The question, for starters, is how
gullible do Obama and his representatives think that Israel is? Or Mahmoud
Abbas, for that matter. What the Americans are attempting to do is stitch
together a "peace" deal using that hocus pocus.
Kerry came to town last Wednesday
for a series of meetings with Israeli and PA officials in order to advance the
"peace process."
On Friday, Kerry announced that he
had presented both the Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs with "new security
ideas":
He had brought with him US Gen.
(ret.) John Allen, described by Kerry as "one of the best military minds" in the
US.
Credit:
khaama
Gen. Allen, according to the
JPost, had been designated by Obama to "assess the potential
threats to Israel and the region from a future Palestinian state, and come up
with possible security arrangements."
I see this as unmitigated gall: Expecting Israel to rely on
a foreign military leader's assessment of Israel's security situation. This
could not even be expected to be a disinterested assessment, as
Allen is charged with furthering the negotiations.
As a matter of fact, according to Obama, Allen has already concluded
that it would be possible to arrive at a "two state solution" that protects
Israel's need for security.
Did we expect Allen to say, "Mr.
President, this just isn't going to work"?
~~~~~~~~~~
According to Caroline Glick,
writing on Friday (see more below), the proposal by Allen "involved, among other
things, American security guarantees" and "a pledge to deploy US forces along
the Jordan River."
Kerry fell all over himself when
he was here trying to demonstrate how seriously the US regards Israel's
need for security. In terms of the US negotiations with Iran, he said, "Israel's security
was at the top of the US agenda."
Anyone who would buy this has been
sleeping for the last several weeks and is probably still asleep. The US
has demonstrated over and again that it cannot be trusted by its
allies.
See John Keinon's analysis in the
JPost, "A tale of two Kerrys" - about the turn-about in
Kerry's position, which hardly inspires confidence. "Will the real
John Kerry stand up."
~~~~~~~~~~
The Allen plan apparently does
involve an Israeli presence at the Jordan River, as well - at least for some
interval of time. And it is for this reason that, according to Reuters, an
unnamed Palestinian Arab official has said that the PA rejected the plans
"because they would only lead to prolonging and maintaining the
occupation."
While the response from
Netanyahu - a reiteration of what has been Israel's position - is
that under any peace agreement,
Israel "must be able to defend itself, by itself, with our own
forces."
Netanyahu "has rejected outright the idea of any
third party involvement."
(Emphasis added.)
~~~~~~~~~~
So, what we're seeing are
irreconcilable differences in the positions between Israel and the PA -
something that the US will not acknowledge upfront, but that Foreign Minister
Avigdor Leiberman has stated clearly:
"To speak frankly, I don’t
believe that it’s possible in the next year, this year, to achieve...some
break-through..."
"Trust between the two sides is
about zero," said Lieberman, who cautioned about creating "expectations" of
a positive outcome to the talks.
~~~~~~~~~~
Obama, addressing the prestigious
Saban Forum of the Brookings Institution in Washington DC yesterday, said that
"a framework" could be reached "within the next several months" but his
conceptualization was a bit different:
What he has in mind,
astonishingly, is a deal with the PA only, that would lead to a deal with Gaza
down the road. Allow me, here, to respond to a few of the
comments he made during his talk, moderated by Haim Saban.
(See http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=62537 for the full text of Obama's
remarks.)
"I think we're now at a place
where we can achieve a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians are
living side-by-side in peace and security."
He's either deliberately duplicitous
(a distinct possibility) or living in a dream
world.
He knows about this "place" in part
because, "There are young people, teenagers that I met both in Israel and the
Palestinian Territories that want to get out from under this
history..."
This is perhaps a small point but, in
the interests of addressing distortions of truth, I could not let it pass.
When Obama was here some months ago, he spoke to students at the Israel
convention center (Binyanei Ha'uma) in Jerusalem. However, the American
Embassy selectively invited students from certain universities.
Members of Ariel University, who tend to be more nationalist, were not
invited.
This is how Obama plays things.
By design, he "met" a certain kind of student
only.
As to the picture of "Israelis and
Palestinians living side-by-side." Any even remotely serious assessment of
the situation would have to address the fact that Abbas is enormously weak and
that Hamas is ever-eager to take over, should there be an independent
Palestinian Arab state (Heaven forbid). The only thing keeping Hamas at
bay in Judea and Samaria is the IDF - this you've read here
repeatedly.
What is more, the PA is Hamas in a
suit and tie: the goals of the two groups are the same. Both seek Israel's
destruction. A careful analysis of the words of PA/PLO leaders in Arabic,
as well as PA/PLO documents, makes this quite
clear.
Add to this a history of the PA
security forces turning their guns on Israeli
soldiers.
What Obama and Kerry are pushing is
pure hype, made-up nonsense.
~~~~~~~~~
According to Obama, "We know what the
outlines of a potential agreement might look
like."
This is a commonly touted
myth. It is not so. You've seen above how great the
differences are. Whenever this expectation is expressed, it is code for
the '67 lines as the basis for negotiations and a divided Jerusalem. This
is what Abbas has always demanded, and what he continues to demand to this
day. Obama embraces this position and acts as if it is a foregone
conclusion.
It is not: Israel will never accept
this.
~~~~~~~~~~
Moderator Saban asked
Obama:
"The Palestinians are two people - one
in the West Bank, led by President Abbas that is negotiating the deal; and on in
Gaza, led by Hamas that wants to eradicate Israel from the face of the
earth. President Abbas, as far as I know, says he won't make a deal that
doesn't include Gaza, which he doesn't control. How do we get out from
this?" labyrinth?"
Replied
Obama:
"Well, I think this is going to happen
in stages...
"...if, in fact, we can create a
pathway to peace, even if initially it's restricted to the West Bank, if there
is a model where young Palestinians in Gaza are looking and seeing that in
the West Bank Palestinians are able to live in dignity, with self-determination,
and suddenly their economy is booming and trade is taking place because they
have created an environment in which Israel is confident about its security and
a lot of the old barriers to commerce and educational exchange and all that has
begun to break down, that's something that the young people of Gaza are going to
want. And the pressure that will be placed [on Hamas??] for the
residents of Gaza to experience that same future is something that is
going to be I think overwhelmingly appealing."
This scenario painted by Obama is so
full of holes it makes Swiss cheese appear as solid as a brick wall.
I don't think it's necessary to parse
all of this. I cannot believe that even Obama believes it: that there
will be a settlement and - "poof" - life for the Palestinian Arabs in Judea and
Samaria will morph into something so fantastic that young Arabs in Gaza will
force (force?) Hamas to join the negotiated
settlement.
My metaphor of hocus pocus as
diplomacy is very apt. This is nothing but a bunch of words
pretending to be a policy.
~~~~~~~~~~
Lastly, I will mention here with
regard to Obama's Saban remarks, that he says it "remains to be seen whether
President Abbas, then, is willing to understand that this transition period
requires some restraint on the part of the Palestinians as well. They
don't get everything they want on day one. (Does this mean ultimately they DO
get everything they want?) And that creates some political problems for
President Abbas."
Well, I suppose when you're inventing
a scenario you can say whatever you want. But if Obama has even a scintilla of
understanding about what's going on, he knows very well that Abbas will not
compromise on his demands. And, in point of fact, cannot, as his regime
and very possibly his life would be at risk if he struck an agreement that
compromised on Palestinian Arab demands.
My own suspicion is that this babble
by Obama about a transition that will lead in time to the inclusion of Gaza is
less to address Abbas's concerns than it is to cover his own rear. How do you,
after all, actively promote a negotiated settlement when there is still a
terrorist Palestinian Arab entity outside of its terms? This business of
transition is Obama's answer.
~~~~~~~~~~
Please see Caroline Glick, "The
politics of subversion," which addresses this entire
situation:
~~~~~~~~~
As to where Netanyahu stands on all of
this...
In his statement following his meeting
last week with Kerry, his tone was more conciliatory than it has been for a
while. I have my own theories as to why, which I may address when I write
about Obama's statements on Iran at the Saban Conference. And he did say
(which makes me shudder) that "Israel is ready for a historic peace" based on
two states for two peoples.
Again, with this? I want to ask
him. Again?
But he also made the statement I cited
above. In it's entirety: "It is a peace that Israel must be able to defend
itself, by itself, with our own forces against any foreseeable
threats."
What is more, he called on the PA to
stop finger-pointing and creating artificial crises. "Israel," he
declared, is honoring "all understandings reached in the negotiations that led
to the current talks.
Put simply: Stop carrying on about
settlements. We have a right to do what we're
doing.
~~~~~~~~~~
This leads to an enormously important
point. And here I will circle back to the comments by Foreign Minister
Lieberman at the Saban Conference, regarding his doubts that anything will come
of negotiations. For he said something else as
well:
"Israel is not 'occupying' the
West Bank [Judea and Samaria]." (Emphasis
added)
Mazel tov. This is telling it like it
is, and it is about time.
Credit:
Oliver
Fitoussi
It is not enough to claim security
alone, when negotiating. That means if the US could be trusted, and the
Palestinian Arabs were truly peaceful, then, hey, we could pull back to the '676
line.
But this land is ours,
legally
Every time Obama makes a
statement about the outlines of a agreement being clear, by which he means that
Israel is expected to surrender most of Judea and Samaria, there must be
forthright refutation from the Israeli
government.
~~~~~~~~~~
©
Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner,
functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be
reproduced only
with
proper attribution.
If
it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be
noted.
This material
is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to
receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and
include your name in the text of the
message.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment