an end to such incitement.

Not even the word “condemn.” Just “concerns.” Over riots. That were influenced by the Obama administration’s pounding of Israel last week.

Way to go, Smart Power.

With friends like these …

Filed under: Israel, The One — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

Robert Kagan argues that Israel shouldn’t feel like it’s been singled out.

Israelis shouldn’t feel that they have been singled out. In Britain, people are talking about the end of the “special relationship” with America and worrying that Obama has no great regard for the British, despite their ongoing sacrifices in Afghanistan. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy has openly criticized Obama for months (and is finally being rewarded with a private dinner, presumably to mend fences). In Eastern and Central Europe, there has been fear since the administration canceled long-planned missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic that the United States may no longer be a reliable guarantor of security. Among top E.U. officials there is consternation that neither the president nor even his Cabinet seems to have time for the European Union’s new president, Herman Van Rompuy, who, while less than scintillating, is nevertheless the chosen representative of the post-Lisbon Treaty continent. Europeans in general, while still fond of Obama, have concluded that he is not so fond of them — despite his six trips to Europe — and is more of an Asian president.

The Asians, however, are not so sure. Relations with Japan are rocky, mostly because of the actions of the new government in Tokyo but partly because of a perception that the United States can’t be counted on for the long term. In India, there are worries that the burgeoning strategic partnership forged in the Bush years has been demoted in the interest of better relations with China. Although the Obama administration promised to demonstrate that the United States “is back” in Asia after the alleged neglect of the Bush years, it has not yet convinced allies that they are the focus of American attention.

(Note to the NJDC, instead of arguing that the current crisis between Israel and the United States isn’t the worst between the allies in 35 years – there is clearly a crisis – just argue that this how President Obama treats all his friends. Thanks to the Hashmonean for the pointer)

That’s because, as David Harsanyi points out the President has new friends he needs to cultivate.

Not long after President Barack Obama gave his conciliatory speeches to the Islamic world, he chose not to meddle in the sham election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In fact, he offered not a word of support for the men and women who took to the streets against that totalitarian regime.

Then, as “manmade disasters” continued to erupt spontaneously around the world — including at a United States military base — the administration held steadfast in using non-offensive euphemisms, lest anyone be slighted by our jingoist need to use words that mean something.

And when the president was given a chance to fulfill a campaign promise and acknowledge the genocide of 1.5 million Christian Armenians by Turks during World War I, he instead did everything he could to block the resolution.

These days, as Christian farmers are being slaughtered by Muslim machetes in Nigeria, outrage from the White House is difficult to find — though it made sure to instruct our Libyan ambassador to apologize to “Colonel” Moammar Gadhafi after he offered some mildly critical comments about the dictator’s call for jihad against Switzerland (true story).

I guess that alienating friends and forgiving enemies is the “smart diplomacy” we’ve heard so much about.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

03/17/2010

The Clinton replay

Filed under: Israel, The One — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

Meryl writes:

Here’s why I think the Obama administration is ratcheting up the pressure over 1,600 new housing units in a Jewish neighborhood of northeastern Jerusalem that will almost certainly remain Israeli in any future agreement with the Palestinians: The Obama administration is trying to topple the Netanyahu government. The Clinton administration did its level best to prevent Bibi from being elected in 1996, and worked very hard to get him thrown out as soon as possible thereafter. The Obama administration has found a stick, and they’re using it to beat the Netanyahu administration in the eyes of the world. The Chicago Machine lies and smears have gone out to the appropriate media outlets. The hyperbole is rising as the Machine cogs hit the media trail. It’s an all-out assault on Bibi and his administration.

Noah Pollak, in a similar vein:

It should be obvious, at this point, that Obama is trying to manufacture an immense political dilemma for Netanyahu by forcing him to choose between two crises — one with the United States should he accept the demands, the other with his coalition partners and the Israeli public should he reject them. For Netanyahu, this is a no-win situation. The only choice is between less damaging options.

Netanyahu should reject the new demands, because they are not made in good faith, they are a reversal of previous Obama commitments, and, most important, the proximity talks themselves are a trap.

And finally, Jeffrey Goldberg (via memeorandum):

I’ve been on the phone with many of the usual suspects (White House and otherwise), and I think it’s fair to say that Obama is not trying to destroy America’s relations with Israel; he’s trying to organize Tzipi Livni’s campaign for prime minister, or at least for her inclusion in a broad-based centrist government. I’m not actually suggesting that the White House is directly meddling in internal Israeli politics, but it’s clear to everyone — at the White House, at the State Department, at Goldblog — that no progress will be made on any front if Avigdor Lieberman’s far-right party, Yisrael Beiteinu, and Eli Yishai’s fundamentalist Shas Party, remain in Netanyahu’s surpassingly fragile coalition.

So what is the goal? The goal is force a rupture in the governing coalition that will make it necessary for Netanyahu to take into his government Livni’s centrist Kadima Party (he has already tried to do this, but too much on his terms) and form a broad, 68-seat majority in Knesset that does not have to rely on gangsters, messianists and medievalists for votes. It’s up to Livni, of course, to recognize that it is in Israel’s best interests to join a government with Netanyahu and Barak, and I, for one, hope she puts the interests of Israel ahead of her own ambitions.

Obama knows that this sort of stable, centrist coalition is the key to success. He would rather, I understand, not have to deal with Netanyahu at all — people near the President say that, for one thing, Obama doesn’t think that Netanyahu is very bright, and there is no chemistry at all between the two men — but he’d rather have a Netanyahu who is being pressured from his left than a Netanyahu who is being pressured from the right.

Goldberg, I think, is right about what’s going on, but his view of Israeli politics is skewed. Shas, for example, has been known to support the peace process, much to the chagrin of other religious parties. Eli Yishai wasn’t announcing a plan for a new community on a remote hilltop, but rather expanding the housing stock in an established neighborhood in Jerusalem.

And to call Avigdor Lieberman’s party “far right” when the party at least believes in territorial compromise is a woeful misnomer. Lieberman holds some views that are characterized as such, but his party, overall, is part of Israel’s mainstream.

Goldberg’s promiscuous use of “right” to describe Netanyahu and the current Israeli government, ignores what’s really happened. Robert Satloff writes:

At the same time, it is also true that a quiet revolution has been going on inside Israel on the peace issue. What has been lost amid the histrionics about construction permits in Jerusalem and Israel’s habit of delivering concessions to Washington weeks after the Obama administration wanted them is that Binyamin Netanyahu has led the Likud-led government into totally uncharted waters. With his Bar-Ilan speech, he became the third “revisionist” prime minister in a row to adopt the “two states for two peoples” paradigm, effectively consigning Greater Israel advocates to the margins of Israeli politics, where they have no national champion. Moreover, with his decision on a West Bank settlement moratorium, Netanyahu made a commitment that no Israeli prime minister since Oslo — Rabin, Sharon, Peres, or Barak — ever made, and in the process tacitly rolled back forty years of Israeli policy that rejected the idea of settlements as an obstacle to peacemaking. The result is that mainstream Israeli debate on the peace process now centers on the fitness of the PA as a negotiating partner and the extent of Israeli territorial demands — 2 percent of the West Bank? 4 percent? 6 percent? — and not on the more basic question of a repartition of Palestine that would leave the other side with the vast majority of West Bank territory in an independent and more-or-less sovereign state. Over time, these developments will be recognized as seismic.

Goldberg’s also wrong when he writes, “this sort of stable, centrist coalition is the key to success” (i.e. a coaltion with Kadima instead of Yisrael Beiteinu). Israel had such a coaltion in 2000 and Arafat rejected Ehud Barak’s offer at Camp David. It had such a coaltion in 2008 and Abbas rejected Ehud Olmert’s offer as the coalition was unraveling.

The problem hasn’t been Israel. The problem has been the Palestinians.

And Meryl’s correct to recall the machinations of the Clinton administration. Netanyahu got his cabinet to approve the Hebron Accords given the assurances of Dennis Ross that Israel would be allowed to determine the future extents of its withdrawals. But though Arafat never kept any of the terms he agreed to back then, the administration spent the next year and a half (until Wye) battering Netanyahu politically and working to undermine his political support. Here’s Charles Krauthammer:

But even more significant than the absurd arbitrariness of this number is its very existence. Under the Oslo Accords, these interim “further redeployments” are left to Israel’s discretion (unlike the “final status” talks, at which Israel and the Palestinians will together negotiate their final borders).

Indeed, just 16 months ago the Clinton administration reaffirmed this principle. At 11 p.m. on the night of Jan. 15, 1997, as Netanyahu’s cabinet was agonizing over the proposed withdrawal from Hebron, it received an urgent memo from then-ambassador Martin Indyk stating the official US position that “further redeployment phases are issues for implementation by Israel rather than issues for negotiation with the Palestinians. The letters of assurance which secretary Christopher intends to provide to both parties also refer to the process of further redeployments as an Israeli responsibility.”

Sixteen months later in London, Albright tells Israel that its 9 percent is no good. The withdrawal must be 13.1 percent – or else she walks away. She gives Netanyahu three days to give his answer. He tells her: “I don’t need three days. The answer is no.”

So now we have a crisis. And though it was manufactured by State to put pressure on Netanyahu, it reveals instead a crisis of credibility for this administration: How can Israel make ever more dangerous concessions to the Palestinians when the American assurances it receives to offset those concessions are so perishable?

LAST week at the National Press Club, Albright gave a hastily arranged speech to explain her position. Its essential, tendentious theme was that all of the problems in the peace process are traceable to Netanyahu. Everything has gone to pieces, she averred, “in just two years.” You don’t need to be a CIA codebreaker to understand what that means: Netanyahu was elected prime minister two years ago this month.

The historic Hebron withdrawal, in which Netanyahu single-handedly brought Likud and the Israeli Right into the land-for-peace Oslo process, received nary a word. That’s because the only praise offered in her speech was reserved for Arafat.

Albright credits him for making “substantial changes in {his} negotiating position.” He had wanted a 30 percent Israeli withdrawal but was willing to accept 13.1.

How generous.

One of the great illusions of the peace process is that every few years, Israelis elect a right wing prime minister whose intransigence halts or reverses the success of the “peace process.” But as Satloff and Krauthammer observed, Israel’s “right wing” prime ministers since Oslo have all moved the “peace process” forward, though their concessions are pocketed by the Palestinians and ignored by the rest of the world. It is, I guess, easier to blame an Israeli Prime Minister who is subject to political pressure, but that hardly moves the “peace process” when the Palestinian leader refuses to make the smallest concession to Israel or even to peace.

Meryl, Noah Pollak and Jeffrey Goldberg are all correct in their reading of President Obama’s motives. It’s happened before. Goldberg, however, is wrong in his reading of the Israeli government and offers support to ongoing Palestinian intransigence.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

03/16/2010

When the Washington Post notices

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, The One — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

There are three recent Washington Post editorials abour the Middle East worth mentioning.

Last July the Washington Post ran an editorial Tough on Israel which observed:

But the administration also is guilty of missteps. Rather than pocketing Mr. Netanyahu’s initial concessions — he gave a speech on Palestinian statehood and suggested parameters for curtailing settlements accepted by previous U.S. administrations — Mr. Obama chose to insist on an absolutist demand for a settlement “freeze.” Palestinian and Arab leaders who had accepted previous compromises immediately hardened their positions; they also balked at delivering the “confidence-building” concessions to Israel that the administration seeks. Israeli public opinion, which normally leans against the settler movement, has rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu. And Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, which were active during the Bush administration’s final year, have yet to resume.

U.S. and Israeli officials are working on a compromise that would allow Israel to complete some housing now under construction while freezing new starts for a defined period. Arab states would be expected to take steps in return. Such a deal will expose Mr. Obama to criticism in the Arab world — a public relations hit that he could have avoided had he not escalated the settlements dispute in the first place. At worst, the president may find himself diminished among both Israelis and Arabs before discussions even begin on the issues on which U.S. clout is most needed. If he is to be effective in brokering a peace deal, Mr. Obama will need to show both sides that they can trust him — and he must be tough on more than one country.

A month ago the Post’s editors warned, Don’t expect progress from talking to Syria:

Not a few have come away hopeful, at first. Ms. Pelosi memorably declared that “the road to Damascus is a road to peace.” Yet none so far has produced the slightest change in Mr. Assad’s behavior or in his unacceptable ambitions. Having carried out a campaign of political murder in Lebanon, including the killing of a prime minister for which he has yet to be held accountable, Mr. Assad continues to insist on a veto over the Lebanese government. He continues to facilitate massive illegal shipments of Iranian arms to Hezbollah, dangerously setting the stage for another war with Israel, and to host the most hard-line elements of the Hamas leadership. He continues to harbor exiled leaders of Saddam Hussein’s regime and to allow suicide bombers to flow into Iraq for use by al-Qaeda.

Now the Post’s editors are once again focused on Israel, The U.S. Quarrel with Israel:

But Mr. Obama risks repeating his previous error. American chastising of Israel invariably prompts still harsher rhetoric, and elevated demands, from Palestinian and other Arab leaders. Rather than join peace talks, Palestinians will now wait to see what unilateral Israeli steps Washington forces. Mr. Netanyahu already has made a couple of concessions in the past year, including declaring a partial moratorium on settlements. But on the question of Jerusalem, he is likely to dig in his heels — as would any other Israeli government. If the White House insists on a reversal of the settlement decision, or allows Palestinians to do so, it might land in the same corner from which it just extricated itself.

A larger question concerns Mr. Obama’s quickness to bludgeon the Israeli government. He is not the first president to do so; in fact, he is not even the first to be hard on Mr. Netanyahu. But tough tactics don’t always work: Last year Israelis rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu, while Mr. Obama’s poll ratings in Israel plunged to the single digits. The president is perceived by many Israelis as making unprecedented demands on their government while overlooking the intransigence of Palestinian and Arab leaders. If this episode reinforces that image, Mr. Obama will accomplish the opposite of what he intends.

A few observations:
1) The administration’s outreach to Syria was answered with a mocking response from Syria, causing not the slightest reaction from the administration.
2) This is in sharp contrast to the administration’s response to Israel, over plans for Israel to build in an established neighborhood in Jerusalem.
3) The disparate responses of the admininstration to these two incidents are so severe that even a paper like the Washington Post – which is not what anyone would call “pro-Israel” notices.
RELATED: Richard Cohen writes:

To my knowledge, there is no square in Israel named for the mass murderers of civilians. Palestinian society, in contrast, honors all sorts of terrorists.

This is not a minor point. The veneration of terrorists says something unsettling about Palestinian society. An Israeli can recognize the legitimacy of Palestinian aspiration and appreciate the depth of the calamity that befell the Palestinians in 1948. The Palestinian intellectual Constantine Zurayk coined the term “al-Nakba” (the disaster) for their 1948 debacle — and there is no doubt it was. But for Palestinians, that disaster has only been compounded by an Arab intransigence and belligerence that has played into Israel’s territorial ambitions, particularly the annexation of East Jerusalem. The reliance on terrorism has had cinematic charms and given the Palestinians a certain cachet among the West’s kaffiyeh set, but it has caused Israelis to dig in their heels. The adulation of Dalal Mughrabi and other terrorists is bound to give your average Israeli parent a certain pause: Is this the state we want next to us? Didn’t pulling out of Gaza produce a steady drizzle of rockets and, in due course, another war?

His perspective is skewed. Palestinian belligerence doesn’t play into anyone’s hands, it shows a mindset that is hostile to Israel and the idea of peace with Israel. But the central point is correct.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

The Obama-Clinton Israel rerun

Filed under: Israel, The One — Tags: , — Meryl Yourish @ 8:00 am

The pundits are working overtime trying to figure out why the Obama administration went into all-out attack mode over an announcement of building in Jerusalem that blindsided Bibi Netanyahu during Joe Biden’s trip to Israel.

I think they’re all off-track. I think the Obama administration is trying to repeat the Clinton administration’s efforts of the late 1990s. Rahm Emanuel was in the Clinton administration. Rahm Emanuel is in the Obama administration. Bill Clinton loathed Bibi Netanyahu. Rahm Emanuel loathes Bibi Netanyahu. One of Emanuel’s greatest achievements (according to him) was the signing of the Oslo acccords. Barack Obama wants a Palestinian state to be his administration’s crowing achievement. Rahm Emanuel is of the opinion that Israeli settlements are the main obstacle to obtaining that state. Barack Obama is of the opinion that Israeli settlements are the main obstacle to obtaining that state.

Here’s why I think the Obama administration is ratcheting up the pressure over 1,600 new housing units in a Jewish neighborhood of northeastern Jerusalem that will almost certainly remain Israeli in any future agreement with the Palestinians: The Obama administration is trying to topple the Netanyahu government. The Clinton administration did its level best to prevent Bibi from being elected in 1996, and worked very hard to get him thrown out as soon as possible thereafter. The Obama administration has found a stick, and they’re using it to beat the Netanyahu administration in the eyes of the world. The Chicago Machine lies and smears have gone out to the appropriate media outlets. The hyperbole is rising as the Machine cogs hit the media trail. It’s an all-out assault on Bibi and his administration.

But will it work?

I don’t think so. Because the action is starting to backfire. When both AIPAC and the ADL release statements urging the Obama administration to back off Israel, you can chalk it up to Jewish organizations defending Israel. Except those Jewish organizations are filled with Jewish Democrats who open their purse strings for candidates like Obama. And perhaps Obama should remember the Gallup survey that says support for Israel is at near-record highs.

The Israel-haters in the U.S. are vastly outnumbered by Israel’s supporters, something that makes their tiny little heads explode.

My money is on Bibi outlasting Obama. Iran is the far greater danger, and Israelis don’t take kindly to the Obama administration interfering in their internal affairs.

03/15/2010

A history of the Obama Administration’s Israel policy (whiplash warning)

Filed under: Israeli Double Standard Time, The One — Tags: , — Meryl Yourish @ 8:00 am

In their own words, the Obama Administration’s changing position on Israel, particularly “settlement” building in Jerusalem:

Obama to AIPAC, March 2007:

“We should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli prime minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States.”

Obama to AIPAC, June 2008:

“I want you to know that today I’ll be speaking from my heart, and as a true friend of Israel.”

Obama to AIPAC, June 2008:

And then there are those who would lay all of the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel and its supporters, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all trouble in the region. These voices blame the Middle East’s only democracy for the region’s extremism. They offer the false promise that abandoning a stalwart ally is somehow the path to strength. It is not, it never has been, and it never will be.

Obama to AIPAC, June 2008:

Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

Obama to CNN, one day after the AIPAC speech:

“Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations.”

Obama’s Cairo speech, June 2009:

The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.

Hillary Clinton on Israel halting settlement building except in east Jerusalem, Oct. 31, 2009:

What the Prime Minister has offered in specifics of a restraint on the policy of settlements which he has just described – no new starts for example, is unprecedented in the context of prior-to negotiations.

Hillary Clinton on the same subject, Nov. 25, 2009:

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.

Hillary Clinton, on the same subject, March 12, 2010:

It was insulting. And– it was insulting not just to the vice president, who– certainly didn’t deserve that. He was there with a very clear message of– commitment to the peace process solidarity with– the Israeli people. But it was an insult to the United States.

David Axelrod, speaking for the Obama administration on NBC, March 14, 2010:

This was an affront, it was an insult, but most importantly it undermined this very fragile effort to bring peace to that region.

Barry Rubin on the hypocrisy of the Obama administration’s ever-changing position on Israel settlements as the “obstacle to peace”:

Meanwhile, even though the Palestinian Authority has refused to negotiate for 14 months; made President Brack Obama look very foolish after destroying his publicly announced September plan to have negotiations in two months; broke its promise not to sponsor the Goldstone report in the UN; and rejected direct negotiations after months of pleading by the Obama White House, not a single word of criticism has ever been offered by any administration official regarding the PA’s continuous and very public sabotage of peace process efforts.

Israeli Double Standard Time is in effect. As always, it only occurs on days that end with a “y.”

03/10/2010

Wednesday snarks

Filed under: Israeli Double Standard Time, News Briefs, The One — Tags: , , — Meryl Yourish @ 9:00 am

But Islam is a religion of peace: Jihad Jane, a blonde-haired, blue-eyed American woman who converted to Islam, was arrested for plotting to murder a Swedish cartoonist and enlisting terrorists to the cause. But “jihad” means inner struggle, so that can’t be true.

But the Obama administration is Israel’s friend: Joe Biden strongly condemned the announcement of new buildings in east Jerusalem, an area that the Palestinians had already agreed was going to be Israel’s. No word yet on whether the White House is going to condemn Iran for once again threatening to destroy Israel. Also no condemnation of the Egyptian murders of Sudanese refugees trying to escape to Israel. But boy, can the Obama administration tell it to Israel or what?

But the Palestinians want peace: So, if you’re committed to peace, you should be committed to peace because, well, war is bad, right? Everyone seems to think so. And yet, Mahmoud Abbas said in response to Joe Biden’s statement that the Pals deserve a “viable state” that he was committed to peace for a different reason:

Abbas, for his part, urged Israel to commit to the peace process. “The Palestinians remain committed to peace as a strategic choice,” he said.

What that strategy is, he did not elaborate. You need to read what he says to the Arabic press for that. Here’s a hint: It’s a two-part strategy, and the second part is “from the river to the sea.”

03/09/2010

Tuesday snarks

Filed under: Iran, Israel, News Briefs, The One — Meryl Yourish @ 9:00 am

The Obama administration is fine with risking Israeli lives: Hey, great! Our vice-president wants Israel to “take risks for peace.” Because it’s not like they, say, gave the PA control over most of the West Bank and Gaza and were answered with terror; withdrew from Lebanon and were answered with war; withdrew from Gaza and were answered with rockets; and eased checkpoints and were answered with terror attacks. So yes, absolutely, Joe, Israel should takes risks for peace. Because it’s worked so well so far!

You have our permission to build on your land: The State Dept. told Israel that an exception will be made to the “settlement” freeze. How kind of them.

Are real Iranian sanctions starting? Three major oil companies cut their ties with Iran. Hm. Double hm. (Here’s hoping!)

Ew! Jew Cooties! Turkey has rejected Israel’s offer of earthquake aid. But Turkey wants to mediate Israeli-Syrian talks, and are bragging that they’ve been chosen. Netanyahu has denied this. Hey, Turkish dudes, here’s a tip: Cozying up to Iran and Syria aren’t going to make you best buds with Israel.

03/01/2010

Israel’s Axis of Evil

Filed under: Iran, Syria, Terrorism, The One — Tags: , , , , — Meryl Yourish @ 11:00 am

The heads of Hamas and Hezbullah met in Damascus with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bashar Assad to plot Israel’s destruction. How is the Obama administration handling the fact that Syria hosted the heads of two terrorist organizations and one terrorist-supporting state? Why, by keeping to its promise to re-appoint an ambassador to Syria, even though Obama’s policy on driving Syria and Iran apart was mocked by Assad and Mad Mahmoud.

During the summit, Mad Mahmoud called for a Middle East without Zionists (and let us not pretend that when he says Zionists, he doesn’t mean Jews).

In the meantime, Israelis are being mailed new gas masks in case the Axis chooses to use the chemical weapons they’ve been stockpiling. The IDF completed exercises for a two-front war (you may even count on three if the West Bank Palestinians jump in).

As for the rest of the world? Well, the UN General Assembly passed another resolution insisting that Israel respond to the Goldstone report with an “independent” investigation. Australia is so mad that forged passports were used in the Dubai hit that it deliberately didn’t vote against the resolution this time and warned that Israel’s ties with Australia are at risk. (It’s good to know that Australia has its priorities straight.) Spanish schoolteachers are indoctrinating their students with so much hatred for Israel that the Madrid embassy is receiving letters that say “How many Palestinian children have you murdered today?” And the EU released a letter condemning the Dubai hit without mentioning Israel by name, apparently after the heads of European intelligence got through to the political leadership that they are going to badly damage intelligence operations throughout the world if they don’t STFU about Dubai (can’t remember my source on this; link welcome if you read it, too).

Now we read that Hillary Clinton is telling Lebanon that there’s no way the U.S. could stop an Israeli strike on Lebanon if they continue to allow Hezbullah to arm itself. I do believe that the UN Security Council passed a binding resolution (1701) forbidding exactly that. Perhaps she might have mentioned that as the reason for Hezbullah to stop arming itself, instead of using the “I can’t control my crazy friend here” argument. But that would be asking for logic and fairness concerning Israel, which is utterly ridiculous.

Israel’s Axis of Evil continues its mission, unfettered by world opinion, and not impressed by the Obama administration. What could possibly go wrong?

02/25/2010

Weaning Syria away from Iran

Filed under: Iran, Syria, The One — Tags: , — Soccerdad @ 9:00 am

Lots of foreign policy sophisticates have told us that the American way forward in the Middle East is to engage Syria and draw it out of Iran’s orbit. Last week the Washington Post editorialized in response to President Obama’s naming a new ambassador to Syria:

The exercise of talking to Mr. Assad serves a certain purpose, since it allows a skilled diplomat such as Mr. Burns to lay out the administration’s incentives for changed behavior as well as its red lines, and it might make Iran’s paranoid leaders nervous. But anyone who thinks the Obama administration has come up with a way to change the Middle East through detente with Syria would do well to study the history of Mr. Assad’s decade in power. That gambit has been tried, by more Western diplomats and politicians than can be counted, and the results are clear: It doesn’t work.

(In addition, as Barry Rubin pointed out, the timing of the appointment couldn’t have been worse.)

Tony Badran expanded on the Post’s view.

The administration is setting a perfect trap for itself by giving Syria the time and space to pursue its actions without American benchmarks to verify if engagement is working. This will be exploited to the fullest by Assad. The US would do well to abandon the ill-advised “short term vs. long term” approach that allows Syria to obtain rewards for minor concessions while allowing its regime to pursue a policy of destabilization.

Further complicating matters, the administration’s outreach couldn’t have had worse optics. While Burns was visiting Syria, the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that Syria was developing a covert nuclear program with North Korean help. This came a few days after a report disclosed that North Korea and Syria had resumed cooperation on “sensitive military technology” in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. In a sign of what’s in store for the Obama administration, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Mouallem declared that Damascus would continue to ignore IAEA calls for cooperation.

Syria responded to the outreach by threatening Israel and inviting Iran’s President Ahmadinejad for a visit.

The visit went about as can be expected:

Arab nations will usher in a new Middle East “without Zionists and without colonialists,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday.

Ahmadinejad spoke Thursday during a trip to Syria. The trip follows a string of US efforts to break up Syria’s 30-year alliance with Tehran.

Or to get a sense of the non-filtered chatter:

President al-Assad went on to say, ”We are meeting today to communicate and hold dialogue on various issues and thorny and complicated topics in this region…such a meeting not only comes in the course of years-long regular and routine meetings between the two countries, but it also coincides with this noble occasion adding special meanings…This is a blessed occasion to which we sought to add the bless of work and communication,”

”We wanted this festive day to be one of accomplishment, so we signed an agreement on annulling entry visas between Syria and Iran…This agreement would result in more communication and enhancing of the common interests of the Syrian and Iranian peoples,” President al-Assad said.

It sure sounds as if Syria is drawing closer to Iran, not dropping out of orbit.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

02/14/2010

The administration’s Goldstone omission

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, The One — Tags: , — Soccerdad @ 9:00 am

Benny Avni writing about the Goldstone Hustle in the New York Post concludes:

If Goldstone’s tactics succeed, future imitators will surely build cases for “war crimes” in Iraq, Afghanistan or Yemen. Indeed, the ICC’s top prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, has already expressed interest in trying allegations against NATO troops, including Americans, operating against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The United States should protect Israel in this case as if it were protecting itself — because it is.

Barry Rubin wonders how the Obama administration defines “U.S. interests.”

There are two possibilities in explaining this phrase about “U.S. interests.” The first is that it was careless phrasing, a sign of low competence.

The second is that it does reflect a thinking which conflates defining any force that poses a threat to U.S. interests with identifying a force that seeks a direct attack on the U.S. homeland. After all, the Obama Administration only views itself as being at war with al-Qaida because al-Qaida wants to attack New York or Detroit and–though they don’t necessarily seem clear on this point–Fort Hood.

But what signal does this send to U.S. allies? That, Hizballah, Pakistani-based terrorists striking against India, Syria which is subverting Iraq, Iran’s growing power, or countries like North Korea or Venezuela are no big problem?

This may seem a minor problem in Washington but it is a huge concern in dozens of other countries. And if the administration is hazy on this point, it is some day going to find itself in a much weaker position in terms of both America’s friends and enemies.

Given the news from the new fronts of the war on terror, how the adminstration answers these questions will clearly affect America’s efforts to defend itself.

When a window of opportunity opened to strike the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa last September, U.S. Special Operations forces prepared several options. They could obliterate his vehicle with an airstrike as he drove through southern Somalia. Or they could fire from helicopters that could land at the scene to confirm the kill. Or they could try to take him alive.

The White House authorized the second option. On the morning of Sept. 14, helicopters flying from a U.S. ship off the Somali coast blew up a car carrying Saleh Ali Nabhan. While several hovered overhead, one set down long enough for troops to scoop up enough of the remains for DNA verification. Moments later, the helicopters were headed back to the ship.

The strike was considered a major success, according to senior administration and military officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the classified operation and other sensitive matters. But the opportunity to interrogate one of the most wanted U.S. terrorism targets was gone forever

While the Washington Post reporter seemingly decries the hit on Saleh Ali Nabhan for the loss of actionable intelligence, there’s something else going on here. If Israel had undertaken a comparable action, it would have been decried by many as an extrajudicial killing. If killing Al Qaeda operatives is the preferred anti-terrorist approach of the administration, it ought to regard the Goldstone commission as a direct threat to its ability to defend America and take a much more active role – not just a rhetorical one – in fighting Goldstone’s slander. How long will it be before some radical leftist or Islamist starts agitating for putting America’s current leadership on trial for the very same actions they deplore when Israel carries them out.

(Isn’t it ironic that the administration considers incarceration at Guantanamo as inhumane and a blot on America’s reputation while killing terrorists – without trial – is acceptable?)

As Barry Rubin makes clear, though, it appears that the administration isn’t giving that much forethought to its efforts to defend the country. It does not see threats against America’s allies as threats against America itself. So one can hardly expect the administration to take the necessary steps to fight the Goldstone report instead of just criticizing it.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

02/05/2010

Snowpocalypse 2 news briefs

Filed under: Politics, Terrorism, The One — Tags: — Meryl Yourish @ 8:30 am

You mean military action really works? EU special forces (yes, I know, that does seem like a contradiction in terms, bear with me) recaptured a ship taken by Somali pirates and freed the crew, apparently with no deaths. The article says it was Danish special forces. Now, perhaps if they start hanging pirates from the yardarms again, that would stop the piracy. (What’s a yardarm? Is there such a thing as a yardleg?)

It’s now the “Great Recession”? That’s what the AP is calling it. And job losses are about to get worse. Huh. Go figure. I’m surprised, because Obama told me in the SOTU that two millions jobs were saved or created by his economic policies. Eight million jobs were lost, though, making me wonder if Scott Brown isn’t right when he says the stimulus didn’t create a single job. (Two great videos of his swearing-in and presser afterwards at the link.)

OHMIGOD! IT’S GONNA SNOW! Say, did you know there was a storm bearing down on us? (That’s the DC area, which is preparing for as much as two feet of snow.) I went to Kroger yesterday to stock up on the essentials (milk, produce, Tostitos). But not this one. And now I have to go to CVS to stock up on cold medicine. Bummer.

Anger management counselor is kinda an angry guy: This is just too perfect. An anger management counselor pulled a gun on two men he said were blocking his car. Awesome. I want that guy counseling me, boy. He’d probably give me tips to make the Snark Briefs even snarkier.

01/27/2010

Breaking the Obama code

Filed under: Politics, The One — Tags: , — Meryl Yourish @ 10:43 pm

During tonight’s State of the Union address, I finally realized why Barack Obama’s speeches drive me crazy. It’s not what he says (although I disagree with, well, almost everything he says). It’s the way he says them.

Tonight, he addressed the American people, and he addressed Congress. Go back and look at the speech. He was earnest, and his chin was down, his head relatively level, when speaking to Congress. When he spoke to us, his chin rose, and he talked down to us—literally.

Go ahead. Take a look. Note his posture. You’ll see it, too. You and I, we are not his equals. He is above us.

That’s what sets my teeth on edge every time I listen to him.

Instalink! Thanks, Glenn.

01/25/2010

Monday morning snarks

Filed under: Gaza, Israel, Politics, Terrorism, The One — Tags: , — Meryl Yourish @ 8:30 am

It’s the Chicago Way: Obama’s now trying to bribe the middle class. Hell, it worked to get him 60 votes for the Obamacare crap sandwich, why wouldn’t he think it will work on us? (P.S. to Obama: Who’s going to pay for all these tax breaks to the middle class? Oh, yeah—the middle class!).

No coup for you: A Belgian minister was refused entry to Gaza. Deputy FM Danny Ayalon is refusing to allow Hamas any propaganda coups. The Belgian minister is, of course, upset. Talk to the hand, Charles.

Would you buy a used camel from this man? Osama bin Laden says the Christmas bomber was his guy. Um, well, first, we kinda knew he was from al Qaeda after he, like, told us he was from al Qaeda. Secondly, dude, shouldn’t you be claiming successful attacks? Because this just makes you look pathetic. And last, well, we kinda think you’re lying, because last year you tried to claim the Fourth of July fireworks across America until you found out that nobody gets blown up in them.

The real far right: Okay, I may not like Rahm Emanuel so much anymore, but these guys are over the top. They’re calling him a Hellenist? Because, hello, we’re still fighting the Greeks or something? Back away slowly if any of these people approach you. They’re a little scary. (Frankly, I don’t think Rahm is whispering anti-Israel nothings into Obama’s ear. I think Obama was anti-Israel before he met Rahm.)

01/22/2010

Friday briefs

Filed under: AP Media Bias, Israel, News Briefs, Terrorism, The One — Tags: , — Meryl Yourish @ 9:00 am

I’m not even going to bother pointing out the anti-Israel spin. Really. The whole article blames the failure of the peace process entirely on Israel. It’s not worth parsing.

Compare and contrast, Obama version: Let’s take a look at why Obama thinks the peace process is failing, and who is to blame. Although he did admit that he set the bar far too high. Gee. Wonder if it might have had something to do with the Cairo speech, which enabled the current Palestinian intransigence?

… 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. … 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.

As has been said: From the Arabs, words. From the Jews, deeds. That’s what’s wrong with this process.

The Obama administration backs off Israel, blames Bush: Hillary Clinton followed up the statement above by pointing out that peace is, ultimately, in the hands of the Palestinians and Israelis. And may we congratulate the Obama administration for its (belated) keen grasp of the obvious. However, if America and the EU exerted pressure on the Arabs for a change—well, no. I’m sorry. What was I thinking? Geez. I think I just had a senior moment in public.

The other Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil in 2009: The man who murdered a soldier outside a recruiting station in Little Rock last year says he’s a member of Al Qaeda. Of course the AP downplays it and pulls the “lone nutjob” excuse. But how many soldiers have to die in jihadi attacks on American soil before we realize we have a problem?

01/19/2010

Election Day Snarks

Filed under: Media Bias, Politics, Religion, The One — Meryl Yourish @ 9:30 am

The One may not be questioned: Tone deaf does not describe the Obama administration. I think the word we’re looking for is hubris. Because not only is Obama going to ignore a Republican victory in Massachusetts, but he’s going to claim the mantle of underdog on Obamacare. Yes, really. Time for a chorus of: Seriously? I mean, seriously? Is our Congress and administration so arrogant that they will continue to ignore the will of the people until they’re all voted out of office?

Biased headline of the week: And the award goes to—the Boston Herald. Scott Brown backers fear zombies. The story? Brown supporters are worried that Dems will cheat by using the names of dead people to cheat the vote. Because, like, that’s never happened before. But hey, the Herald gets to slam conservatives and Scott Brown while belittling a real concern. It’s a win-win for Big Journo. (Interesting side-note: The Herald’s online poll is predicting a Brown victory. Click the page link and view the poll.)

Iran ordered the Jordan convoy hit: Gee. The Iranians tried to murder Israelis. Big surprise. Okay, no, it’s not. Neither is the fact that Iranian diplomats may have smuggled in the explosives. Iran has used diplomatic cover for terrorists for years.

Darn it! No supermosque in London: I know you’ll all be very disappointed to hear that the giant mosque, planned for the 2012 Olympics, is not going to be built in London after all. Watch for the newest cry of “Islamophobia” to spring up, even though the reason the mosque is canceled is because the builders never submitted the requested planning documents.

01/18/2010

The evening political snarks

Filed under: Politics, The One, United Nations, World — Meryl Yourish @ 7:42 pm

Obama: The Musical. Yes, really. In Germany, but the songs are in English. And judging by the excerpts, it, uh, sucks. Sure, I may be a bit biased, but really—these are not songs that will leave you humming as you leave the theater.

The media: Dogpile on Obama, dogpile on Obama! Looks like the media are starting to notice that the narrative is changing, and the second American revolution is well on its way to maturity. Tapper, of course, is the most even-handed journalist in the world today. (Exaggerate? Moi? Surely you jest.) Money quote: “In Massachusetts, even after a rough couple weeks the Democrat should be ahead.”

UN peacekeepers run away from Haitians: Okay, so the UN had enough peacekeepers to evacuate the medical staff from a hospital in Haiti, but they didn’t have enough to safeguard them? That gives me so much confidence in the UN, I’d love to see them utilized in the Palestinian territories. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) So what happened? All the doctors and nurses left, leaving Sanjay Gupta, the medical correspondent for CNN, to train his CNN crew in lifesaving techniques. All the patients survived the night, no thanks to the Belgians, the Canadians (left earlier), and the UN. Say, guess which country is the only nation to have sent a desperately-needed, fully-equipped field hospital to Haiti? Here’s a hint: It’s not a member of the OIC. (Yeah, it’s Israel.) Update: Sol has lots more about the Israeli hospital, including news of a new baby named Israel.

Scottie the Hottie has a good shottie: The polls are looking good for Scott Brown in Massachusetts. However, I will not be staying up late if this is a nail-biter. Hey, Sissy, best of luck! If I could vote in Massachusetts, I would.

01/15/2010

There’s a kind of snark all over the world

Filed under: Terrorism, The One, World — Meryl Yourish @ 9:30 am

Because Haiti doesn’t have enough disasters already: Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the exiled former president(for life) of Haiti, says he can’t wait to get back to Haiti and rebuild the country. Sure. Because he did such a great job while he was president. I’m on the “France should step up and give Haiti back the money it stole from them in the 19th century” side. I knew French colonialism was appalling, but not that France made the victorious former slaves pay a ransom to France to end the worldwide economic boycott that was strangling them. And they blame Israel for the plight of the Palestinians today? Hypocrisy, thy name is France.

Scott Brown up by 15? Holy crap. Pajamas Media commissioned a poll, and it’s not looking good for Martha Coakley in “the Kennedy seat.” You know, our Founders have to be rolling in their graves at the idea of inherited senate seats (are you listening, Joe Biden?). Byron York says the Dems are expecting her to lose. Think about that: Massachusetts is going to vote for a Republican candidate for Senate. Best line I’ve seen so far regarding the Coakley attack machine: “Hey, did you know that Scott Brown actually owns a time-share? Bastard.” (Allahpundit, of course.)

Oh, this won’t affect the daily operations of our capital at all: The Obama administration is thinking of trying al Qaeda terrorists in Washington. Because that’s just what DC traffic needs, more streets shut down. And gee, we can sure afford a few hundred million more in security costs, because it’s not like we have a trillion-dollar deficit or anything like that. Say it with me, folks: Morons.

They couldn’t use the telephone? A source is telling Ynet that the attack on the Israeli embassy convoy was a message to Jordan. You know, like a horse head in their bed. Who was the message from? Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda… so many terrorists to choose. Exit comment: Something about this AP description amuses me: “The explosion ripped through the right side of a curvy road cutting through hilly villages.” Probably the fact that I think it’s a pretty juvenile description.

01/10/2010

Obama to Israel: Let’s start at the end

Filed under: Israel, The One, palestinian politics — Meryl Yourish @ 4:37 pm

As reported last week, the Obama administration is going to try to start at the end in order to report some kind of progress in Middle East peace talks. The thing is, you really can’t start at the end. You can work backwards in many things, but you can’t work backwards in a peace process where each side is supposed to show the steps it has taken to achieve the peace. But of course, the Palestinians have been arguing for the endgame from the very beginning, when the people doing the negotiating (or lack thereof) were the Arab states that had occupied Gaza and the West Bank from 1948 to 1967 (cf: Three No’s of Khartoum).

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that once borders are agreed on, the dispute over settlements would be moot.

“Resolving borders resolves settlements, resolving Jerusalem resolves settlements,” Clinton said. “I think we need to lift our sights and instead of being looking down at the trees, we need to look at the forest.”

Sure, because it’s not like the Palestinians are still naming streets after suicide bombers or refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state or anything. Oh, wait. This part of the original article got left out of the AP update. In fact, the word “incitement” no longer appears in the update, which is funny, because the Palestinians are obligated under the Road Map to stop incitement, yet no media outlet ever seems to find that worth putting in the same article that insists Israel must freeze settlements.

In later comments, Netanyahu also accused the Palestinians of harming peace prospects by encouraging incitement. He cited a decision by municipal authorities in the West Bank city of Ramallah to name a square after the female mastermind of a 1978 bus hijacking in Israel that killed 37 people.

“This is not the way to make peace,” Netanyahu told his Cabinet. “Peace is made by educating reconciliation, by encouraging good neighborly relations and by fostering respect.”

Yes, it is. Not by threats and ultimatums. But that is, and has ever been, the Palestinian way.

01/07/2010

We’re mad as hell…

Filed under: Politics, The One — Meryl Yourish @ 11:00 am

Via Glenn Reynolds and Powerline, a video threat to the Democrats:

01/03/2010

Sunday snarks

Filed under: Gaza, Israel, Media Bias, Terrorism, The One — Tags: , , — Meryl Yourish @ 7:00 am

I know you are, but what am I? A spoiled rich Saudi prince calls Israel a spoiled child. Really. Irony is apparently not a part of the Arab world.

Priceless: Number of non-Israeli newspapers carrying Israel’s strike on Gaza tunnels: 182. Number of non-Israeli newspapers that carried the grad rocket firing from Gaza yesterday: Zero. Number of non-Israeli newspaper reports reporting three days in a row of mortar and rocket attacks: Zero.

Oh, he’s not an “isolated extremist” after all: Barack Obama acknowledged the obvious and mentions that the Christmas Day underwear bomber is connected to al Qaeda. Way to go, Professor Smartypants. I’m so glad we have, like, the smartest president ever in charge.

The religion of pieces: The Taliban in Pakistan murdered 95 men, women, and children at—a volleyball game. I guess all that talk a few weeks ago about not attacking civilians was just talk. I can’t really wrap my brain around this. They put a truck loaded with explosives in the middle of a crowd watching a volleyball game. When are the Pakistanis going to get that these terrorists don’t give a damn about them, and start ending their support for them?

12/10/2009

The War President’s Peace Prize

Filed under: The One, World — Tags: — Meryl Yourish @ 10:30 am

If you read the text of Barack Obama’s Nobel prize acceptance speech, a 4,000-word text that he apparently wrote much of himself, you can see what our president thinks about using force to defeat fascism. And I have to say, I’m not very relieved by what I read. The basis for international action is international law and international consensus, according to this speech. Obama pays lip service to American unilateral action, but it seems insincere in light of the fact that he spends many more words defining the world’s responsibilities to defeat fascists (note he doesn’t say anything about ending tyranny).

For instance:

To begin with, I believe that all nations – strong and weak alike – must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I – like any head of state – reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates – and weakens – those who don’t.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait – a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention – no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

That’s obviously a reference to Iraq. Earlier in the speech, he said this:

One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek;

It’s yet another stop on the Obama apology tour of the Blame Bush Administration. But it’s just a one-off in the context of the rest of the speech. This is the part that disturbs me:

To begin with, I believe that all nations – strong and weak alike – must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I – like any head of state – reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates – and weakens – those who don’t.

Is this is a call for a (doubtless) UN-sponsored, legally binding, international set of laws regarding the use of force? Something mor than the Geneva Conventions? This is what the rest of the world wants—a one-size-fits-all law on the use of force that they can then use to isolate, oh, say, Israel, using support documents like the Goldstone report. If this is not what Obama intends, this is how it would be used. Witness:

The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

The concept of “proportionate force” is what the world is using to accuse Israel of war crimes, but it isn’t used in a legal sense. The Goldstone report didn’t use it in a legal sense. It is used, generally, to say that Israel cannot respond to constant rocket fire by invading the area from which the rockets are fired and trying to destroy the rockets and the rocketeers.

But the problem is that in this modern-day world, the enemies are not abiding by the Geneva Conventions. Obama acknowledges it in his speech, but turns immediately away from the subject and starts the non-violence portion of his remarks:

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior – for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure – and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

Yeah, this would sound a lot better if he actually stood by his deadlines and words regarding sanctions on Iran. September was a deadline. So was October. And November. And December. Obama has done nothing but talk, and Iran continues its relentless drive for a nuclear weapon.

One last part about his speech was yet another slap at Israel.

… it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities – their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

He makes the problem with Israel about Arab tribalism, and Jewish religion. He does not call it a conflict between Muslims and Jews, which is not just more truthful, but a better description, as Iranians are not Arabs. He calls it a conflict between Arabs and Jews. When he does mention Islam, it’s all about al Qaeda, not about Hamas, whose charter calls for the supremacy of Islam and the end of Jews and quotes the Koranic section about the trees calling for Muslims to kill the Jews hiding behind them. He doesn’t mention the many references to Muslims refusing to have a Jewish nation in the Muslim “waqf.”

“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.”

In short, the speech is all Obama: Internationalist, naive, ignorant of any inconvenient facts of the issues discussed, and ultimately, toothless and impotent. There will be no follow-through with sanctions on Iran. The Russians and Chinese have already indicated they won’t be joining, and have instead signed new multi-billion dollar gas and oil deals with Iran. There will be a Lebanese seat on the UN Security Council, thus ensuring a Hezbullah say on anything regarding its Iranian masters. And the world will continue to attack Israel for settlements and turn a blind eye to the nuclear bomb being built by a nation with the power to shut the Straits of Hormuz.

Barack Obama: He’s like Jimmy Carter on steroids, but not in a good way.

12/09/2009

Another historic first for Obama!

Filed under: American Scene, The One — Tags: — Meryl Yourish @ 6:10 pm

The president who loves to be first has another first to add to his list of accomplishments: The lowest approval ratings ever for a president at this point in his term. (And may we point out that this part in his term is, uh, eleven months in.)

President Obama’s job approval rating has fallen to 47 percent in the latest Gallup poll, the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term.

Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and even Richard Nixon all had higher approval ratings 10-and-a-half months into their presidencies. Obama’s immediate predecessor, President George W. Bush, had an approval rating of 86 percent, or 39 points higher than Obama at this stage. Bush’s support came shortly after he launched the war in Afghanistan in response to the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Woo-hoo! He’s number one!

11/30/2009

The president who fell to earth

Filed under: Israel, The One, World — Tags: , — Meryl Yourish @ 12:00 pm

The last week seems to have been a week that the articles critical of Barack Obama have really gained a foothold. On top of the blistering (and truly funny) skit about Obama’s trip to China, we have editorials in such mega-fan sites as The New York Times pointing out that Obama is, well, human after all.

Peacemaking takes strategic skill. But we see no sign that President Obama and Mr. Mitchell were thinking more than one move down the board. The president went public with his demand for a full freeze on settlements before securing Israel’s commitment. And he and his aides apparently had no plan for what they would do if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said no.

Most important, they allowed the controversy to obscure the real goal: nudging Israel and the Palestinians into peace talks. (We don’t know exactly what happened but we are told that Mr. Obama relied more on the judgment of his political advisers — specifically his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel — than of his Mideast specialists.)

The Washington Post editorial board came to this conclusion in July. But suddenly, pundits who were solidly behind Obama are noticing that the emperor is not as fully clothed as they described him to be:

The peace-process bubble burst two months ago at the United Nations, when Obama’s poorly executed attempt to launch final-settlement talks between Israelis and Palestinians collapsed. Arabs who were led by Obama’s rhetoric to believe that the United States would force Israel to make unprecedented unilateral concessions — like a complete end to all construction in Jerusalem — were bitterly disappointed.

But they are not the only victims of post-Cairo letdown. Arab reformers, who for most of this decade have been trying to break down the barriers to social and political modernization in the Middle East, have also begun to conclude that the Obama administration is more likely to harm than to help them.

“All Arab countries are craving change — and many of us believed Obama was a tool for change,” says Aseel al- Awadhi, a Kuwaiti member of parliament. “Now we are losing that hope.”

Fouad Ajami, writing in the Wall Street Journal, sums it up:

Mr. Obama’s election has not drained the swamps of anti-Americanism. That anti-Americanism is endemic to this region, an alibi and a scapegoat for nations, and their rulers, unwilling to break out of the grip of political autocracy and economic failure. It predated the presidency of George W. Bush and rages on during the Obama presidency.

And he backs it up with figures.

It was the norm for American liberalism during the Bush years to brandish the Pew Global Attitudes survey that told of America’s decline in the eyes of foreign nations. Foreigners were saying what the liberals wanted said.

Now those surveys of 2009 bring findings from the world of Islam that confirm that the animus toward America has not been radically changed by the ascendancy of Mr. Obama. In the Palestinian territories, 15% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 82% have an unfavorable view. The Obama speech in Ankara didn’t seem to help in Turkey, where the favorables are 14% and those unreconciled, 69%. In Egypt, a country that’s reaped nearly 40 years of American aid, things stayed roughly the same: 27% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 70% do not. In Pakistan, a place of great consequence for American power, our standing has deteriorated: The unfavorables rose from 63% in 2008 to 68% this year.

Even Chris Matthews is losing the thrill up his leg regarding the president:

Regarding President Obama’s controversial bow to the Emperor of Japan, Matthews asked, “I have never seen a bow that low. . . . God did he have to bow that low?”

It looks like the bloom is off the rose. Certainly, with his approval ratings below fifty percent, Americans have caught on to the fact that they elected the most liberal president in history, something that pundits insisted he wouldn’t be, because he ran on a centrist platform. But the moment he was elected, the man who is one of the most liberal senators in Congress immediately took a sharp left turn. Gee, who could have seen that coming? Oh. Wait. That would be me, and everyone else who voted for his opponents.

I’ll leave you with the SNL skit from last week. Obama has become mock-worthy, and that’s the biggest sign of all that our president is now considered just another politician.

11/27/2009

Black Friday Snark News Briefs

Filed under: Gaza, Israel, News Briefs, Terrorism, The One — Meryl Yourish @ 10:15 am

And Nero fiddled while Rome burned: This is just funny. The Dorktator’s senior advisor (what the hell is a “senior advisor” anyway? Is that like “the guy I inherited from Dad that I can’t fire because he has too many friends who could kill me”?), er, senior advisor says that the Arabs should stop fussing over soccer and concentrate on the oppression of the Palesitinians instead. Translation: Don’t let the cause of the Palestinians hit the back burner, or you’ll find that people will notice you’re all dictatorial, thuggish regimes that steal their money and keep them living in misery and poverty. The fussing over soccer, by the way, would be the riots that Egyptians are currently having in retaliation for supposed ill-treatment of Egyptians after an Egypt-Algeria World Cup match. Say. What happened to that vaunted pan-Arab nationalism? What? They really hate each other after all? Who knew?

The real threats to peace: A terror attack from Egypt was thwarted a few days ago. Five mortars fired from Gaza hit the Negev region. Two Israelis were stabbed in the West Bank. Chavez calls Israel a “murderous agent” of the U.S. Iran refuses to cooperate with the IEAE at all. And what’s the biggest obstacle to peace in the world today? Israel’s refusal to freeze all building in Jerusalem.

How long before Pat Buchanan calls this one mistaken identity? A former Nazi SS murderer tells the court that he’s proud of his service in the Waffen SS. Five bucks says that the Buchanan-Duke axis still manage to find a way to excuse sentencing the 88-year-old murderer.

State dinner gate-crashers are crashing bores: Or maybe it’s just this article. It’s about some of the lawsuits against them. Ooh, they overcharged people who held their wedding at their venue. Yawn. It carries a do-not-read recommendation. See, I read this crap, so you don’t have to.

11/24/2009

The Iranian web: Mullahs ascendant

Filed under: Iran, The One — Tags: — Meryl Yourish @ 10:30 am

Iran’s president is on a South American tour, hoping to expand Iranian influence.

Ahmadinejad’s good relations with Venezuela’s openly anti-American regime are well-known. As well as President Hugo Chavez, the Iranian leader has already nurtured relations with Nicaragua’s President Daniel Ortega and Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa. But this is the first time an Iranian leader has visited Brazil, a country with major international aspirations.

The one-day visit is the first leg of a Latin American and African tour that will also take in Venezuela, Bolivia, Gambia and Senegal, and is being seen as part of a concerted Iranian campaign to win influence in parts of the western hemisphere.

And it’s working.

Iran’s leader got a welcoming bear hug from the Brazilian president, who urged Western nations to drop threats of punishment over the Iranian nuclear program and instead negotiate a fair solution.

Hezbullah cells are well ensconced in South America—with America’s enemies, of course.

The commander of U.S. forces in Latin America says the Iranian-backed Lebanese militant group Hezbollah is involved in drug trafficking in Colombia. The admiral is worried about increased Iranian and Hezbollah activities throughout the region.

Meanwhile, back at home, the Iranian leadership is making sure of two things. First, that the opposition is decapitated.

A former Iranian Vice-President and leading reformist has been sentenced to six years in prison for fomenting unrest after President Ahmadinejad’s disputed re-election in June.

Mohammad Ali Abtahi, who “confessed” to his alleged crimes at a trial widely denounced as a charade, is the most senior of hundreds of dissidents who have been locked up over the past five months.

Next, setting up education camps for the young, controlling communications, and effectively creating a police state (though the scaries element has to be the Basij centers in elementary schools).

In recent weeks, the government has announced a variety of new ideological offensives.

It is implanting 6,000 Basij militia centers in elementary schools across Iran to promote the ideals of the Islamic Revolution, and it has created a new police unit to sweep the Internet for dissident voices. A company affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards acquired a majority share in the nation’s telecommunications monopoly this year, giving the Guards de facto control of Iran’s land lines, Internet providers and two cellphone companies. And in the spring, the Revolutionary Guards plan to open a news agency with print, photo and television elements.

These actions, and Iran’s other aggressive actions, are triggering an arms race in the Persian Gulf.

Saudi Arabia, long the major arms-buyer in the region, is now being overtaken by relative minnows such as the United Arab Emirates as they share their neighbour’s fear of the growing military strength of their Shia neighbour.

And of course, the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran haunts Israel as well as the Arab nations.

Most Israelis believe the key to enduring peace in the Middle East is convincing Israel’s adversaries that ejecting Israel through force is an impossible task not worth pursuing. As the Palestinian-American political scientist Hilal Khashan’s work on Arab attitudes toward peace has shown, the willingness of Arabs to make peace with Israel is a direct function of their perception of Israel’s invincibility. The Iranian nuclear program threatens this perception.

An additional threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program is its potential to unleash a cascade of proliferation in the Middle East, beginning with Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The development of nuclear weapons by these countries would pose a grave danger to the Jewish state, despite the fact that Egypt has signed a peace treaty with Israel. This is because leaders who have reconciled themselves to Israel’s existence have done so because they believed Israel was strong but unlikely to endure in the long term.

Just as an Iranian nuclear capability would imply a nuclear guarantee for anti-Zionist proxies, an Egyptian or Saudi nuclear capability would reduce incentives for other Arab states to make peace with Israel because, shielded under an Arab nuclear umbrella, they would no longer fear catastrophic defeat or further loss of territory.

So what can we do to stop Iran’s aggression? Well, the opposition is reaching out to the United States.

After more than five months of going it alone, Iran’s opposition Green Movement is reaching out to the United States for help. Via public and private channels, the Obama Administration has received several appeals in recent weeks to take a stronger stand against human-rights abuses in Iran, avoid military action and impose more aggressive and rapid-fire sanctions against the Revolutionary Guards and its vast business interests.

It’s time for President Obama to stop tsk-tsking about Iran’s behavior, and begin actively supporting the Iranian opposition. Iran’s aims are to become a regional hegemon, to spread its Islamism over the world, and to subjugate any and all who seek something different for Iran. The Iranian aims are quite clear. While it may be an exaggeration to say they want world domination, at least for now, it is their ultimate goal. The United Nations might want to take a look at the elephant in the room for a change, instead of focusing so strongly on Israel. Israel does not seek world domination, and not even hegemony in the Middle East. You cannot say the same for Iran, which is currently arming the Yemeni opposition, trying to build nuclear weapons plants in Syria, controlling Lebanon through Hizbullah, working for the destruction of Israel, setting up Hezbullah cells in South America, and fomenting unrest wherever and whenever it benefits Iran.

Sanctions should be the least of our actions.

11/02/2009

The Palestinians turn on Obama

Filed under: Israel, The One, palestinian politics — Meryl Yourish @ 10:00 am

This is perfect. You really can’t get much better than this. The Palestinians are blaming Obama for the lack of a peace agreement, instead of, say, their utter refusal to come to the table and discuss things.

Palestinian officials on Sunday criticized the United States for what one called “backpedaling” on demands that Israel stop settlement construction in the occupied West Bank, saying the Obama administration’s change of approach on the issue damaged the likelihood of a peace agreement.

“If America cannot get Israel to implement a settlement freeze, what chance do the Palestinians have of reaching agreement” on the even more complex set of issues involved in final peace talks, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said in a written statement.

The thing I like best about all this is that they’re actually correct. It is Obama’s fault, and you can trace it to these exact words from the Cairo speech:

The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)

There’s a lesson in unintended consequences there. Barry Rubin says that Netanyahu has given Hillary Clinton more than Israel has ever offered regarding the cessation of settlements, but it’s still not enough for the Palestinians—and now Egypt and Jordan have climbed aboard the “absolutely no building, anywhere!” wagon and declared that the Palestinians are right not to negotiate without a complete freeze. But, as Barry Rubin points out:

In fact, at the time it signed the original peace process agreement—often called the Oslo accord—in 1993, that’s 16 years ago—Israel put forward its interpretation of the agreement. It said that there would be no new Jewish settlements and no geographical expansion of existing settlements. But Israel made it clear that it would continue to build apartments on existing settlements. That position was not challenged by the Palestinians at the time and it has never held up talks before now.

In effect, then, Obama has totally effed up the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, by giving the Palestinians a demand that they could latch onto and use as an excuse to refuse so much as talking with Israel. Even the WaPo has noticed:

The comments represent what has been a shift in the dynamics since President Obama took office, with initial pressure on Israel giving way to apparent impatience over the refusal of Palestinian officials to resume peace talks in the absence of a settlement freeze.

The first months of Obama’s administration were marked by sharply worded demands that Israel stop building in both the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Palestinians consider the areas part of a future Palestinian state and say that a halt to settlements on Israel’s part would simply be fulfilling promises already made under previous international agreements.

You know, I think I may start taking back all the bad things I thought about Obama and the Cairo speech. Because clearly, it has shown the Palestinians’ duplicity to all and sundry, and exposed the so-called “moderate” states of Egypt and Jordan for the enablers of the rejectionist philosophy of Fatah and the PA. Even Barack Obama can’t keep ignoring who is truly at fault for lack of progress in the Middle East. Well, okay, he can—but people are going to start laughing at him when he blames Bush for the current impasse.

Update: And on cue, Clinton moderates her statement to please the outraged Palestinians and Arabs.

11/01/2009

The Obama Israel policy: Miserable failure

Filed under: Israel, The One, palestinian politics — Meryl Yourish @ 10:30 am

Let us review the Obama administration on Israel. We’ll start with the Cairo speech, which you may not remember was titled “A New Beginning.”

The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)

I love the little added applause parentheticals. But you should really listen to the speech to hear the harshness in Obama’s tone when he mentions the settlements. (There is no equivalent harshness when he mentioned the Palestinian obligations for peace.)

In any case, using that speech, the Palestinians promptly inserted a precondition for talks with the Netanyahu administration that they never had in all the years of peace talks: There will be no talking until there is a total freeze on all “settlement” activity, including the building of apartment additions in the suburbs of Jerusalem. And from there, the Palestinians only dug in their heels. Repeated efforts by various representatives of the Obama administration to get the Palestinians to drop their new precondition were met with refusal after refusal after refusal. Obama opened the bottle, the genie got out, and now his administration is trying really hard to get it back inside. And they’re not nearly as smart as Bugs Bunny was. The genie is winning.

The latest iteration is Hillary Clinton’s visit. The Palestinians are being told in no uncertain terms to get back to the negotiating table.

A halt on settlement construction in the West Bank is not a pre-condition for the resumption of talks between Israel and the Palestinians, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Saturday.

“There has never been a pre-condition. It’s always been an issue within the negotiations,” Clinton said about the settlements.

But if you look at those words, and the words of Obama’s Cairo speech, there is a cognitive dissonance that explains why the Palestinians continue to use the lack of a freeze as a reason to halt negotiations. Because the Obama administration opened the door for it use. And the Palestinians have never, ever not used an excuse to refuse to negotiate with Israel.

Responding to Clinton’s remarks, a Palestinian official said Israel must halt settlement building for peace talks to resume.

Nabil Abu Rdainah, spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said: “A settlement freeze and acknowledging the terms of reference is the only way towards peace negotiations.”

Because the Palestinians don’t want to negotiate. They don’t want two states, living side by side in peace. They want a Palestinian state in all of what was the British Mandate of Palestine. And now, the Obama administration has given them their Best. Excuse. Ever. They’re not giving it up anytime soon.

The Obama administration’s Israel policy to date has been a miserable failure. The two sides are no closer to peace than they were under the Bush administration, or even the Clinton administration.

Smart power. Wow. It really doesn’t work very well, does it?

10/30/2009

Briefly

Filed under: Iran, Israel, Jews, News Briefs, The One, World — Tags: , — Meryl Yourish @ 10:00 am

Obama administration forces Honduras to let anti-Semitic nutjob back in power: So, the guy who said that Mossad agents were poisoning him is going to be back in charge of Honduras in some fashion, forced there by the United States and the OAS overriding Honduras’ Supreme Court decisions and the laws of the nation. Way to go, Obama! Way to work for the rule of law. Oh, wait. It’s the Chicago Way. I keep forgetting.

Awesome: Congressional nitwit puts private ethics investigation data on public website. You have to love the internet age, because people being people, there are still just as many idiots as there were before everything was online. Only now when they make mistakes, we get to see what’s really going on behind the scenes in Congress.

Postcards from the IDF: Yossi Klein Halevi on Israeli citizens’ receipt of a postcard that details how much time they have to get to the nearest bomb shelter in the event of a missile attack. A sobering read.

No. Ya think? Best headline yet on the Iran cheat-and-retreat strategy: “Iran accused of playing games on nuclear deal.” The Telegraph wins the Keen Grasp of the Obvious award for that one.

But—but—this totally blows away the “European colonialism” argument! Genetic proof that Jews were from the land of Israel, and the man behind the science. (Of course, he’s a Jew.)

Powered by WordPress