President Obama is being praised for his peace advocacy during his visit to Israel this week. But it hasn’t escaped the notice of savvy observers that for all of his eloquent appeals for coexistence, he did not commit himself to any specific peace plan. In fact, he actually endorsed Israel’s call for negotiations without preconditions, a clear change from previous U.S. demands for a settlement freeze and other concessions. Even more to the point, since Palestinian attitudes toward Obama’s visit ranged from indifference to outright hostility, it’s hard to see how the president’s attempt to urge young Israelis to work for peace will change a thing.
The president was wise to avoid specifics since the prospects for progress in negotiations, or even holding talks, are bleak. But it appears that new Secretary of State John Kerry has no such inhibitions. According to an article in Politico today, Kerry is straining at the leash this week as he prepares to dive headfirst into an all-out effort to restart the peace process. Kerry is undaunted by the unbroken record of failure on the part of a long list of his predecessors, and seems blithely indifferent to the current situation in which the Palestinians remain divided and unable to move toward peace. The president appears willing to let Kerry waste his time on another go at mediation, so long as, Politico notes, “he keeps a low profile and doesn’t generate a political backlash.” But Kerry’s open desire to use his new position to make a place for himself in the history books seems to be setting up the president for exactly what he seems to want to avoid: an embarrassing fiasco that could distract both the Europeans and Israelis from the main security threat to the region coming from Iran and set the stage for more Palestinian violence.
That Kerry would embark on such a quest at a moment when success seems impossible speaks volumes not only about his ego but his inability to grasp the realities of the region.
Though the president addressed his pleas for peace to Israelis, given the fact that, as the president acknowledged in his Jerusalem speech, they have already taken risks for peace, the ball is clearly in the Palestinians’ court. But with Hamas in control of Gaza, the Palestinians are not merely divided; Abbas and the PA understand that any move toward recognition of a Jewish state, no matter where its borders are drawn, would bolster the Islamist terror group’s ambition in its rivalry with Fatah.
The New York Times helped prop up the idea that Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas is eager to resume negotiations by publishing a piece claiming internal PA memos testify to his willingness to talk. But since this is the same man who has been studiously avoiding returning to the table for more than four years after he fled from an Israeli offer of statehood, it’s difficult to take such stories seriously.
Kerry’s fatal flaw appears to be, as Politico puts it, that he is “in lockstep with European leaders, who view the Israeli-Palestinian issue with great urgency.” He also stands “a bit closer to the Palestinians than his predecessor, Hillary Clinton, and less likely to reflexively embrace the Israeli position.” But one must ask why Kerry thinks Hamas or a fearful Abbas will respond to his charms when years of President Obama attempting to tilt the diplomatic playing field in their direction yielded only disdain?
As the Arab Spring and the Iranian threat have proved, the notion that bringing Israel to heel can solve all the region’s problems is absurd. Indeed, the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt has strengthened Hamas and weakened Fatah and made any movement even more unlikely.
More to the point, as Seth wrote earlier, Palestinians seem mired more than ever in a culture of hatred toward Israel and Jews that renders them indifferent to the president’s peace advocacy since it came within the context of speeches that embraced the Zionist narrative about Israel’s creation.
Though Obama may hope Kerry’s activities will keep hopes for peace alive without compromising U.S. policy on more urgent issues, that may be a snare that will undermine any efforts to focus the Europeans on the Iranian threat. Even worse, like other American peace processors, Kerry’s gambit could serve to raise hopes whose disappointment will be used as justification for a new round of violence that many Palestinians are already openly planning for.
This means the president needs to keep close curbs on his new secretary. Unless he wishes his second term to be embroiled in a failure that will limit his ability to deal effectively with Iran as well as distract him from the need to address vital domestic issues, he’s going to need to stop Kerry’s vain and foolish pursuit of diplomatic glory.
Mr. Tobin: why did Livni with Hatnua join the coalition first? nI see that as one sign of a plan to get talks started, based on a version of the Saudi2002 plan (see if the language changes from '1967 borders' to '1949 armistice lines' ), a resumption of talks probably being a pre-condition for the Saudis and other Gulf monarchies to support taking out Iran, and important to the Kings of Morocco and Jordan. n notoh,one should never under-estimate Kerry's personal ambition to prove he should have been president.
The two-state solution is dead in the water. The Israelis don't want to make the necessary concessions, and the Palestinians, lacking a united, let alone a legitimate leadership, cannot possibly deliver an enforceable agreement. n nThe "peace process" nevertheless noodles on, if only to fend off the logical consequence of an admission that Oslo is dead–the one-state solution, with citizenship for the West Bank Arabs. That is something the Israelis will not accept unless substantial numbers of Palestinians are expelled to Jordan and Syria. (Don't say this is impossible–there are a million Syrian refugees in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon, who fled in a two-year period). n nTherefore, everyone needs to "process" an unattainable peace, to fend off the logical but unacceptable next step. It would be better for the US to keep its nose out of this mess–there's nothing in it for us–and let the locals sort it out, but as long as we are playing hegemon, there will be a Ross or a Mitchell or a Kerry flapping his gums about two states, with no result other than delay, and bills for fruit juice and coffee paid by the U.S. taxpayers.
The Palestinians wont accept a one-state solution either.,either unless all the Israelis are disenfranchised and their property seized. n nThe actual Israeli power brokers have no intention of engaging in mass expulsion, understand that well. They have no intention of physically occupying Area A of the PA. They have a strategic interest, the Israelis , in continuing to work with the zombified remains of the Oslo process which is why it continues in fits and starts. n nYou might reconsider your auto pilot reflexes which cause you to say something as illogical as "proving" a Jewish desire to expel Palestinians from the actual reality that *Arab Muslims* are engaging in a civil war disposessing each other. That the SS existed with the approval of the Palestiian national leader in exile doest not confirm that the Jews are planning gas chambers for the Palestinians. n nYou might at least base your argument on 1947-48, whose facts are disputed, and then consider that a people who are driving out a population en masse will feel no compunction about depriving citizenship to the remainder. The Arabs of Israel were under military occupation within Israel (with citizenship) for decades. Explusion of the West Bank population would not be a prelude to any kind of binational or secular democratic program. n nIt also isn't i the cards.
There were several extremely important developments that happened during President Obama's recent trip. These developments, while of major importance to Americans, were only briefly mentioned. Obama spoke to Israeli college students eloquently and enthusiastically about the real possibility of peace with the Arabs on the basis of two states for two people. He encouraged the young students to act towards this goal, and to work to overcome the inertial of the leaders. The important and dangerous fact is that this speech was ahistorical. No reference was made to history. If the President assumed that the students, being young, were unaware of history he is mistaken, for Israelis are very aware of history. What Obama did was to select some aspects of history and to use them to praise Israel, while totally forgetting to mention major critical historical events. Not only did Obama forget these critical historical events, but also Israeli and American history professors along with major news networks. n nWhile Obama was in Israel, bad guys in Gaza fired rockets into Israel causing property damage but fortunately no one was hurt. Obama did not even see fit to comment on this serious attack. This is because he is living outside of history. He sees his goals for the future while blissfully being aware of the past. n nAllow me to refresh your memories about the history of Gaza. In 1967 Egypt attacked Israel in an act of unprovoked aggression. Israel defeated this evil aggressor. Throughout history, when a nation is attacked and defends itself, it then keeps the territory it acquired. The world pressured Israel to give back land it acquired in this war; however, it kept Gaza and did not give it back. Jews moved into this beautiful place. People started building a time-share complex, something that would have brought in much needed income. The Jews build hothouses, and made the economy viable. The Arabs in Gaza kept trying to kill Jews. Some Israelis said that maybe Israel should give Gaza to Egypt to free Israel from the attacks; however, most Israelis objected. n nEuropeans pressured Israel to withdraw from Gaza. Prime Minister A. Sharon objected, saying that this is simple appeasement very similar to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's decision to give part of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany. The European nations strongly condemned Sharon, saying there is no comparison. Eventually Sharon yielded, and ordered the Army to evacuate all the Jews from Gaza, and then withdrew the occupying force. n nThe Arabs of Gaza reminded President Obama when he was in Israel about Israel's foolish withdrawal. Israel's goal in withdrawing from Gaza was to bring peace. The reality is that it brought rockets, danger, and possibly war. This is a clear lesson that once Israel is victorious against Arabs who are trying to kill Jews, and then Israel acquires land; Israel must never return this land to the Arabs if Israel wants peace. n
great comment. the most important sentence is this: n n"Throughout history, when a nation is attacked and defends itself, it then keeps the territory it acquired." n nbut as you imply, this is not the rule for Israel. Israel must give back territory it won during wars of aggression against it. and whenever Israel gives land for peace, they lose the land and they don't get peace. n n
Alas, the statement that "Throughout history, when a nation is attacked and defends itself, it then keeps the territory it acquired." nstopped being the rule of war after WW2, when the United Nations and Geneva Conventions changed the rules in order to end wars. Which is why the Korean War has never ended, but a "frozen conflict". n npersonally, I believe the UN and Geneva Conventions have failed miserably: all we get are frozen conflicts, of which Kashmir is the most dangerous. n n
Great comment. It should also be pointed out that if any good can be said to come out of the Gaza fiasco, it is that the Israelis will never cede Judea and Samaria, as they can be certain as to the consequences. n
nThe other lesson is that although Israel knew that withdrawing from Gaza would be as bad as Chamberlain's giving Czechoslovakia to the Nazis, Israel yielded to foreign pressure and acted in a foolish and dangerous way. n nThe fact that Obama made no reference to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza shows that Obama and Americans in general are living in a dream world with no connection with real historical events. n nThe fact that no Israeli leader criticized Obama for ignoring the lessons from Gaza shows that Jews have not learned the lessons from the past. In the 1930's, when Germany passed the Nuremburg laws, Jews did not protest. Jews did not want to rock the boat. This was a fatal mistake. Jews should have violently protested these evil laws, including using weapons to fight these laws. Jews say they learned lessons, when they say "Never again!" However, Jews did not learn the important lessons, and did not fight people who demanded withdrawal from Gaza. Israel does not fight people who demand withdrawal from the "West Bank" and not to build "settlements". n nObama's dreaming, living in an alternative reality, shows itself about the events of 1947. The UN partitioned Palestine into two areas, two states for two peoples. This is what Obama wants to do now. The Arabs objected, and fought a terrible bloody war, resulting in proportionally large numbers of Jews dying. n nThe false concept of two states for two peoples did not work in 1947 nor did it work with Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza in 2006. Anyone who suggests that today Israel can give up land for peace is a person who denies reality, and so is irrational. n nHow can we deal with such irrational people? We may take inspiration from the Biblical Prophets, who tried to uproot idolatry, which is very irrational. We need words, threats, and actions. We must fight with everything we can. We can expect they will resort to dirty propaganda, full of false statements and emotions. We must remain steadfast as the Biblical Prophets were, knowing that we stand for truth. n nThe lesson Americans must learn from this is that if the President can say things that are contradicted by history, things that are clearly wrong, we can be certain this is what he will say about all his policies. Everything he says is ahistorical. For example, he created a government health plan, ignoring the historical reality that this never worked. With people like this, we do not discuss things, except to act to oppose his agendas. n nThere is only one solution. Israel must occupy all the land in the original Mandate, and apply Israeli law. Arabs will have the right to vote if they affirm allegiance to Israel. This is the only rational solution. Americans need to be very wary of Obama the dreamer, and try to vote out of office all those who support this person. n
regarding: n n There is only one solution. Israel must occupy all the land in the original Mandate… n ngood luck!
This has been my position since 1967. Judea and Sumaria should have been permanently annexed immediately after the 6-day war.
I'm thinking Kerry will become such an intolerable laughing stock in the international community of leaders he is suppose to influence in ways advantageous to America that even Oboutme will see a need to save face by canning him.
there will never be peace until the Palestinians admit that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state. it's as simple as that. n nwhat if we Jews said "OK, just give us Jerusalem and you can have everything else." do you think the Pals would agree to that? no. they want the entire area, "from the river to the sea," to be Judenrein. until Obama and the rest of the world see that and call the Pals on it, nothing will get done. I mean really, why are we nit-picking over the Golan when most of the Pals consider even Tel Aviv an illegal settlement ? n nit's a big fat waste of time and money. imagine how many White House tours the imaginary peace process could have funded over the years!
"consider even Tel Aviv an illegal settlement " a truer and more telling statement than just about any I've heard in a LONG time…
We're all talking about past history, which can and should serve as a guide but I'm afraid that if you take this line of reasoning to it's full conclusion, we'll find that the ONLY way out of our current situation is a war. Not an 'operation', not a surgical strike, but an all out war to reclaim both Judea and Sumaria and hold/annex them permanently. Is that what we're really advocating here?
” But Kerry’s open desire to use his new position to make a place for himself in the history books seems to be setting up the president for exactly what he seems to want to avoid: an embarrassing fiasco that could distract both the Europeans and Israelis from the main security threat to the region coming from Iran and set the stage for more Palestinian violence. ”
Nah, Kerry’s going out on a limb to cover Obama’s bu*t from exactly that scenario of distracting attention until the deed is done.
The place in the history books will depend on who writes them; Howard Zinn for example.
You all are just de-humanizing the Palestinians to justify stealing the rest of their land. Don't say I didn't warn you when a one-state solution with equal rights for all eventually emerges, ending the "Jewish" state. Then again, a secular democracy without special privileges for a specific religious group is what we value so much here in America. That might be just the thing for Palestine/Israel.
[amending] DaveedR (lost in cyberspace?): "…Then again, a secular democracy without special privileges for a specific religious group is what we value so much here in America. That might be just the thing for [ANY of the 57 nation states who belong to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, not including] Palestine/Israel. …" n nSo, perhaps John Kerry can arrange a special travel visa for Miss Israel so she can compete at Miss World pageant in Indonesia, which does not have official diplomatic relations with Israel, and officially, in their Constitution, recognizes six official religions: Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism.
That doesn't explain why it's ok for Israel to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their land and to steal their resources, lock them behind barbed wire (Qulqilya ewt. al.), prevent freedom of movement (against international law), etc. Besides which, the Palestinians are no more responsible for what goes on in other Arab or Muslim countries than the US is for what Britain, France or Canada does. Any non-prejudiced person can easily see that Israel is in the wrong and fair-minded Jews will continue to withdraw their support for her until Israel ceases her criminal behavior against the Palestinians and compensates them for their losses over the past 65 years. Sorry but that's the truth.
If DaveedR believes "…that's the truth..", then go somewhere where you might find one person who believes your palestinian version of hysterya, because we all know the actual truth, without cut and pasting such slanders. nMost of us who comment here do so to get a break from having to wonder why anyone believes such lies about Israel. nand, save your electrons. You are a cyber-bully who merits no respect from anyone.
Palestinian Arabs lob bricks through Jewish windshields, shoot at Jews, and butcher them whenever they are found in Arab nieghborhoods. They literally drive out or kill any Jew they get their hands on in territories they claim as their own. Then they lift their bloody hands and ululate. Any non-prejudiced person understands your cynical bull is a diversion for the compensation Palestinians owe Jews for 95 years of pogrom and attempted murder going back to Hebron and the riots of the 20's and extending in an unbroken, pathetic dimwitted line since then, including collaboration with Hitler's crusade against the Jews.
It isn't "their" land. The Palestinian "one-state" solution has always been predicated on the liquidation of the Jews has always been the Palestinian template going back to their collaboration with the Eitzengruppen formations put in place behind Rommel's army. The Arab Islamic states proscribe religious practice outside of Islam to various degrees including enforcment of blasphemy laws. No one's asking your POS permission to breathe.
You are on fire on this thread. Excellent.
This initiative is not just from Kerry with toleration of Obama but from Obama, with Bibi's prior consent and input during the President's visit. This is a high level initiative all around. Bibi prepared the ground for it with Obama.