Did you hear about the big summit on Israel at the White House between the US, UN, Russia, China, the EU, and the Arab League? No? Well, neither had I until Doc's Talk clued me in. Oh yes. Israel was not invited.
http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2011/07/friend-of-israel-you-decide.html
And who better to host such a back-stabbing, undiplomatic event than our diplomat-in-chief, Hillary Clinton, otherwise knownm as our secretary of state.
I think it is pretty clear now that this administration is no friend and ally of Israel. Obama surely wishes that Israel would go away so he can cement relations with our friends in the Middle East. What is sad is that Obama might just accomplish that during his presidency.
33 comments:
Gary, just to explain (not justify or what not), the Middle East Quartet is a Bush-assembled group (US, UN, EU, and Russia/China) that is supposed to be "the weight of the international community".
You can argue they are much less pro-Israel than the US alone, but definitely much less anti-Israel than the UN general assembly.
That being said, they have, in my opinion, been completely ineffective at getting both Israel or the Palestinians back at the table or establishing any kind of guarantee on peace/order for the region.
Gary, Israel couldn't have a better friend than you, and Obama no worse enemy than you. Thank God you have no influence on world politics.
Matan,
You left out the Arab League. Ironic that out of the whole group, how many democracies are there sitting around and talking about Israel?
As for Bush, I say so what? I can criticize him too.
Gary, You are correct about the Arab League but they are not part of the Middle East Quartet. The Quartet is an official group led by former UK PM Tony Blair.
You are correct it is ironic that Russia and China get to debate about Israel.
Matan,
But the point of the posting was that Obama is convening a meeting with these entities to discuss Israel and not inviting Israel. Don't you think that feeds to notion that Obama is not on Israel's side? It does to me.
Ingrid,
Yes, I support Israel and I oppose Obama's policies and vision for America. In my view, under Obama, we are feeding a democratic ally to her undemocratic enemies.
"But the point of the posting was that Obama is convening a meeting with these entities to discuss Israel and not inviting Israel."
You are correct. The Quartet historically has not invited the Israelis or the Palestinians (or any Arab country) to an official Quartet meeting. At this meeting the Palestinians were also not invited. This has been policy since Quartet formation, and has nothing to do with Obama.
Don't you think that feeds to notion that Obama is not on Israel's side? It does to me.
Not since even Bush did not invite Israel to Quartet meetings. However, the US Representatives to the Quartet have been meeting with both the Israelis and Palestinians, officially and unofficially, for the last few weeks.
Dennis Ross and David Hale (replacement to George Mitchell) have been in Jerusalem for the last month or so.
Not only ironic that China and Russia get to debate about Israel but that the ARAB LEAGUE participates in the debate about Israel but NOT Israel.
This is not some oversight or slip up in the protocol department. It seems to me that they are going to agree on what they can force Israel to do.
Even though the majority of Americans support Israel, THIS President is as bent on its destruction as the Arab League.
Glad to see you have joined the debate here, Matan. OTI graduate that you are, I trust you see the chilling significance of Obama's invitation list. Hopefully, you will weigh in on the OTI discussion threads that come up on this site all the time.
.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/officials-mideast-quartet-talks-failed-due-to-disagreement-over-israel-as-jewish-state-1.372905
They met and tried to agree upon pushing forward a statement that said Israel will negotiate based upon the 1967 borders with swaps of land and the Palestinians will recognize Israel as a Jewish homeland.
The Russian representative did not go for recognizing Israel as a Jewish homeland.
The Soviets were probably the main cause of the 1967 war that lead to Israel to capture the West Bank in the first place. It is more than frustrating that they should have the power to play a role in this.
If Obama was going to take a risk, he would have invited Turkey instead of Russia. Turkey is a much bigger player in the area these days and could serve as a good counter to Iran who is the other big player in the region these days.
In the end it won't matter so much what the Quartet says. The Palestinians and Israelis will have to make peace in discussions between each other.
- wejomerv
Matan,
Was leaving out the Arab League in your comment an error of omission or an error of commission?
Squid
I know cutting out Russia and replacing them with Turkey is really not feasible.
But having Turkey play a role might be a good idea. I realize it would be risky since I do not like the recent trend in Turkey but I also don't really like the current trend in Israel either. The boycott law was terrible.
Turkey is putting pressure for Hamas to recognize Israel. They are a major player in the area these days. They can serve as a counter to Iran who is trying to increase their power in the region.
- wejomerv
Only somewhat related -
US more unpopular in the Arab world than under Bush
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/13/arabs
The article does not say this but the places in the Arab world where revolutions have been sucessful is in places where they have thrown out more moderate leaders. The less moderate states - Syria, Iran (I know Iran is not Arab), Libya the revolutions have not had success.
In the long run if these states do become more progressive, I think it will bring more stablity to the region but I have seen interviews with Egptians poltiicans who have been called liberal and they were wacky - 911 was in inside job or Mossads doing, Anne Frank's Dairy was fake, the Holocaust numbers are inflated ect. It should be interesting times ahead.
- wejomerv
Only somewhat related -
US more unpopular in the Arab world than under Bush
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/13/arabs
The article does not say this but the places in the Arab world where revolutions have been sucessful is in places where they have thrown out more moderate leaders. The less moderate states - Syria, Iran (I know Iran is not Arab), Libya the revolutions have not had success.
In the long run if these states do become more progressive, I think it will bring more stablity to the region but I have seen interviews with Egptians poltiicans who have been called liberal and they were wacky - 911 was in inside job or Mossads doing, Anne Frank's Dairy was fake, the Holocaust numbers are inflated ect. It should be interesting times ahead.
- wejomerv
Matan,
But the Arab League apparently was invited. That kind of changes the dynamics, don't you think? Don't forget the importance of symbolism in diplomacy.
@Miggie
This is not some oversight or slip up in the protocol department. It seems to me that they are going to agree on what they can force Israel to do.
I will politely disagree. The Quartet policy, even in Bush-era, never included Israel as part of the discussions. The norm has been meetings with the Palestinians and Israelis before/after (with Dennis Ross and George Mitchell), and then trying to find common ground.
You can argue yes they are trying to figure out a formula that Israel (grudgingly, or not) will accept, but keeping Israel (and the Palestinians/Arabs) is on purpose and is how the Quartet was setup during Bush-era since Day 1.
@Miggie
Glad to see you have joined the debate here, Matan. OTI graduate that you are, I trust you see the chilling significance of Obama's invitation list. Hopefully, you will weigh in on the OTI discussion threads that come up on this site all the time.
I answer everything entirely as an individual, not OTI (I am also no longer President/Board Member of Hillel, end of year elections happened), but I will try to give my input when appropriate.
I do not see a "chilling significance" as noted above this was also a Bush policy.
@Squid
Was leaving out the Arab League in your comment an error of omission or an error of commission?
Neither my friend. The Arab League was never historically included in the Middle East Quartet as a policy maker or discussion partner. They obviously have significance to the conflict/conflict resolution, but play no (direct) role in the Quartet.
@Gary
But the Arab League apparently was invited. That kind of changes the dynamics, don't you think? Don't forget the importance of symbolism in diplomacy.
You can make that argument, as I was not in the room nor know the exact details exchanged, I could not tell you the significance of the Arab League being invited.
They are important because it is unlikely the Palestinians would make any decision without Arab League backing. Currently Jordan (member of the AL) has said they are voting/lobbying against a Unilateral Palestinian State , and in the past the Quartet has been able to use Egypt to push Abbas.
@Anon
I'm inclined to agree that Turkey could play a more fair role than the Arab League or Russia/China, especially given their close-to-conflict with Syria, warming ties with Israel, and power over Hamas.
I have read a couple article on the meeting and haven't see the Arab League being mentioned.
Is there an article from a mainstream newspaper that mentions them being there?
- wejomerv
Matan, I think this statement of yours "At this meeting the Palestinians were also not invited." tries to step around the central issue. The Arab League that was invited obviously represents the interests of the Palestinians. You believe the Arab League is impartial on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? So who was invited that represents the interests of the Israelis? This has everything to do with Obama.
Come on! You are supposed to be a trained pro-Israel advocate now that you have been through the OTI program.
.
Israel most certainly IS a destabilizing force in the middle east, not by its very existence, but because its government, and a fair portion of its citizenry, have grown complacent and lazy that they need make NO concessions to the welfare of the Arabic-speaking civilian population in their neighborhood, because Uncle Sam will always bankroll their intransigence.
Israel needs some tough love from its friends. It is not getting any from Gary, or from the pathetic propaganda mill he linked to.
It has been more than obvious for some time that Israel and the PA cannot sit down in the same room for negotiations. American diplomats have to run back and forth down the hall between them. So, it is only natural that the Quartet should have a nice dinner meeting with the Arab League, just as Obama invited Bibi to the White House (without inviting all the Arabs at the same time, horrors!) even when he was being quite rude to his hosts for some time previous.
P.S. Gary, you've been pushing for months that we should have kept stable dictators in power all over the middle east to help out our "democratic ally." You can't even hold to a consistent principle from one post to the next. AND, aside from assassination, you are fine with leaving Libya under dictatorship too.
Matan,
You have to see the significance of your sloughing off this selective invitation.
When you write, "You can make that argument, as I was not in the room nor know the exact details exchanged, I could not tell you the significance of the Arab League being invited."
This is the FIRST time the Arab League was invited to the Quartet meeting without any representation at all for Israel. As far as I know, whatever the splits are in the Arab world, they uniformly support the Palestinians over the Israelis.
What do think the reaction would be if the meeting were composed of the Quartet and AIPAC without any Arab representation?
This snubbing of Israel in a Quartet meeting is brand new Obama inspired development. I don't like the idea of an imposed solution on Israel at all. I recall all the broken promises of the Palestinians, including the renunciation of teaching hatred of Israel in their schools which continues to this day and is one of the main reasons the conflict persists.
BTW, you can ignore Siarlys. That is unless you have the time and inclination to argue with homeless people with uneducated and unfounded ramblings on everything under the sun.
.
I hope Matan sticks around and posts his thoughts. It would be nice to read some new ideas/perspective.
Anonymous,
Matan is always welcome to post his thoughts. I don't agree with all of his views, but I am happy to get his opinion.
Matan,
The plain English meaning of ".... yes they are trying to figure out a formula that Israel (grudgingly, or not) will accept" MEANS that they will (try) to force Israel to do something that they don't want to do or to accept. It is likely to be in Israel's view, but not in the view of everyone else at the meeting, something that is life threatening to them. They are not talking about debate points to concede or not but items of vital national security or national identity. Those present at the meeting have have a very different and biased view of what is in Israel's best interest.
Force, grudging or not, is akin to rape and by setting up a meeting affecting Israel without giving them representation is setting a rape.
I would think that anyone one trained as a pro-Israel advocate would be sensitive to Israel's security concerns. Then again, the addresses by the "others" may have given you new insights.
.
@Miggie
Force, grudging or not, is akin to rape and by setting up a meeting affecting Israel without giving them representation is setting a rape.
What exactly is the Quartet forcing Israel to do Marty? They are deliberating on finding a formula that Israel would accept but that would also stop the UN-drive of September. There is no force.
I would think that anyone one trained as a pro-Israel advocate would be sensitive to Israel's security concerns.
Trained or not, I have about 3 or 4 dozen family members (not including friends or non-blood relatives which probably both number in hundreds) living in Israel. Anything that undermined security for them is off the table.
That being said, Gary's comment wall is not the US Foreign Affairs Committee, so I can be a little more lax in my interpretations for arguments sake/discussion.
Then again, the addresses by the "others" may have given you new insights.
This is extremely rude to suggest. Here is where you are making an off-color comment that the complete wackjobs that are Mazin Qumisyeh et al. have somehow gotten to me and I want to throw Israel to the crocodiles.
Shame on you Marty for suggesting this.
Matan, let me remind you that YOU were the one who wrote, " ".... yes they are trying to figure out a formula that Israel (grudgingly, or not) will accept" "Grudgingly or NOT" MEANS that they will (try) to force Israel to do something or some formula that they don't want to do or don't want to accept. Israel SHOULD have had a place at that meeting.
We all have friends and relatives in Israel. I would not think for a moment to try to impose any suggestion on them that THEY did not think was in their best interest. It is not up to us to decide their fate for them. We do NOT know better than them what is in their best interest.
So the question is whether or not the "others" have gotten to you or any of the other OTI participants. I say they have. I have seen Sam Bahour's video that Gary put up : http://epalestine.blogspot.com/
He was another "other " presenter to OTI. The adult audience responded to it and I can imagine that the college students bought it even more enthusiastically. Watch it again.
There is not a word in there about the true circumstances of the Palestinians leaving, not a word about the equivalent 700,000 Jews forced out of Arab countries, not a word about how those Jews as well as all other refugees in history were accepted by their brethren and absorbed into their communities (with the SINGLE EXCEPTION of the Palestinian refugees), there was not a word about the separation and discrimination against the refugees by the surrounding Arab states ... and so on about everything he did not say. (Given the Palestinians' penchant for LYING, it is likely that some of his recitation was made up for the emotional appeal.)
Now I ask you, do you become a better advocate for Israel by listening to Sam Bahour or by a true Israeli advocate who will give you chapter and verse on those refugees? In other words, our (your) narrative.
Right of Return is not a small matter, the national character of Israel as a Jewish state is at stake. I saw in the journal entries by some of the OTI students and some air-headed "can't we all just get along" messages. Hardly, better Israeli advocates, but more like Peace Citizens of the World who believe that there are conditions or formulas Israel should accept, "grudgingly or not."
How is it, after 3,000 years, certain Newport Beach Jews discover that sending their youth to listen to the propaganda of their enemies is a really good idea. No one ever thought of it before! WE MUST BE SMARTER!
Baloney! OTI is a stupid toxic idea that doesn't work in practice and it should be stopped as soon as possible.
.
College kids who volunter to go on a program are capable of seeing bullshit when they see it.
I don't really know the details of OTI but I'd want Israeli advocates to know the best arguments put forth by Palestinians.
If the arguments have merit, the Israeli advocates can work towards improving relations with the Palestinians.
If the arguments are bullshit, the Israeli advocates will already know the arguments and be prepared to knock them down when they encounter them in the future.
now I'll see if I can watch your video
I watched the video and I do have empathy towards the guy. If the Palestinian leaders had accepted the partion, there would likely be no refugee problem. The refugee problem was a result of the civil war where the Palestinians rejected a two state solution.
Everyone who is sane knows Israel cannot accept 4 or 5 million refugees into Israel. The claim of "Right of Return" is going to have to be only a symbolic return where some Palestinains can enter Israel under terms of famiy reunification.
The refugees should be comepensated for their property and those funds should be used to help settle refugees into the newly created Palestinian state. Refugees who are in Lebanon are treated like trash. That isn't Israel's fault. But once a settlment is made, they should be able to move to the Palestinian homeland.
There will likely be Jews who had ancestors and held property in the West Bank who will have to give up those properties for peace. For peace to happen both sides are not going to have all they want and both sides will have some who suffer.
It sucks all the way around.
It also is telling that the guy never mentions why Israel may have some security concerns.
It is true that if the various Arab leaders in 1947-1948 had accepted the partition map approved by the UN, then things would be much better off. Palestinians really didn't have any choice in the matter. The kings and generals of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, as well as factions in Lebanon and money from the Saudis, made all the determinations.
But, that is water under the bridge. Everyone bounced around by events of the last half century needs to be able to settle down somewhere and get on with their lives.
Israel darn well needs to have some things they don't like forced on them. That doesn't include disarming the IDF, but it does mean turning the West Bank over to the PA government, engaging in some land swaps, and letting the Palestinians get on with building a civilian economy.
Anonymous, now that you've seen the video, you appreciate the purely emotional appeal. It would be even more so for young people. There no suggestion from anyone that it may well be all made up even with the Palestiam's penchant for lying .... taquia or whatever it is called, is lying for the advancement of Islam.
I also covered in part in my post of July 18 at 9:18 a number of issues Bahour did not cover, absent any fairness in his address.
No, I don't believe the college kids can debate with him or challenge him and the others like him. It is not that they are dumb or I'll-prepared it is that they are discussing topics that Bahour knows from birth and from personal knowledge
combined with a predilection toward exaggeration. . Bahour
is a professional, experienced in a field that students are
learning.
Who in their right mind sends their kids to listen to the narrative of the propagandists of their enemies ? Citizens
of the World, that's who! People who actually believe there
is a moral equivalence here. Everybody has their own
position and there is no right or wrong!
Who needs advocates like that? It is suicidal insanity!
.
Siarlys also needs some things he doesn't like forced on him, like giving up a right ear and hand and a left eye and leg so the rest of us can have a coherent discussion.
Same thing! How do you like it?
I give more credit to college students who are interested in the topic and want to hear different sides to be able to tell what is bullshit.
I may be giving some students too much credit though. But most I think will get it.
It is funny to me how groups like the MSU trot out Norman Finkelstein to talk shit about how bad Israel is and the MSU types eat it up. Then they have marches with chants of "The state of Israel has to go."
I have a feeling the students who invite him and are nut-hugging him on his attacks on Israel do not really agree with what Finkelstein views when it comes to a way to end the conflict. As much as I dislike Finkelstein and think he is a bit of a lunatic, he is for a two state solution and even he understands the Palestinians won't be able to force Israel to commit demographic suicide.
Even though he claims that Palestinians have a "right of return" he has said that he thinks a way for them to end the conflict quicker is for Israel to compensate them and make a statement on what happened (I am not sure where he would go with that and I'd to review exactly what his comments were on this) and have them settle in the Palestinian state. So even a whack job like Norm knows for there to be peace the Palestinians have to give up their unqualified demand of right of return.
I am surprised no one has questioned Norm on this stuff when he comes to UC Irvine. But be aware if you do try to ask him a question like this, the question would have to be posed just in the right way or he will go off on some wild tangent or say it is not for him to decide.
If posed in the right way, I'd enjoy watching the anti-Zionist folks see they invited a guy who supports the two state solution and sees the that Fink doesn't think all the refugees will be able to return to their homes they left or were expelled from in 1948 if there is going to be peace anytime soon.
The charter of Hamas, explicitly antisemitic (and quotes the genocidally antisemitic verses of the holy hadeeths in support of its position vis-a-vis Israel):
The Hamas Charter (or Covenant), issued in 1988, outlined the organization's position on many issues at the time, identifies Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and declares its members to be Muslims who "fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors." The charter states "our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories,[40] and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.[67][68] The Charter also asserts that through shrewd manipulation of imperial countries and secret societies, Zionists were behind a wide range of events and disasters going as far back in history as the French Revolution. Among the charter's controversial statements is the following: "The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews [and kill them]; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: Oh Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!”[39] The document also quotes Islamic religious texts to provide justification for fighting against and killing the Jews of Israel,[69] presenting the Arab-Israeli conflict as an inherently irreconcilable struggle between Jews and Muslims, and Judaism and Islam,[39] adding that the only way to engage in this struggle between "truth and falsehood" is through Islam and by means of jihad, until victory or martyrdom.[39] The Charter adds that "renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion" of Islam.[70] The charter states that Hamas is humanistic, and tolerant of other religions as long as they do not block Hamas's efforts.[71
Thanks, Anonymous.
That's what Israel is up against and pretty much all you need to know about the conflict. The Jewish students in the US especially have to know this.
This is what makes me so angry when I hear these moral equivalence type arguments from the hand wringing, oh so smart and compassionate left wingers.
.
Post a Comment