Yourish.com

11/03/2009

“Slap in the face”

Filed under: American Scene, Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 8:30 am

Meryl noticed this yesterday. (See the end of the post.)

Barry Rubin summarized the administration’s efforts in the Middle East like this:

The president of the United States has said that he wants talks resumed immediately and believes it possible to make a breakthrough. The Palestinian leadership is thwarting him on both points. In other words, they are responsible for the failure of a major U.S. policy.

So when the administration, specifically, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton points this out and it brings howls of protest from the Arab world what is the administration’s response?

The New York Times:

Arab officials expressed alarm that the United States seemed to be easing pressure on Israel after Mrs. Clinton said in Jerusalem on Saturday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s proposal of restrained settlement building was better than anything previous Israeli governments had offered.

Mrs. Clinton said the administration would not stop pushing Mr. Netanyahu to do more. But she said that in trying to revive a stalled peace process, she wanted to offer Israel encouragement for moving in the right direction, even if that movement fell short of what the United States wanted.

“I will offer positive reinforcement to the parties when I believe they are taking steps that support the objective of reaching a two-state solution,” she said here, on the eve of a conference of Arab and Western countries. “I will also push them as I have in public and private to do even more.”

The Washington Post:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton tried to soothe Arab uneasiness Monday over weekend statements she made praising the Israeli government’s offer to “restrain” growth in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, saying it “falls far short” of the Obama administration’s hopes and is “not enough.”

Reflecting her concern over the Arab reaction, Clinton decided to extend her week-long trip to the region, scheduled to end Tuesday, with a previously unplanned stop in Cairo on Wednesday to meet with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. On Sunday, Egypt backed the Palestinian stance that negotiations cannot resume until Israel stops all settlement construction.

Clinton insisted that the administration still considers settlement activity on disputed territory “illegitimate” and advocates a freeze. But she repeated at a news conference here that Israel’s offer was “unprecedented” and that it “holds the promise of moving a step closer to a two-state solution.”

So faced with Arab displeasure, the administration backtracked. But the Washington Post observed:

Clinton’s comments represented a shift in the dynamics since Obama took office, with initial pressure on Israel giving way over the past several weeks to apparent impatience over the refusal of Palestinian officials to resume peace talks in the absence of a settlement freeze.

And the NYT quoted Arab League Secretary General, Amr Moussa:

Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League, urged the administration not to accept what he called a “slap in the face” by Israel. He said he hoped the Americans would “try hard and in a firmer way.”

And how would you characterize the official Palestinian response to Secretary of State Clinton’s remarks in Israel?

“Why, Mrs. Hillary? How much did the Zionists pay you as a bribe?” taunted an article in today’s edition of Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, which is controlled by the office of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

That’s the “moderate” Palestinian response. And check out the cartoon. The Arab world actually slapped the administration in the face and the administration meekly backs down. The Palestinians, supported by the Arab world, show that they’re uninterested in peace and the administration simply tolerates it.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

07/16/2009

The Exception Clause and Hillary’s speech

Filed under: Israeli Double Standard Time, The Exception Clause, The One — Tags: , , — Meryl Yourish @ 12:00 pm

There’s a principle that I call The Exception Clause. Essentially, you add the words “except for Jews” or “except for Israel” to the end of every rule, statement, etc. that the world lives by, or something that is expected of everyone. It was in full bloom in Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy speech yesterday, where, we were told, she would be asking the Palestinians and Arabs to work as hard at fulfilling their obligations toward peace as the Obama administration is demanding from Israel.

And yet, Hillary Clinton’s speech said nothing specific, and did not live up to its hype. In fact, Secretary Clinton gave me the most recent in a long line of examples of The Exception Clause. Add “except for Israel” to the end of this excerpt, and you will see what I mean.

We’ve also begun to adopt a more flexible and pragmatic posture with our partners. We won’t agree on every issue. Standing firm on our principles shouldn’t prevent us from working together where we can. So we will not tell our partners to take it or leave it, nor will we insist that they’re either with us or against us.

It’s a fabrication. Because in Cairo, Obama did exactly that:

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

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

And referring to the President’s speech, Hillary said:

With respect to settlements, the President was very clear when Prime Minister Netanyahu was here. He wants to see a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions. We think it is in the best interests of the effort that we are engaged in that settlement expansion cease. That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly, not only to the Israelis but to the Palestinians and others. And we intend to press that point.

Both of those quotes sure look like “take it or leave it” to me.

As for the “muscular” speech that would demand action from the Palestinians, well, here’s what Hillary demanded:

Ending the conflict requires action on all sides. The Palestinians have the responsibility to improve and extend the positive actions already taken on security; to act forcefully against incitement; and to refrain from any action that would make meaningful negotiations less likely.

They have to “improve and extend” actions already taken. They have to “act forcefully” against incitement. Hillary didn’t even ask them specifically to end it. She could have demanded that the Palestinians should stop publishing textbooks that paint the entire land of Israel as “Palestine.” But the administration prefers to turn a blind eye to these realities, or downplay them. Instead, Obama calls in some Jewish leaders for a charm offensive, and most of them fall for it.

I haven’t. Obama is no friend of Israel. And Hillary is a fair-weather friend. When it suits her to be pro-Israel, she will be. When it doesn’t—well. Read the speech again. And don’t believe the hype. It’s almost never true.

The only thing you can count on is that Israel will always be the exception to every world rule.

04/24/2009

Driving the wedge

Filed under: Israel, Media Bias — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 11:00 am

How clear the conflict between the Netanyahu government and the Obama administration are, is unclear at this point. That doesn’t stop Glenn Kessler from emphasizing the differences.

Aides to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said this week that the Israeli government will not move ahead on the core issues of peace talks with the Palestinians until it sees progress in U.S. efforts to stop Iran’s suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapon and limit Tehran’s rising influence in the region. Netanyahu, who is skeptical of efforts to create a Palestinian state, plans to visit Washington next month; aides said he was preparing to outline his emerging policy to President Obama.

Asked about those comments during an appearance before a panel of the House Appropriations Committee, Clinton said she did not want to “prejudge the Israeli position until we’ve had face-to-face talks.” But she then cautioned that Israel was unlikely to gain support for thwarting Iran unless there were visible efforts to achieve Palestinian statehood.

Achieving statehood for the Palestinians is dependent at least as much on the Palesitnians as on the Israelis. It isn’t even clear that the Palestinian leadership wants a state. So leaning on Israel to work for such a state and making that a condition for taking a stand against Iran is likely to be counterproductive. Even without Israel in consideration the administration should want to prevent Tehran from gaining influence in the Middle East.

At the end of the article Kessler writes:

Clinton took flak from some lawmakers about the administration’s efforts to keep its options open regarding the creation of a Palestinian unity government. The government is split between Fatah, which controls the West Bank, and Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip. Hamas, which the State Department considers a terrorist group, won Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, but the United States has refused to deal with the group until it meets conditions, including recognition of Israel.

Clinton indicated that if a unity government is formed, the administration would be willing to deal with that government, even if it contained Hamas ministers, as long as the government agreed to those conditions, much as the United States currently deals with the elected Lebanese government in which the militant group Hezbollah controls 11 out of 30 cabinet seats. But several lawmakers, including Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), chair of the foreign operations subcommittee, and Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.) indicated that the House may seek to restrict aid to the Palestinian Authority, which would limit the administration’s flexibility.

First of all, the State Department doesn’t merely consider Hamas a terrorist group. Hamas is a terrorist group and the State Department correctly lists it as such. Maybe Kessler and some in the administration dispute that, but Hamas is a terrorist group because of its actions, not because of bureaucratic definition.

It’s reasonable for the administration to set conditions for dealing with Hamas. Hamas will, of course, never meet those conditions. So it’s hard to see how limiting funds to the PA – which have flowed to Hamas for years anyway – will limit the administration’s flexibility. Either the administration is serious about the conditions it set, or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then it will finesse Hamas’s non-compliance much as the Secretary of State’s husband finessed Arafat’s non-compliance during his administration. If the administration is serious about its conditions on Hamas, then limiting money to the less open terrorists of Fatah should hardly limit its options.

UPDATE: Two additional points: The Arab states want American protection from Iran. That’s independent of any movement towards a Palestinian state. Of course they’ll ask for American pressure on Israel. But that’s no reason for the United States to treat that request seriously. Also, some of Israel’s moves towards “peace” have strengthened Iran’s proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. Actions that strengthen Iran’s allies, embolden Iran. So pushing for a Palestinian state that would likely strengthen Hamas and hurt American efforts to contain Iran.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

03/05/2009

Unhelpful Hillary

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

In order to show that it is even-handed in its approach to the Middle East, the United States must show that Israel is in violation of its commitments as the Palestinians. The Washington Post reports that yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dutifully played her role.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized the Israeli government on Wednesday for its plans to demolish dozens of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, calling the actions “unhelpful” and a violation of international obligations.

Clinton made the rare public complaint about Israeli actions in response to a question at a news conference with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank city of Ramallah. Israel’s plans to destroy homes in Arab East Jerusalem, which Palestinians consider the capital of a future Palestinian state, have angered Palestinians.

Jonathan Tobin explains what’s outrageous about Secretary Clinton’s criticism.

Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that homes demolished in Jerusalem were built without permits, a practice that is illegal in most countries. Moreover, as anyone who has visited Jerusalem in recent years can testify, building in Arab neighborhoods of the city has grown exponentially. So the implied charge that no Arab homes are being allowed to be built is utterly false.

Of course, at the same time, the United States continues to carp about the building of Jewish homes in Jewish communities in the territories, especially those in Greater Jerusalem, which no Israeli government would ever surrender. So it’s more than a bit hypocritical for the U.S. to call on Israel to freeze the building of Jewish homes while opposing any effort to curb the growth of Arab housing.

(See Shiloh Musings for visuals)

The Washington Post uncritically repeats some Palestinian claims about the housing but Nadav Shragai gives a pretty complete background that is at odds with Post’s account. (h/t Backspin)

About 20 years ago, the Jerusalem municipality shored up the water runoff there, and in the open green area (al Bustan, in Arabic), which the Turks and the British took care to preserve for hundreds of years as a public area intended for preservation and development of parks and tourism, an illegal Palestinian outpost arose.

Within 18 years 88 buildings went up there, under the noses of mayors Teddy Kollek and now outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Under former mayor Uri Lupolianski, the construction was halted, after the municipality confiscated tractors and heavy machinery from the lawbreakers.

Last summer the director general of the Antiquities Authority, Shuka Dorfman, noted in a kind of “post mortem” that the construction in the King’s Garden caused significant and irreversible damage to antiquities.

That last bit is important (though not to the Washington Post nor to Secretary Clinton.) Palestinian nationalism has always been about the eradication of Israel. The Palestinian National Charter denies the historical connection between Jews and Israel. So any action that serves to erase that history is important. The reason permits weren’t available for those buildings is because the area was not one that was supposed to be built. In any other circumstances deliberate efforts to destroy antiquities is condemned. But when Israel’s involved, it’s excused.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

09/19/2008

Diss-inviting Palin

Filed under: Iran, Jews, Politics — Tags: , — Soccerdad @ 9:00 am

I don’t know how many times I read at the NJDC website that support for Israel is bipartisan. But that’s been the mantra there. If anyone had temerity to criticize Democrats for their lack of commitment on Israel, that’s the cliche that NJDC would trot out in defense. Never mind that a lot more Democrats than Republicans are skeptical of Israel’s rights or are overly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, that’s the claim NJDC would make.

Now the mask is off:

Yesterday, NJDC said that Monday’s protest against Ahmadinejad was too important to be tainted by partisanship. Today, NJDC commends the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the National Coalition to Stop Iran Now, The Israel Project, United Jewish Communities, the UJA-Federation of New York and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs for making the right decision by withdrawing their invitation to Governor Sarah Palin. This decision shows that bi-partisan solidarity against President Ahmadinejad has won out over partisanship – even in this highly charged election year.

NJDC had no problem with partisanship when Sen. Clinton was the scheduled speaker, so the issue isn’t partisanship. And contrary to NJDC’s claim this shows non-partisan support for the anti-Ahmadinejad rally, not bi-partisan support.

Similarly the anti-Israel group that calls itself pro-Israel, J-Street, protested Gov. Palin’s scheduled speech to the rally:

Sarah Palin is scheduled to headline Monday’s rally in New York of Americans Jews concerned about the threat Iran poses to the United States and Israel.

Sarah Palin at a rally to unify American Jews on Iran? Really?

Palin stands diametrically opposed to the majority of American Jews on nearly all issues – including on Iran. With just a few days left before the rally, we have no time to lose.

Now parse that statement. In what way is Palin’s stand on Iran contrary the views of American Jews? Because she stated that Israel had a right to defend itself?

More generally, the implication is that no one has the right to be pro-Israel (in J-Street’s anti-Israel way) unless they believe all the right things. Noah Pollak had it right.

This is appalling. When did abortion and the environment become issues of unique concern to Jews? They of course are not, any more than taxes and social security have any special relevance to Christians. J Street is attempting to bludgeon Palin with disapproval from the Jewish community when in fact it is the liberal community that detests her.

What does J Street want its few acolytes to do? Harass the organizers of the Iran rally until they disinvite Palin — you know, in the spirit of inclusiveness and democracy.

Hot Air:

She was willing to go but the Democrats didn’t want to share a spotlight with her. So rather than let her attend and use her presence to drum up attention for the cause they’re ostensibly there to advance, the left muscled the organizers into canceling all politicians’ invites.

Going back to the NJDC, shouldn’t the priority be the opposite? Shouldn’t the priority have been that the issue of standing up to Iran is so important that even Democrats would be willing to appear with a Republican to show American resolve. Messianic times might be marked by a lamb lying down with a lion, but apparently it will not include Democratic tolerance for Republicans.

At a time when Democrats fear that Jews might not vote for Barach Obama in the same proportions that they usually do, the Obama campaign takes a gimme and absolutely fumbles it.

Red State:

But that’s all right. This is the candidate that the Democrats wanted, this is the candidate that the Democrats deserve, and this is the candidate that the Democrats got; and I offer the pious hope that they fully experience every aspect of their choice, down to the very molecular level.

I hope the Republicans play this up. I listened to Ben Cardin the other night claiming how strong Obama would be against Iran. Now I see that Obama won’t even ensure that one of his proxies would speak at a rally to register his symbolic opposition to Iran. Do I really think he’ll do anything substantive as President?

The McCain campaign sees an opportunity and takes full advantage:

This issue is too important to fall victim to partisan politics. Instead of pressuring Senator Clinton to withdraw and pressuring the event’s organizers to disinvite Governor Palin, we hope Senator Obama will consider lending his own voice to this cause. And if Senator subsequently wishes to clarify any remarks that might be misconstrued, he will have the opportunity to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions after he speaks at the UN the folllowing day. After all, the last time Senator Obama took the stage to address a nonpartisan, pro-Israel audience, his call for Jerusalem to remain the “undivided” capital of a Jewish state was easily clarified the next day.

Still it’s puzzling as to exactly what’s going on. Shmuel Rosner offers some explanations.

The first question now is whether it was Sen. Clinton’s idea to withdraw or whether she did so on orders from the Obama campaign. I can understand that she was miffed that she wasn’t told about Palin’s invitation by the organizers, but Rosner didn’t think that was a reason for her to withdraw.

So did Hillary – looking to 2012 – see this as a way to make Obama look bad in the eyes of Jewish voters and the Obama campaign stupidly followed along with her faux outrage? Or was the Obama campaign so intent on preventing Gov. Palin from establishing pro-Israel credentials they wanted to force her out whatever the cost?

Regardless the campaign got its Jewish allies NJDC and J-Street – who are vastly more liberal than the Jewish community as a whole – to claim that the event ought to be “non-partisan” – figuring that those groups would inoculate the campaign against charges of playing politics by the wider Jewish community.

Jennifer Rubin has more tawdry details.

More discussion at memeorandum.

Was this a really good time to show that the Democratic commitment to stopping Iran was less than 100%? Uh, no.

Crossposted at Soccer Dad.

Powered by WordPress