Palestine Pales
"The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
Abba Eban
"We hold him (Netanyahu) fully responsible for the collapse of these negotiations."
Saeb Erekat of the Palestine Authority (PA), Nov. 8, 2010 (1)
The prospects for setting up a Palestinian state were never better than in the early months of 2009. The new American President Barack Hussein Obama, the first such ever raised as a Muslim (2), had been elected with 53% of the popular vote and had both houses of Congress controlled by his party. He went to Cairo and promised the creation of a state of Palestine, and was determined to put "some daylight" between the US and Israel to achieve it. Obama even obtained a ten-month freeze on settlement construction from the Netanyahu government to create the atmosphere for successful negotiations.
President Abbas of the PA should have exclaimed, " Yes! Let's begin serious talks at once and keep negotiating till we get our state!" Instead , his attitude seemed to be "Hang tough and we will get everything we want!"
At first he was not ready for any talks with the Israelis, then only agreed to "proximity" (indirect) talks with them, then finally met face-to-face . When the ten month freeze expired, he asked for its extension. Now that construction is resuming, the PA is threatening to walk away from the talks altogether. (1) Like a winning football team that "eats up the clock" in the final minutes of the game, the Palestinians have dithered and stalled for the first two years of the Obama presidency. But all they have to show for it is a well-chewed clock.
Meanwhile, changes in the American political dynamic have undermined President Obama's ability to pressure Israel into making the kind of concessions necessary to garner Arab agreement (if that were possible at all):
1. The 2010 Congressional elections
The Democrats lost the House, and have about a 6-vote majority in the Senate. According to AIPAC, the present Congress is pro-Israel, and the next one will be even more so. But more important is the fact that a Democratic-led House would never repudiate the efforts of a Democratic president, but a Republican-led one just might! Obama will have to be very friendly to Israel in 2011 and 2012 to avoid such a humiliation.
2. It's almost 2012.
So far the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination is Obama's for the asking. But if he does something outrageous enough, such as souring our relationship with Israel, an ambitious Democrat could challenge him for the nomination. The first primaries and caucuses are just over a year away, and candidates will be gearing-up their campaigns by mid-2011. Although a challenging an incumbent president for the nomination of his party is usually unsuccessful, a serious challenge could split the party so deeply that the nominee loses the general election. (3)
All the serious potential Republican candidates (Gingrich, Palin, Romney, etc.) are pro-Israel. So even if Obama is the unanimous choice for the Democratic nomination, anything he does that can be characterized as even remotely anti-Israel can and will be used against him by the Republicans in the 2012 campaign.
However, if Barack Obama declines to seek re-election, he can mess with Israel all he wants during his remaining months in office, and Congress may not be able to stop him. But since he will then be a "lame duck", no one will listen much.
So the Palestinians blew their big chance. But in early 2013 the President will revive the "peace-process" and the game will be on again.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Associated Press, quoted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, page 4A.
(2) His Indonesian stepfather Loto Soetero was a Muslim, and presumably raised Barack as one. He converted to Christianity in Chicago around 1992.
(3) In 1952 and 1968 the incumbent Democratic president lost the New Hampshire primary and withdrew from the race. Both times the Republicans took the presidency.
In 1884 the Republican Party denied the incumbent (Chester Alan Arthur) the nomination, and the Democrats took the presidency for the first time since 1856.
Abba Eban
"We hold him (Netanyahu) fully responsible for the collapse of these negotiations."
Saeb Erekat of the Palestine Authority (PA), Nov. 8, 2010 (1)
The prospects for setting up a Palestinian state were never better than in the early months of 2009. The new American President Barack Hussein Obama, the first such ever raised as a Muslim (2), had been elected with 53% of the popular vote and had both houses of Congress controlled by his party. He went to Cairo and promised the creation of a state of Palestine, and was determined to put "some daylight" between the US and Israel to achieve it. Obama even obtained a ten-month freeze on settlement construction from the Netanyahu government to create the atmosphere for successful negotiations.
President Abbas of the PA should have exclaimed, " Yes! Let's begin serious talks at once and keep negotiating till we get our state!" Instead , his attitude seemed to be "Hang tough and we will get everything we want!"
At first he was not ready for any talks with the Israelis, then only agreed to "proximity" (indirect) talks with them, then finally met face-to-face . When the ten month freeze expired, he asked for its extension. Now that construction is resuming, the PA is threatening to walk away from the talks altogether. (1) Like a winning football team that "eats up the clock" in the final minutes of the game, the Palestinians have dithered and stalled for the first two years of the Obama presidency. But all they have to show for it is a well-chewed clock.
Meanwhile, changes in the American political dynamic have undermined President Obama's ability to pressure Israel into making the kind of concessions necessary to garner Arab agreement (if that were possible at all):
1. The 2010 Congressional elections
The Democrats lost the House, and have about a 6-vote majority in the Senate. According to AIPAC, the present Congress is pro-Israel, and the next one will be even more so. But more important is the fact that a Democratic-led House would never repudiate the efforts of a Democratic president, but a Republican-led one just might! Obama will have to be very friendly to Israel in 2011 and 2012 to avoid such a humiliation.
2. It's almost 2012.
So far the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination is Obama's for the asking. But if he does something outrageous enough, such as souring our relationship with Israel, an ambitious Democrat could challenge him for the nomination. The first primaries and caucuses are just over a year away, and candidates will be gearing-up their campaigns by mid-2011. Although a challenging an incumbent president for the nomination of his party is usually unsuccessful, a serious challenge could split the party so deeply that the nominee loses the general election. (3)
All the serious potential Republican candidates (Gingrich, Palin, Romney, etc.) are pro-Israel. So even if Obama is the unanimous choice for the Democratic nomination, anything he does that can be characterized as even remotely anti-Israel can and will be used against him by the Republicans in the 2012 campaign.
However, if Barack Obama declines to seek re-election, he can mess with Israel all he wants during his remaining months in office, and Congress may not be able to stop him. But since he will then be a "lame duck", no one will listen much.
So the Palestinians blew their big chance. But in early 2013 the President will revive the "peace-process" and the game will be on again.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Associated Press, quoted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, page 4A.
(2) His Indonesian stepfather Loto Soetero was a Muslim, and presumably raised Barack as one. He converted to Christianity in Chicago around 1992.
(3) In 1952 and 1968 the incumbent Democratic president lost the New Hampshire primary and withdrew from the race. Both times the Republicans took the presidency.
In 1884 the Republican Party denied the incumbent (Chester Alan Arthur) the nomination, and the Democrats took the presidency for the first time since 1856.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 8:58 AM
4 Comments:
Well I disagree with everything in this blog.
1. Obama has so far never been concerned with politics and the recent election proved this point. Obama is an idealogue who does not make political calculations. That is, he does not change his mind about things he believes in for political reasons. More proof is this is that he waivers not one bit about Obamacare yet the recent election that Democrats lost was all about Obamacare.
Obama is dedicated to supporting the Arabs and creating a Palestinian State and he cares not one iota of what the Republicans, Americans, Jews, or Israelis think about this. Again, the past election is proof that Obama cares not about what Americans think or really what anyone thinks.
Obama will push Israel very very hard to make major concessions as soon as he gets back from his recent trip. Obama promised a Palestinian State before the end of his first (and hopefully last)term and he intends to keep this promise. In fact, I predict that this will be his number one priority in the next two years.
2. Israel is not a major issue for most Americans, especially now with the unemployment rate at 10% and the economy still on the brink of disaster. Also, Obamcaare, cap and tax, taxes, etc are far far far more important to Americans than Israel. Maybe if we did not have all of the other stuff that Obama has forced on us Israel might be a concern, but there is so much other stuff that Israel is and will be irrelevent.
Israel will not be an issue in 2012unless there is a war in Israel.
3, Mr Glazer wrote: "However, if Barack Obama declines to seek re-election, he can mess with Israel all he wants, and Congress may not be able to stop him."
Non-presidents have no power to do anything with regard to Israel, so if he is not president he has no value, he will be nothing and he will be able to do nothing. Proof of this of course is Carter.
Here is proof in just hours after Mr Glazer published his blog that Obama will continue to pressure Israel. What president ever went to a Muslim country to criticize Israel ever before? Or when did a US president ever criticize Israel in order to "outreach" to Muslims ever before?
Obama is the worst thing to happen to Israel in decades, and contrary to Mr Glazer's blog, Obama will continue to pressure and harm Israel for the next two years.
Obama In Indonesia Criticizes Israel Over Settlement Announcement
The Huffington Post First Posted: 11- 9-10 12:00 PM | Updated: 11- 9-10 02:41 PM
Speaking from Indonesia, Obama told reporters that he was "concerned" over Israel's decision to build 1,300 new settlement homes in east Jerusalem, a flashpoint in the ongoing peace process, the AFP reports. According to the news service, Obama told reporters that, "This kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations."
"I'm concerned that we're not seeing each side make the extra effort to get a breakthrough that could finally create a framework for a secure Israel living side-by-side in peace with a sovereign Palestine," Obama added. He re-affirmed, however, that he would continue working on the peace process, despite its fragility.
According to the New York Times, the U.S. was angered over the timing of Israel's decision. As Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote:
And from the perspective of the United States, Israel's announcement was ill-timed. It came just as Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was heading to United States for the annual convention of the Jewish Federations of North America. On Sunday, Mr. Netanyahu met with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., and he was expected to meet Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton later this week.
Mr. Obama is making outreach to the Muslim world a major theme of his brief visit to Indonesia.
Obama was greeted warmly in Indonesia, but was also the target of protests, including some by Muslim groups, before his arrival. (See pictures of the protests here.) Later on Tuesday, he will be visiting Indonesia's largest mosque, and he has spoken repeatedly about his commitment to warming relations with the Muslim world while visiting the county. Indonesia is the world's largest majority Muslim nation, and having spent four years there as a child, the visit is viewed by some as a homecoming.
The president's trip to Indonesia is being shortened due to volcanic eruptions that have been wracking the nation since October 26.
Get HuffPost World On Twitter, Facebook, and Google Buzz! Know something we don't? E-mail us at world@huffingtonpost.com
MORE PROOF
FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Obama enhancing Palestinian positions worldwide
White House ready to blame Jewish construction for failure of talks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 09, 2010
9:32 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldNetDaily
The White House is working with the Palestinians to enhance their diplomatic stature in the U.S. and in European countries as a step toward the possible unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state, a senior Palestinian Authority official told WND.
The official also said the White House is considering issuing a declaration in the coming weeks that will largely blame Israel for stalled talks to create a Palestinian state.
The statement, to be issued if talks don't quickly jumpstart, will declare Israel's Jewish communities in the West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem to be a main impediment to an Israeli-Palestinian deal.
Regarding unilateral recognition, the PA said the Obama administration favors a negotiated settlement but is ready to tacitly support steps toward the declaration of a Palestinian state outside of talks with Israel, including at the United Nations, if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not quickly advance talks.
According to reports, Netanyahu has agreed in theory to a proposal by the Obama administration that Israel relinquish most of the West Bank and the entire strategic Jordan valley to the Palestinians. In the deal, Israel would lease parts of the Jordan Valley from the Palestinians for seven years, during which time talks would resume on Jerusalem and other issues.
According to the report, Netanyahu agreed to the idea but demanded that the lease be for a longer period of time than the original offer.
(Story continues below)
Meanwhile, Netanyahu's office today took issue with U.S. opposition over the approval of Jewish construction projects in Pisgat Zeev – an already existing substantial Jewish community in the eastern section of Jerusalem.
"Jerusalem isn't a settlement – Jerusalem is the capital of Israel," the statement by the prime minister's office read. "Israel has never put any sort of limits on construction in Jerusalem, where some 800,000 people reside, and didn't do so during the 10-month settlement freeze in the West Bank either."
Earlier today, Obama claimed that Israel's new building plan could obstruct the peace process.
"This kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations," said Obama, adding that he was concerned Israel and the Palestinians were not making enough of an effort to advance peace negotiations.
Netanyahu's office stated building in Jerusalem hasn't impeded the peace process in 40 years.
"Israel does not see any connection between the peace process and the building and planning policy in Jerusalem, which hasn't changed for 40 years," Netanyahu's statement said.
Continued the statement: "Every Israeli government in the last 40 years has built in all parts of the city. During this period, peace agreements were signed with Egypt and Jordan and for 17 years, peace negotiations with the Palestinians were carried out. These are historical facts. Construction in Jerusalem has never disrupted the peace process."
More proof:
Prof: Obama's Obsession with Israel Won't End
Kislev 4, 5771, 11 November 10 10:23by Hillel Fendel(Israelnationalnews.com) Prof. Eitan Gilboa, a former government advisor and expert in media and administration, says that U.S. President Obama’s setback in the Congressional elections will not end his “obsession” with Israel.
Speaking with Arutz-7, the Bar Ilan University professor said that he does not think Obama will “lay off” Israel in the near future. “I believe he has an obsession with Israel,” Gilboa said. “He will want to get the talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority going again because he wants to be remembered in history as the one who is signed on the peace agreement.”
Just this week, Obama criticized Israel for announcing another stage in the approval process of 1,300 housing units in the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Pisgat Ze’ev and Har Homa. “This kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations,” Obama said during a visit to his boyhood home in the Muslim nation of Indonesia. “I'm concerned that we're not seeing each side making the extra effort involved to get a breakthrough.”
Knesset Members from both the coalition and opposition criticized Obama, saying that he is ignoring the reality of Israel’s security and other needs in Jerusalem. Kadima party MK Avi Dichter, a former head of the Shabak, then known as the General Security Service, told the Jerusalem Post that the Americans “understand that there is no chance that Jerusalem will return to the 1967 borders. They also aren’t blind – they know where the municipal borders are drawn, and they also know where our security borders are around the city. But they still don’t know – or don’t understand – that the most sensitive part of the negotiations is Jerusalem. To begin by addressing the most sensitive issue, without establishing any level of trust, is a recipe for failure. The first place to build Israeli trust in the PA was in Gaza, and the first question should be not what happens in Jerusalem, but what happens in Gaza – how we make sure that there is one, and not two Palestinian states… [T]o deal with Jerusalem at the beginning of negotiations is a recipe for failure.”
American Permission Not Necessary
Later on in his interview with Arutz-7, Prof. Gilboa said that a careful reading of the memoirs of Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, shows that Israel need not always ask permission from the U.S. before carrying out a particular military action.
“Bush wrote that he was disappointed in [former Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert’s decision not to attack Syria during the Second Lebanon War,” Gilboa said. “However, he noted that Olmert’s decision to attack the nuclear reactor in Syrian in 2007 was an excellent one, even though the Americans opposed it at first.”
“The American approval, despite its original objections, proves that not always does Israel have to ask permission or coordinate with the United States before a military action,” Gilboa said. He added, however, that there are situations, “such as a future attack on Iran,” in which because of operational and political considerations, “Israel will have to receive a green light from the Americans.”
Gilboa holds a Ph.D. in Administration from Harvard University, and has served as an advisor to the Prime Minister’s Bureau, the Foreign Ministry and the Defense Ministry.
Post a Comment
<< Home