web analytics
November 25, 2015 / 13 Kislev, 5776
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Peace Process’

Saeb Erekat Says Only ‘a Few People Believe in Two States’ Idea

Friday, November 20th, 2015

Secretary-General of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Saeb Erekat said that only a “few people” are left who believe in the “two states” proposal “28 years after the painful historic compromise made by the PLO.”

He blamed Israel for having “continued to destroy the prospects of a two-state solution to an extent where very few still believe that this goal could be achieved. Israeli policies, including land grabs, theft of natural resources, forcible transfer and collective punishments among others continue to derail Palestinian fundamental human rights.”

His statement on “Palestine’s Independence Day” referred to what he called “the painful historic compromise made by the PLO” 28 years ago, which would mean it was in 1987.

That was the year that the Intifada started, giving Peace Now a launching pad to promote the “peace process.”

But that was not the “painful compromise” Erekat meant. He apparently got his math wrong and meant 27 years, which would mean the “painful compromise” was in 1988, first PLO triumph from the Intifada, when the PLO leadership promised the United States that it would delete its principle to destroy Israel and in effect accept two states.

U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1975 had refused to deal with the PLO until it accepted his condition in order to eliminate the possibility that a terrorist organization would be involved in peace talks with Israel.

After Yasser Arafat stated. ‘We want peace…we are committed to peace, and we want to live in our Palestinian state and let others live,” the United States was satisfied.

Kerry Committed to Return to ‘Save’ Israel from Violence

Wednesday, October 14th, 2015

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will return “soon” to speak with Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and pointed to “settlements” as a major cause of Arab “frustration” that presumably justifies the latest spree of murders and attempted murders of Jews.

Speaking at Harvard University, Kerry said he will “try to work to re-engage and see if we can’t move that away from this precipice.”

His comments were made almost at the same time his spokesman John Kirby issued a statement, reported here, that indicated a change in tone from the usual “balanced blame” and instead was weighted to highlight Palestinian Authority and Israeli Arab terrorist attacks.

It appeared that the State Dept. finally has given up on its magic act that tries to equate Arab violence with Israel’s self-defense, but Kerry once again showed that he looks at the world through a blindfold.

Kerry and his boss President Barack Obama have spent years boosting the hopes of the Arab world that they can annihilate Israel by assuming that forcing Israel to concede to its tactical demands would change their grand strategy to annihilate Zionism.

President Obama made his mark in history with his “reaching out to Muslims” speech in Cairo in 2009, which not coincidentally was followed two years later by Arab Spring rebellions that have left the Middle East in flames.

Kerry led the “peace process” that supposedly “solved” every problem until he came up against the status of Jerusalem, the Temple Mount and the Arab demand for millions of foreign Arabs to flood Israel under the lie of “returning to their homeland.”

But Kerry did not tell Harvard students about any of these issues on Tuesday.

The only subject he mentioned was the “settlements,” which he directly stated are “the” problem.” He asserted:

There’s been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years. Now you have this violence because there’s a frustration that is growing, and a frustration among Israelis who don’t see any movement.

So I look at that and I say if that did explode – and I pray and hope it won’t and I think there are options to prevent that – but we would inevitably be – at some point we’re going to have to be engaged in working through those kinds of difficulties. So better to try to find the ways to deal with it before that happens than later.

The Israeli government has found ways to deal the violence. Terrorists’ homes will be destroyed as a deterrent to others who need to know that their acts of “martyrdom” will leave their families with a house in ruins.

The police will be able to place a curfew on violent Arab neighborhoods, an act that hit the good and decent Arabs – and there are plenty of them – in the wallet, where it hurts most.

Kerry apparently still lives somewhere in outer space, where his telescope sees only the “settlements,” Jewish communities whose erasure from the map supposedly would end Arab “frustration” and not inject the Palestinian Authority with adrenalin to return Tel Aviv and Haifa to “Palestine,” as drawn on official Palestinian Authority maps.

Kerry thinks he can do more by “re-engaging” two sides that don’t trust him, for good reason.

The Obama, and to be fair, also the Bush and Clinton administrations, have not changed their destructive tactics to continue the century-old philosophy of “making the world safe democracy.”

Every time the administration’s recipe fails, it cooks up the same poison stew time and time again even after admitting it didn’t cure anyone.

Kerry said at Harvard:

We need to understand here, and we’re trying to do that in a way that doesn’t embroil us in a larger war and once again go through a routine of young Americans being on the ground in a Middle Eastern or other country in the region with a predominant Muslim population and fighting yet again. So we’ve been very careful and tried to do this in ways that we hoped would marshal the people who themselves oppose these activities in order to do it.

Now, it hasn’t panned out as well as some people had thought. [emphasis added].

So we are rethinking and retooling a bunch of different options. The President has already made additional choices. And if Russia were to legitimately commit that it wants to do ISIL and not preserve the Assad regime, but is rather committed to the political settlement that was embraced in the Geneva communiqué of two years ago, then there’s a chance we really could take on ISIL and save Syria and provide the political solution, which is the only legitimate outcome for Syria.

After his speech, the best question that was posed by Harvard students was from an undergraduate, named Gabe Gladstein, who asked if the world really is interested in American ideas. He asked Kerry:

You mentioned nation building earlier and you justified it in general as a concept that is like – by our values and in our interests. I’m wondering how you respond to critics who say that while it’s fine and good for the United States to attempt to sort of import its values and its forms of government into struggling nations, the end product is sort of unnatural, forced, maybe even imperialist.

Kerry hinted he had no answer direct answer by immediately responding, “It’s a very good question.”

All he had to say was:

We don’t run around shoving our idea on other countries anymore. We work very intimately with other nations.

If that is the case, why he is returning to Israel?

Who invited him? Who wants him?

Peace Process? Obama Says US Gun Violence 33 Times Worse than in Israel

Sunday, June 21st, 2015

President Barack Obama told the American people that last week’s murder of nine blacks in a Charleston, S.C. church should wake up Americans “to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency.”

He tweeted:

Here are the stats: Per population, we kill each other with guns at a rate 297x more than Japan, 49x more than France, 33x more than Israel.

The comparisons are a bit ridiculous and miss the point completely.

In Japan, the law states, “No one shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords.” Exceptions are few and far between, and licenses for hunting and sports are allowed only after a lengthy procedure.

In Israel, tens of thousands of people walk around with guns, most of them soldiers, licensed guards or members of first response teams, with virtually no incidents except when shooting at terrorists.

Two notable exceptions, often used by anti-Semites to try to describe Israelis as violent, were the murders of Arabs by Baruch Goldstein and Eden Natan-Zada.

They were exceptions and not examples. Gun violence in Israel historically is related to defend the country against terrorists.

President Obama wants to solve the problem of gun violence in the United States, but he put the emphasis on the word “gun” and not “violence, which is deeply rooted in American society from the days of the Wild West.

Obama said after the murders in Charleston:

It is within our power to do something about it. I say this recognizing that the politics of this town foreclose a lot of those avenues. But it would be wrong for us not to acknowledge it.

Gun control is the obvious first way to find and quick and easy fix to American gun violence. The gun lobby has successful limited gun control laws, but the Charleston massacre may break the lobby’s back.

The more that guns are easily available, it is a reasonable conclusion that more shootings are likely to result.

The issue of gun control is so highly charged in the United States, under the guide of “freedom,” that it will be difficult to legislate and enforce stricter controls.

If legislation is enacted, it remains to be seen if those who should have guns will be denied them while those who should not have them will get guns anyway.

It is easier to legislate gun control than it is to legislate violence.

It is even easier for President Obama to decide what is best for Israel.

Here is Obama’s tweet:

Below is Obama’s speech on Thursday after the murders in Charleston.

PA’s Saeb Erekat Calls for Withdrawing Recognition of Israel [video]

Thursday, June 18th, 2015

Saeb Erekat, the chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, has issued a length report to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) that calls for withdrawing recognition of Israel unless Jerusalem recognizes the PA.

The Ma’an News Agency, based n Bethlehem and with close ties to the Palestinian Authority, reported Thursday:

In a report entitled ‘Determining Palestinian-Israeli relations: Changing, not merely improving, the situation’ the PLO official recommends that the Palestinian leadership consider retracting its recognition of Israel until the Israeli government issues a reciprocal recognition of a Palestinian state.

As seen in the video below, Yasser Arafat in 1988 explicitly said at a Stockholm press conference:

We accept two states, the Palestine state and the Jewish state of Israel.’

The declaration helped succeed in advancing the “peace process” by which the PLO,  which is the superior body to what now is the Palestinian Authority, wrangled hundreds of concessions from Israel without any compromise on its part.

Arafat’s declaration fell short of satisfying American demands that it recognize Israel’s right to exist under U.N. resolutions 242 and 348 that were the basis for a negotiated peace agreement that never happened.

Arafat also renounced terrorism.

Then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres recognized Arafat’s remarks for what they were and called them a ”cunning exercise in public relations” while lacking “a commitment in reality.”

Plenty of blood has been spilled since then, as is well-known by relatives of thousands of victims of Palestinian Authority terror.

Mahmoud Abbas, who succeeded Arafat after his death, brilliantly brought the Palestinian Authority to the brink of achieving its stated aim, but he has refused to recognize Israel as a “Jewish” state because doing so would make it almost impossible to force Israel into accepting millions of foreign Arabs into the country, leaving Jews as a minority.

Erekat now has gone even further with his report that urges the PLO not to recognize Israel at all, Jewish or not, unless the same recognition is given to the Ramallah regime.

The chief negotiator went off the face of the Earth and said, according to Ma’an:

Efforts [should] be made for Hamas and Islamic Jihad to join the PLO’s Executive Committee and [he] urged the PLO and Palestinian factions to support popular resistance and the boycott of Israeli settlement products.

The PLO official also recommended that the Palestinian leadership play a better role in assisting the Palestinian diaspora in Lebanon and Syria.

At first glance, it seems that Erekat has lost his marbles.

He knows very wall that Israel will not recognize the Palestinian Authority because doing so would be an implicit agreement to turn over the country to Ramallah.

Erekat knows very well that inviting Hamas and Islamic Jihad into the PLO executive would rip the cover off the Palestinian Authority as sponsor of terror.

He probably does not understand that the Boycott Israel movement has reached its peak and is going the way of the Palestinian Authority, a moribund entity.

So what could be going in his mind?

Considering the mayhem in the Palestinian Authority government, which this week dissolve or did not dissolve depending on which official  was the last to speak, Erekat could be jockeying to replace Abbas, who is 80 years old and in the eight year of a four-year term to which he was elected.

Erekat fits the bill to take over the reins because the ambition of any Palestinian Authority leader is exactly the opposite of what the world thinks it wants.

Neither Abbas nor Erekat want to see it become a state because it would collapse like a house of cards, all of which are jokers.

Below is Arafat’s declaration in 1988.

Ex-Amb. Michael Oren Says Obama ‘Deliberately Abandoned Israel’

Tuesday, June 16th, 2015

Michael Oren, former Israeli Ambassador to the United States and now a Knesset Member with the Kulanu party, wrote Tuesday that President Barack Obama “deliberately” abandoned a 40-year core policy regarding Jewish population centers in Judea and Samaria.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Oren stated that President Obama is a “friend” of Israel but nevertheless maintained that while anyone can make a mistake, President Obama did so on purpose.

In his words:

Only one leader made them deliberately. Obama promoted an agenda of championing the Palestinian cause and achieving a nuclear accord with Iran.

It took Oren six years to respond and correct part of President Obama’s “Reaching Out to Muslims” speech in Cairo, in which he said, “When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines and that erodes our credibility with the Arabs.”

Oren, who still is a champion of the “peace process,” sounded like a Netanyahu sympathizer in part of his op-ed, writing that President Obama ignored Israel’s withdrawal of all Israeli soldiers and the expulsion of 9,000 Jews from Gaza in 2005. Obama also ignored several major concessions to the Palestinian Authority, including one that offered it almost all of Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem.

President Obama said in his speech that Israel should freeze all building for Jews in “settlements,” to which Oren finally wrote in his article:

Israeli leaders typically received advance copies of major American policy statements on the Middle East and could submit their comments. But Mr. Obama delivered his Cairo speech, with its unprecedented support for the Palestinians and its recognition of Iran’s right to nuclear power, without consulting Israel.

The Bush administration had committed itself to writing in a letter to then-Prime Ariel Sharon that large population centers, such as Maaleh Adumim and Gush Etzion, would remain under Israeli sovereignty in a future Palestinian Authority state.

Obama abandoned that policy and insisted that the promise by Bush was an “unofficial” and non-binding letter. In Oren’s words:

Mr. Obama also voided President George W. Bush’s commitment to include the major settlement blocs and Jewish Jerusalem within Israel’s borders in any peace agreement. Instead, he insisted on a total freeze of Israeli construction in those areas —’not a single brick.’

It was clear from that time that the Obama was working behind the scenes, and sometimes up front, on behalf of the Palestinian Authority and against Israel.

Oren came out of the closet in his op-ed today and charged that President Obama never asked for any concession from the Palestinian Authority despite the fact the Mahmoud Abbas “violated all of his commitments.”

The United States so far has publicly opposed a Palestinian Authority effort in the U.N. Security Council to condemn Israel for a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria and to vote the Palestinian Authority into the United Nations as a permanent member.

However, the Obama administration has made open statements that it does not know how much longer it wants to use its veto power in the Security Council on behalf of Israel.

President Obama abandoned a four-decade U.S. policy in May 2011 and stated that a future agreement with the Palestinian Authority should be based on the borders drawn under the 1949 Temporary Armistice Agreement, which lasted until the Six-Day War in 1967.

Oren wrote:

If Mr. Netanyahu appeared to lecture the president the following day, it was because he had been assured by the White House, through me, that no such change would happen.

He also wrote that the Obama administration “stunned” Israel by offering to support a Security Council investigation of settlements and by backing Turkish and Egyptian maneuvers to force Israel to come clean on its nuclear capability.

Obama Chastises Netanyahu for not Adopting US Policy

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2015

President Barack Obama used Israeli television Tuesday night to accelerate his campaign to make Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu look like an illegitimate leader

The President established his credentials for a thorough knowledge and understanding of Israel. Afar all, he said, “When I’ve visited Israel, when I was in Sderot, talking to families who had seen missiles crash through their living rooms; when I was with young people in Jerusalem and talking to them about the possibilities of peace, the reception was incredibly warm.”

He then provided evidence that he knows and understands “the very moral imperatives that led to the founding of Israel — the belief that all of us share a basic humanity and dignity and rights that make it important for us to speak out against anti-Semitism.”

So much for Theodore Herzl and Zionism.

President Obama then went to the heart of his criticism of Netanyahu’s leadership in Israel, but he inadvertently exposed his administration as a wholesale failure without his questioner taking note.

Referring to the dangers of security to Israel, he noted “the incredible tumult and chaos that’s taking place in the Middle East, the hope of the Arab Spring that turned into the disasters of places like Syria, the rise of ISIL, the continuing expressions of anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli settlement [sentiment] in so much of the Arab world, the rockets coming in from Gaza, the buildup of arms by Hezbollah.

And which country and which president of the same country encouraged the Arab Spring without the ability to see beyond tomorrow, because of ignorance of the Middle East? The United States and President Barack Obama.

And which country and which president encouraged Israel to exercise “restraint” and not respond “disproportionately” when Hamas and Hezbollah tried to destroy the country? Same answer.

But the heart of Obama’s creed is “two states,” which he stills dreams is a “solution.” He blamed Prime Minister Netanyahu for “so many conditions” for “two states” “that it is not realistic to think that those conditions would be met any time in the near future.”

His clincher is that since the peace process is a dead duck, Israel is to be blamed and will be deemed illegitimate:

And so the danger here is that Israel as a whole loses credibility.

Already, the international community does not believe that Israel is serious about a two-state solution.

His statements represent a huge collapse of his former promises the United States would not impose conditions on Israel. President Obama always has promised that Israel should be guaranteed security and should remain Jewish, but now he is defining what those terms mean.

Netanyahu’s concerns for security are not Obama’s, and therefore the Prime Minister’s conditions are not “practical.”

The President did not utter one word about the Palestinian Authority, not about Mahmoud Abbas’ corrupt regime that he heads seven years after his term of office has expired, and not about Abbas’ refusal to talk with Israel except on his own condition of “all or nothing.”

President Obama used to criticize the Palestinian Authority for ditching the Oslo Accords and going to the United Nations for recognition, but he indicated in the interview last night that he might tacitly support the move.

Obama said:

But the practical consequence that I refer to — let’s be very specific — if there are additional resolutions introduced in the United Nations, up until this point, we have pushed away against European efforts, for example, or other efforts because we’ve said, the only way this gets resolved is if the two parties work together….

Iin fact, there’s no prospect of an actual peace process, if nobody believes there’s a peace process, then it becomes more difficult to argue with those who are concerned about settlement construction, those who are concerned about the current situation– it’s more difficult for me to say to them, be patient and wait because we have a process here — because all they need to do is to point to the statements that have been made saying there is no process.

But Obama says Israel has his back.

Tony Blair Steps Down as Quartet Middle East Envoy but No One Cares

Thursday, May 28th, 2015

Tony Blair has stepped down as the Quartet’s Middle East envoy, and there is a possibility that no one will be named to replace him since there really is not much to do except  travel and rack up hotel bills.

The London Daily Record headlined his announcement with:

Tony Blair’s greatest achievement after six years as special envoy to the Middle East? Both sides detest him

Our own headline above actually is a bit misleading, because there really are plenty of people who care that he has quit, mainly the British taxpayers.

Blair is a multi-millionaire many times over. He does not receive a salary as envoy but his perks are enough to keep anyone in the pink forever.

He has flown more than 100 times since he took up the post as Quartet envoy in 2007 and has stayed with his 12-person entourage at a Jerusalem five-star hotel for approximately $1.5 million a year, the Record reported.

He and his staff have a penthouse office in eastern Jerusalem on a road known as Millionaires’ Row.

The Quartet consisting of Britain, the United States, the United Nations and Russia, has been paying $3 million a year for the privilege of letting Blair pretend he is busy.

He has been under constant criticism for doing little except occupying his office one week a month, and his knowledge of the Middle East does not go much beyond the fact that his wife’s half-sister Sarah Jane Booth converted to Islam after a “spiritual” experience in Iran.

U.S. State Dept, Jeff Rathke had a difficult time on Wednesday explaining to nosy reporters exactly what he has done for the Quartet, one of the brainstorms of the American government.

Rathke said:

 Tony Blair has been a valued partner and friend in our effort to bring peace to the Middle East, and as Quartet representative, he’s worked tirelessly and passionately to advance economic growth in the West Bank and Gaza over the past eight years.

What role is there for the Quartet in any kind of future negotiations?” asked one journalist, to which Rathke responded with a long answer that in one word said, “Nothing.”

In his words:

The Quartet plays an important role in keeping the partners – the EU, Russia, UN, the United States – engaged, up to date, and supporting the goal of the two-state solution…. But certainly we think the Quartet is an important format to support, work toward an Israeli – solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Associated Press reporter Matt Lee persisted and asked, “But when you say that it plays an important role, surely you have some kind of reason to say that. Right?”


Rathke turned on the tape recorder and stated:

As I said, the members of the Quartet all have important roles to play. The Quartet brings them together, allows them to share views.

But can Rathke “name a single accomplishment that the Quartet [since 2002] has – I mean, they presented – they came up with George Mitchell and the roadmap, but it was never implemented. I mean, what exactly has the Quartet done to further the cause of a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians?”

Here is his non-answer:

Until the goal of a two-state solution has been achieved, then you can’t say that there’s been success…. We think it’s important that the Quartet exists and that the Quartet brings together key parties to support the negotiation process and the outcome we all desire.

Wait a minute, If it is “important that the Quarter exists” then who will replace Blair?

Rathke said:

I’m not aware of current plans to replace Tony Blair as Quartet representative.

But didn’t he say it is an important position?

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/tony-blair-steps-down-as-quarter-middle-east-envoy-but-no-one-cares/2015/05/28/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: