In his April 6 speech to the Turkish parliament, President Obama declared that both Israelis and Palestinians “must live up to the commitments they have made” regarding the goal they agreed to in the Roadmap and at Annapolis. But it is not only the Israelis and Palestinians who have made commitments. The United States has incurred obligations in connection with that process as well.
In the 2004 letter from President Bush to Prime Minister Sharon, the U.S. committed itself to “defensible borders” for Israel, and that commitment was reiterated in the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the United States and Israel on January 16, 2009. It is unlikely that any responsible military person, in either Israel or the United States, believes the 1967 borders are “defensible borders.”
Second, the U.S. committed itself in the Bush letter (which was endorsed by Congress in Concurrent Resolution 460) to Israel’s ability to “defend itself, by itself,” and that commitment was also recognized again in the 2009 Memorandum of Understanding. The phrase is a coded but clear reference to protecting Israel’s ultimate deterrent capability.
Third, the U.S. committed itself to the “Performance-Based Roadmap” as the sole peace plan. That commitment is particularly clear if one refers not only to the Bush letter, but to the Sharon letter it answered. Sharon insisted the Roadmap was “the sole means” to make progress and that the peace process had to be “anchored exclusively” in it. He was concerned that, absent a U.S. commitment to the three-phase Roadmap, a different plan could be forced on Israel by the U.S. or the international community. The Bush letter promised the U.S. would do its utmost to “prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan” (emphasis added).
Annapolis was a failed attempt to “accelerate” the Roadmap by going straight to final-status negotiations, with any agreement to be “subject to” the Roadmap. The Annapolis commitment was to attempt to reach such an agreement within a year, and that commitment expired by its terms at the end of 2008, when the parties failed. Any attempt to jump-start final status negotiations now will simply set the parties up for failure again.
A realistic appraisal of the “peace process” must recognize the Palestinians have now rejected a state six times in the last eight years: in 2000 at Camp David; in 2001 with their rejection of the Clinton Parameters; in 2003 with their refusal to implement Phase I of the Roadmap; in 2005 when they received all of Gaza to show they could live side by side in peace, and turned it into a staging area for rockets and tunnels into Israel; in 2006 when they elected a terrorist government dedicated to Israel’s destruction; and in 2008 when they rejected Olmert’s plea to accept his last best offer in the Annapolis process.
At this point, it is more than the Palestinians “never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” A second state is not the opportunity they seek – not if it requires recognizing a Jewish one with defensible borders. But the U.S. has committed itself to Israel with respect to its borders and defense, and to the nature of the process going forward, and the U.S. ”must live up to the commitments it has made.”
“… look to the obvious conspiracy of like-minded people.”
Exactly what the left is saying about the influence of “friends of Israel” on the Freeman withdrawal.
Ever wonder why the Times didn’t pick Steyn when they were looking for a conservative to replace Kristol? Or Jennifer Rubin, for that matter. Is it because they would make the case too well?
If I were a Richman, I would have noted that the liberal mainstream media are strangely soft on wealth-dispensing Arab monarchs in general. They (maybe on the take themselves) may believe that a close association with these monarchs would not disqualify one from a high intelligence post in Washington.
Much as I love Jennifer Rubin and Commentary in general, they seem extraordinarily sensitive to to the idea that Jewish supporters of Israel played the leading role in dumping Freeman–even to the extent of outright denial of the obvious. This seems equivalent to denying or attempting to minimize the extent to which African-Americans played a key role in electing Obama. If the term “Israel Lobby” is understood in an essentially non-institutional sense, there is clearly a powerful and influential “opinion public” of American Jews who support Israel and who profoundly affect US policy in the Middle East. Just as there is a Catholic “opinion public” (or lobby) on abortion and just as there is an African-American “opinion public” (or lobby) on Obama. On what else have Marty Peretz of the The New Republic and Jennifer Rubin of Commentary agreed in the last 12 months other than issues affecting Israel?
My question is so what? Israel is sacred territory, a historically defining entity to to American Jews, both secular and religious. Should they not have opinions on policies that affect Israel? Are they not entitled to these opinions? And are they not entitled to them both as Jews and as Americans?
The sensitivity and even the denial on this issue remind me of the sensitivity to Bill Clinton’s statement about the voting in the South Carolina Democratic primary. In consequence, Bill Clinton went from being described by black leaders as “the first black president” to being widely described by black politicians as a racist. Absurd.
Same with this issue and the overwrought denials of influence and accusations of anti-semitism around the Freeman issue.
the bailout is first and foremost on peoples minds. most people donm’t even know what nationanal intelligence council is. I started a thread about the whole issue on another board and got little interset from either side.
steyn is a neoconservative though. “america alone” his lousy book he recently unfortunately wrote, is the perfect summation of neoconservatisms goal of isolating the US
lester, nice try, his lousy book did quite well, and that isn’t what it is about. It is about whether or not there will be anyone left in what is loosely known as western civilization to defend it against a “civilization” that is directly at odds with it.
JEM- like I said, isolating the US
and do we need the “who is not jewish”? I think we realize all hawks and pro israel nuts are not jewish.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=14394
“charles freemans victory”
caution, those used to the rubin style linking of the new repubic or new york times as “opposition” viewpoints may be taken aback by the intelligence and certitude of the argument linked
And do we need “nuts”, Lester? Why must you label those who are pro-Israel as nuts? I think we all know the answer.
Lester best elevates our discourse by staying out of it.
10 fine, read this then http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/fear_of_the_smear
I read lester’s link. In his own idiom, lol, it’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever read. the Iraqi people would be better oof under Saddam Hussein, the Chinese people enthusiastically backed the slaughter at Tianemen and Freeman was just channeling their collective voice, dismantling the arguments of those who think the Israeli Lobby is the puppeteer behind American foreign policy is “attacking anyone critical of Israel,” and supporters of Israel are blood thirsty parasites. And there’s even more–chock full of original and brilliant insights. They are advanced with “certitude,” though.
“the Iraqi people would be better oof under Saddam Hussein”
that’s a pretty weak defense of the iraq war. by certitude I meant they aren’t wishy washy the way the alan colmes -esque “opposition” logically championed by the likes of jennifer rubin are.
I just read the new link from lester #11–this one is just invective, the previous one at least tried to string together in a reasonably coherent way a series of claims. Plenty of certitude, once again, though.
Why, exactly, are “smears” against haters of Israel so effective? What is the source of the Lobby’s astonishing power? No one seems to to know–they do know that anyone who asks such questions ends up… well, not dead… or fired… or bumped by their publisher or excluded by the media… but something.
It’s not a defense of the Iraq War, which would rest on lots of other grounds–one of the most prominent claims made by Raimondo against the Iraq war is that (although he puts this in the typical, convulated, double and triple negative manner of the Left) is made things worse for the Iraqi people. Ergo, he wishes Saddam Hussein back upon the throne. Some people apparently think this is a strong argument against the war
that’s “convoluted,” sorry
“one of the most prominent claims”
his most prominent claim is that it was bad for america. he notes the iraqi casualties as a way of dismissing the notion that this war was neccesary on humanitarian grounds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy4uDGJmMWE
they were better off under saddam
Someone else is going to have watch lester’s link proving that the Iraqis were better off under saddam (a minor claim he very much wishes to vindicate)–I’ve gained a new appreciation of those pundits who actually spend their days reading this dreck in order to report back to us.
I guess it all depends on whether or not you prefer a) being fed alive feet first into a human shredder b) being randomly abducted from the street or a college campus, repeatedly raped by Uday Hussein and his thugs, then fed alive to his ravenous attack dogs or c) being blown up on the street by suicide bombers.
If you prefer a or b, then you would be better off living under Saddam Hussein. If c, Iraq now is just one of many choices. While none of the above is obviously the optimal, between the three choices, c seems an enormous improvement over the first two. I guess Lester feels differently.
And the suicide bombing seem to have trailed off to the very occasional–where are the leftists to come and remind us about the greater chances of getting killed in a car crash? Wouldn’t that hold for Iraq as well? Shouldn’t the left be encouraging the Iraqis, in Michael Bloomberg’s obnoxious phrase (a beloved leftist bumper sticker) “get a life”? Indeed, isn’t that exactly what the Iraqis seem to be doing?
Yes Adam, I completely agree with you.
I guess, laster does not consider Curds as Iraquee people. They really loved Sadam.
Justin Raimondo? lester, I have little regard for the slop you spew on this blog, but I have fun occassionally replying. But you cite Justin Raimondo to us and expect, what, to be taken seriously? Goodness, you are more of a nut than your loopy posts let on.
Rick,
This is how Doug Jehl justified the lack of coverage of the Freeman appointment to Greg Sargent:
We did initially elect not to write a story about the campaign against Mr. Freeman. In deciding how to deploy our reporters, my initial judgment was that this squabble fell short of the bar, since the head of the National Intelligence Council is not a Senate-confirmable position and it lies well below cabinet rank.
But the fact that the campaign proved successful certainly justified Mark Mazzetti’s story in this morning’s paper, and we are continuing our reporting efforts today.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/times-editor-defends-lack-of-coverage-of-chas-freeman-mess/
Got that? Freeman’s qualifications and baggage were irrelevant; only the campaign against him was!
This wasn’t so much covering for the administration as much as it was considering Chas Freeman some sort of mainstream actor. The NYT (and presumably WaPo) saw nothing remarkable or newsworthy about his views. I can assure you that the Times was not so oblivious when Bush appointed Elliott Abrams.
lester – have you read the book – it isn’t an isolationist scribe. It is a statement based upon demographics that the US will be alone because our other western civ brethern are committing suicide. Not sure how you neocon that one. Just when I think you have some points worth making you go and start on this thread. Wonderful. And anyone who can plausibly make the case that Iraq is better off under Saddam, that is just crazy.
Soccer Dad: Thank you for the interesting comment.
The suggestion that the NYT knew there was a campaign against an important intelligence appointment, but thought neither the campaign nor the criticisms underlying it rose to the level of news fit to print is, if true, worse than Steyn’s theory.
It suggests journalistic incompetence, but perhaps Jehl considered that the lesser charge.
Alexander Bolton of the Hill put the Israel Lobby slur to the test:
Republicans on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said pro-Israel lobby groups did not spur their opposition to Charles Freeman. . . .
In an e-mail to reporters, he blamed the “Israel lobby” for the derailment of his appointment.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla), a member of the Intelligence Committee, who signed the letter to Blair, said activities by pro-Israel lobbyists “had nothing to do with his opposition.”
“When you see someone make those kind of statements that’s going to be in that position and was unqualified to be there in the first place–it was the wrong appointment,” said Coburn.
Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), the vice chairman of the Intelligence panel, said Freeman’s accusations against pro-Israel lobbying groups were off base.
“Unfortunately, Ambassador Freeman is suffering from some kind of delusion. I think a lot of people objected to his previous statements regardless of any lobbying.”
Bond said he did not receive any contact from AIPAC and had not even heard of two Jewish groups that came out against Freeman’s nomination: the Zionist Organization of America and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. . . .
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), another Republican on the Intelligence panel who objected to Freeman, said he was not contacted personally by any pro-Israel lobbyists.
“He had absolutely no analytical experience, that’s what caused me great concern,” Chambliss said of Freeman.
The Wall Street Journal further reports: “The rebuttal of Freeman’s departing screed is bipartisan. Alcee Hastings of Florida, a senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, tells Bolton, “I’m close to AIPAC. If they did come out against Freeman, I was not in the loop because no one called me to say a word about Charles Freeman.”
28 mortimer- freeman voluntarily left the position of his own accord. no one is suggesting AIPAC somehow got him kicked out.
JEM- most people feel the iraq war was a mistake. sorry. I agree with steyn that europe has too many muslim immigrants. I htink it has more to do with their massive welfare state and non existent immigration rstrictions than jihadism or something
gord- so your argument is that you don’t personally like justin raimondo therefore you win the debate. okay.
adam- tell the people in mumbai not to worry about terrorism because they have a better chance of getting in a car crash. tell the people at the department of homeland security that.
I’m shocked – shocked – that lester started a thread and others weren’t interseted in it.
30- I’ve started many very popular threads!!