web analytics
December 18, 2014 / 26 Kislev, 5775
 
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Martin Indyk’

Naftali Bennett Takes on the Peace Industry — and Wins

Sunday, December 7th, 2014

Bennett does an amazing job at the Saban Forum. And an even better job taking on Martin Indyk and the Peace Industry.

It’s a long video, but worth watching the whole thing.

Lieberman and Indyk Bash Bennett for Bashing Kerry

Saturday, October 18th, 2014

Martin Indyk, another failed American messiah for the Palestinian Authority, and none other than hawkish Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman unwittingly were on the same soapbox Saturday to bash Jewish Home Minister Naftali Bennett for bashing U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s incredible comments linking ISIS recruitment with the failure of the “peace process.”

Lieberman’s criticism of Bennett clearly reflects the dependence of the Netanyahu administration on the United States to cast a veto against any vote in the United Nations Security Council in favor of admitting the Palestinian Authority as a full member in the General Assembly.

For the record, Kerry’s spokeswoman Marie Harf claimed that Kerry never made such a suggestion although her convoluted explanation essentially said the same thing in other terms.

But Bennett stole the limelight with his remarks Friday that were very undiplomatic and politically incorrect, if not correct from the standpoint of truth, that Kerry was “encouraging global terror.

“It turns out that even when a British Muslim decapitates a British Christian, there will always be someone to blame the Jew,” Bennett said. “There is no justifying terror, only fighting it. To say that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is strengthening the Islamic State is encouraging global terror.”

Kerry stated at a reception for Muslims Wednesday, as reported here, “As I went around and met with people in the course of our discussions … there wasn’t a leader I met with in the region who didn’t raise with me spontaneously the need to try to get peace between Israel and the Palestinians, because it was a cause of recruitment and of street anger and agitation that they felt – and I see a lot of heads nodding – they had to respond to.

“And people need to understand the connection of that… It has something to do with humiliation and denial and absence of dignity.”

We will leave it to the reader to figure out how Harf could claim that there was no linkage.

Israel’s Communications Minister Gilad Erdan was just as caustic as Bennett and said, “Kerry is breaking records for a lack of understanding of what is going on in our region.”

Indyk, who has joined a long list of American “experts” at the State Dept’s ever-expanding foreign policy graveyard, tweeted, “There they go again: Israeli rightist ministers attack Kerry for wanting Israeli-Palestinian peace to help fight IS.”

He supposedly was defending Kerry but his tweet actually spelled out in capital letters that the cause and effect is obvious: Israeli-Palestinian peace will help the United States fight the Islamic State.

Lieberman’s defense of Kerry was not so idiotic.

The foreign minister, who is on top of the list of those panning Kerry’s Peace Talks Follies, can fairly be presumed to have applauded in his heart every word Bennett and Erdan said, but his position as foreign minister took precedence. He clearly is worried about the reaction from Washington, which already has been reeled by several remarks this year by Israeli officials that Kerry is “messianic” and doesn’t have a clue about the Middle East.

That is absolutely untrue. Kerry knows the Middle East is located somewhere between the Atlantic Ocean and the China. He also knows that the King David Hotel is located in Jerusalem, the part that is not “occupied.”

“Let’s state some facts,” Lieberman said. “When our ammunition supplies ran out during Operation Protective Edge, it was the United States that sent us more. It was the Americans who gave us money which enabled us to develop Iron Dome. It was the US who voted with us in the UN Human Rights Council. The United States is the only country that saves us a good deal of grief in the Security Council with its veto.”

Indyk ‘Atones’ on Yom Kippur by Dumping on Israel

Wednesday, October 8th, 2014

Martin Indyk, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and another ex-Middle East “Peace Process” huckster, spent part of the Yom Kippur Day of Atonement grumping over Israel’s not laying down as a doormat for the Obama administration.

His comments were reported by the Washington Free Beacon, which said it obtained an audio of Indyk’s remarks made at a conservative synagogue on the fast day.

Setting aside the fact the recording on Yom Kippur violates Jewish law, and not digging too deep into the sin of speaking evil of Israel, Indyk’s remarks say a lot about the pitiful intellectual level of American liberal Jews.

The Netanyahu government has total “disrespect” for the Obama administration, he said.

“The U.S.-Israel relationship is critical, is essential to Israel’s survival, and the relationship is in trouble, according Indyk, who once “joked” that he made aliyah to Washington to save Israel.

He also told fellow Jews that American support for Israel “is the bedrock that Israel has always relied on … and I worry that bedrock is crumbling.”

Israel right-wing leaders, he sermonized in his informal conversation, “manifests itself with right-wing politicians standing up excoriating our leaders, who are trying to do their best for Israel.”

Indyk, Kerry, the Clintons, Obama, Rice – the whole bunch of them – just don’t understand how Israel can be such an ingrate to the American government’s knowing what is best for Israel.

That attitude is encouraged by the liberal Jewish establishment that Indyk represents.

On Yom Kippur, Jews, for the asking, are forgiven for their sins against God, but the holiday does not atone Jews for sins committed against fellow Jews. Each one has to do the work himself.

It is a given that Indyk would not ask forgiveness from fellow Jews, the ones who do not consider that Israel’s raison d’etre is to allow American Jews not to feel uncomfortable about being Jewish by virtue of a strong Jewish state.

It is not a given that Indyk cannot even take one day of rest from the liberal Jewish theme that Israel was created to be the embodiment of the American melting pot, a country that can be called “Jewish” in name but which in practice should be ”Israeli,” wrapped up in the flag and felafel.

God, of course, is out of the question because the same liberals want church, the synagogue and mosques separate from the State of Israel.

They want Israel to be their key for social status among non-Jews who seek Israel being accepted by Arabs by their standards so they continue to feel comfortable that Israel is a charity case and so they can comfortably ignore growing anti-Semitism in the United States of America.

Indyk is the epitome of the liberal American Jew who sees his existence as a Jew dependent on Israel’s being a “yes man” for the American president, whether Republican or Democrat.

He is fraught over the end of the “peace process,” which made America’s liberal Jews so proud to be Jews when they pledge to buy Israeli bonds on Yom Kippur. Whether or not Indyk bought bonds, he has not forgiven for Israel for ruining the liberal American dream of expelling Jews from Judea and Samaria and half of Jerusalem.

Not surprisingly, a healthy number, if not a majority, of those Jews are Orthodox.

The liberal Jewish establishment does not forgive Israel for not letting a corrupt and racist avowedly anti-Semitic Palestinian Authority to take charge.

Indyk, according to the Free Beacon report, also criticized the Obama for “fueling perceptions that the United States is withdrawing from the region, a view that he said is the result of both the Bush administration’s intervention in Iraq and Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. “That perception is the reason for the Obama’s not having credibility in Ramallah and in Jerusalem.”

US Mediator for Pal.Arab-Israel Relations Shared Sugar Daddy With Hamas

Monday, September 8th, 2014

Can there be a greater indicator of accuracy for something to appear in the New York Times which supports a controversial position taken by Israel or her friends? Maybe, but it is hard to imagine one.

That is why a story in Saturday’s Times, brought to the attention of those who care by Middle East observer and journalist Jeff Dunetz, is so significant.

Qatar, the blindingly wealthy little country which owns its own (and we do mean own) global communications network, al Jazeera, is considered one of the main financial supporters of the terrorist organization Hamas. That is not news.

What is news is that Qatar also funds the Brookings Institution, and last year it agreed to bestow on Brookings a $14.8 million donation, to be paid out over four years. This wealthy Arab nation had already been generous with Brookings: Qatar helped fund a Brookings affiliate in its country (the Brookings Doha Center), as well as a project on U.S. relations with the Islamic World.

That is the same Brookings Institution at which President Obama’s Special Middle East Envoy, Martin Indyk, tasked with re-igniting the Palestinian Arab-Israeli peace talks, served as vice president and director of foreign policy. He held that position until he went to serve the administration in July of 2013, a position which he left in late June of this year.

Despite his resume (born to a Jewish family, U.S. Ambassador to Israel twice, a researcher for AIPAC at the beginning of his career) Indyk is considered by most strongly pro-Israel observers to be anti-Israel.

According to the Times article, there are quite a few former Brookings employees who caution readers of reports from the Institute that material which reflects poorly on Qatar may well be excised – or simply never written due to self-censorship – because it is understood at Brookings such positions are not acceptable.

“If a member of Congress is using the Brookings reports, they should be aware — they are not getting the full story,” said Saleem Ali, who served as a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar and who said he had been told during his job interview that he could not take positions critical of the Qatari government in papers. “They may not be getting a false story, but they are not getting the full story.”

The New York Times article does not focus solely on Indyk, it deals more generally with financing of think tanks by foreign governments. There appears to be plenty of eyebrow-raising to go around.

The special investigation revealed that a little over a dozen U.S. think tanks have been the recipients of tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments. And, the Times claims, those think tanks have been “pushing United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donors’ priorities.”

Ask anyone who cares strongly about Israel and watched last year’s efforts to kickstart the mercifully moribund “peace talks” between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, and the Qatari moneyed Brookings Institution where Indyk hung his hat looms large.  Indyk’s role as a mediator between two parties, one of whom is at least largely funded by your very own sugar daddy, seems beyond the pale.

Not that Indyk could have been called a Zionist before Qatar’s money belt was cinched around his office building. As Dunetz wrote, “it’s difficult to discern which came first, the hatred or the cash.”

Obama-Kerry’s ‘Peace Process’ Team Falling Apart

Friday, September 5th, 2014

David Makovsky, a member of the State Department’s Middle East peace team, is returning to his think tank position.

The departure of Makovsky announced Thursday by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy is the latest signal that the Obama administration is retreating from its intensive efforts to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

Talks collapsed in April and, over the summer, team leader Martin Indyk also quit and returned to the think tank that employed him before he joined the effort in 2013, the Brookings Institution.

Other team members have left in recent months and not been replaced.

The team, numbering over a dozen at one point, was considered large for such an effort and represented Secretary of State John Kerry’s intense interest in brokering a deal.

Makovsky is director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy Project on the Middle East Peace Process and is the co-author of the book Myths, Illusions, & Peace with Oslo architect Dennis Ross, another disillusioned leftist.

The “peace process” died and was buried years ago, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s reincarnation efforts have produced nothing but war, which was going to happen anyway.

President Barack Obama once named George Mitchell as the great savior who was going to rescue the world, all of whose problems were seen as rooted in the lack of a new Arab country for the Palestinian Authority.

Mitchell slowly faded away into oblivion, as did Indyk, both of whom carried on with the American two-faced policy that it was up to both sides to decide the conditions for a peace accord while Kerry nevertheless unabashedly kept dictating the terms of a final agreement, mostly but not totally at the expense of Israel. He managed to lost the trust of both Israel and Mahmoud Abbas.

Even President Obama apparently has finally realized that the “peace process” is a dead-end that will give historians even more evidence in their indictments of his administration whose accomplishments can be counted on one hand with amputated fingers.

JTA contributed to this report.

Former US enoy Laments Israel-US Tensions, Blames Gaza War

Wednesday, August 27th, 2014

Former U.S. ambassador and special Middle East envoy Martin Indyk warned this week that Israel’s defensive counter terror Operation Protective Edge in Gaza has — again — increased tensions between the White House and Israel.

In an interview with Foreign Policy magazine, Indyk said “There is currently much tension between [the US and Israel.]”

Indyk, who is Vice President and Director for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., admitted the counter terror operation was not the only factor adversely affecting relations between the two countries, however, particularly at the executive level.

“The personal relationship between the President [Barack Obama] and the Prime Minister [Binyamin Netanyahu] has been tense for some time,” he acknowledged. But he added, “[It] has been made even more complicated due to recent events.”

Indyk lamented the self-confidence and independence displayed by Israelis, expressed via the Netanyahu government.

“I don’t remember a situation before, where right-wing Israeli politicians could disparage the United States’ leadership and yet gain popularity, and maybe it’s because they don’t seem to pay any price for it.

“But I suspect that it’s something deeper,” Indyk said. “There’s a sense that Israel has become a power in its own right, and it doesn’t need the United States as much. It’s a kind of hubris.”

Indyk is not neutral in his views on Israel. He was overheard in an upscale Washington DC bar in May ranting about Economic Minister Naftali Bennett and other Israeli leaders for “sabotaging negotiations” with the Palestinian Authority.

In a 30-minute conversation reported by the Washington Free Beacon, Indyk reportedly held Israel completely responsible for the breakdown of the nine-month talks between the PA and Israel.

He followed his rant in the bar with an accusation against Israel during an address at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).

Indyk again blamed the failure of negotiations with the PA on Israel’s ongoing construction within municipal boundaries in existing communities in its capital, Jerusalem, and in Judea and Samaria. There were no preconditions at the start of those talks; no freeze on construction was ever required, nor approved by any of the parties, even though it has ever been the mantra of the Palestinian Authority which claims that if only the Jews would leave those territories, there would be peace forever.

That still does not explain why the Arabs refused the partition plan offering those same regions, Jew-free, in 1947. Nor does it explain why Arabs continued to attack Israel prior to 1967, or why Arab residents of Judea, Samaria and Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem never demanded independence as a “Palestinian State” when their lands were occupied and administered by Jordan, between 1948 and 1967.

None of which is ever raised in public discussions by US officials or Arabs about the negotiations, nor mentioned by Martin Indyk.

Martin Indyk Quits as Special ME Envoy for Peace

Saturday, June 28th, 2014

Martin Indyk, who only recently, allegedly verbally trashed Israel in a bar tirade has quit as the US’s Special Middle East Envoy for Peace. The State Department denied it ever happened.

Indyk was also accused of being the anonymous source for the US media attacks against Israel.

He’ll be going back to being vice president and director of foreign policy at The Brookings Institution think-tank in Washington.

In Israel, his absence probably won’t be missed.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/martin-indyk-quits-as-special-me-envoy-for-peace/2014/06/28/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: