Peace Plan No. 6

Rick Richman
Contentions/Commentary
08 April '10

Asked about the Washington Post story in which it was reported that the administration is considering its own Middle East peace plan, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley issued a non-denial/denial yesterday, in which the operative words were “at this point”:

I would steer you away from the idea that we are — we’re going to try to, at this point, impose a particular view on the parties … our focus right now is getting them into the proximity talks, into negotiations, and then we’ll see what happens after that. [Emphasis added]

The “peace process” has not suffered from an insufficient number of plans. In the past decade, we have had five of them: (1) the Israeli two-state plan presented at Camp David in July 2000 — rejected by the Palestinians; (2) the Clinton Parameters presented in December 2000 — rejected by the Palestinians; (3) the 2003 Roadmap, calling for the dismantlement of Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups as Phase I — ignored by the Palestinians; (4) the 2005 Gaza disengagement, giving the Palestinians a Judenrein Gaza to start their state — which produced a rocket war on Israeli civilians; and (5) the 2007-08 Annapolis Process, a plan for year-long final-status negotiations resulting in still another Israeli offer of a state — rejected by the Palestinians.

Even a casual observer can spot the problem here, and it is not the absence of a plan.

Hillary Clinton's unfortunate mistake

Itamar Marcus, Nan Jacques Zilberdik
and Barbara Crook
Palestinian Media Watch (PMW)
23 March '10

Someone in the State Department is giving Secretary of State Hillary Clinton imprecise information about Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

In her speech to AIPAC yesterday, Clinton condemned Hamas for renaming "a square after a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis," saying it was "wrong and must be condemned." On the other hand, Clinton "commended" PA Chairman Abbas.

Clinton's condemnation of Hamas alone, because the municipality that named the square after the terrorist is run by Hamas, was erroneous. In fact, it has been the Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas, not Hamas, who have been leading the Palestinians in glorifying Dalal Mughrabi, the terrorist bus hijacker who was responsible for the killing of 37 civilians, whom Clinton accurately called the "terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis."

Palestinian Media Watch has documented the continuous Mughrabi veneration by Abbas and the Palestinian Authority in recent years, both in connection to the square near Ramallah on the West Bank and in many other contexts. The following are 15 examples of the glorification of this one particular terrorist, Dalal Mughrabi. Five by Abbas himself, five by the Palestinian Authority or its leaders, and five by Fatah or its leaders:

1) It was Abbas himself who defended the naming of the square after Mughrabi: "I do not deny it. Of course we want to name a square after her." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 17, 2010]

2)It was Abbas himself who on December 31, 2009 honored that same terrorist Mughrabi by sponsoring a celebration of her birthday. [PA TV (Fatah) News, Dec. 29, 2009]
It was Abbas's Fatah youth movement who prepared the Mughrabi square for the ceremony. [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 8, 2010]

3)It was Abbas himself who funded a computer center after that same terrorist. "Present at the event were President Mahmoud Abbas's advisor... inaugurating the [Dalal Mughrabi] center, funded by a contribution from the President's [Abbas's] Office." [Al-Ayyam, May 5, 2009]

(Read full report)
.

Hannah Rosenthal's new problem

Shmuel Rosner
Rosner's Domain
29 December 09

Hannah Rosenthal ("officially a burden") tells Tablet that A. she's still going to Washington, B. that the headline "exaggerated what she actually said" and C. that “I don’t think a reporter asking me about J Street is out of bounds, and I don’t think my answer was out of bounds.”

A isn't at all surprising. With B I tend to agree (Kampeas explains why the Haaretz piece was somewhat problematic). But C is a downer. Rosenthal either denies what she knows to be the obvious truth: she was out of bounds. Or - even more problematic - she doesn't get it. Maybe reading Jeffry Goldberg's recent post can assist:

I asked three people who currently work in the State Department if they could recall an instance in which an official of their department ever criticized a foreign ambassador for such a thing -- or for anything -- and they said no. In fact, the State Department is fairly upset at Rosenthal for speaking at all about the alleged political proclivities of a foreign ambassador, not about her specific criticism. It is this behavior that has put her beyond the pale...

(Read full post)

Gilo and Diplomatic Dismay

Rick Richman
Contentions/Commentary
19 November 09

Noah, as you note, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’s statement that the administration is “dismayed” at the construction of more housing in the Gilo neighborhood of Jerusalem — because “neither party should unilaterally preempt negotiations” – is a non-sequitur. Last May, Benjamin Netanyahu arrived at the White House for his first meeting as prime minister with President Obama and announced he wanted to commence negotiations “immediately,” without preconditions, which has been his position ever since.

What unilaterally preempted negotiations was the Obama/Abbas precondition of a settlement “freeze” that (1) was not previously demanded in any prior negotiations, (2) contradicted a six-year understanding about the meaning of a “freeze” (no new settlements, no expansion of existing settlement borders, and no financial incentives for new settlers), (3) could not be defined in practical terms even by George Mitchell, and (4) was not a condition that any Israeli government, Left or Right, could accept.

There was a little comedy silver at the State Department press conference yesterday, as spokesman Ian Kelly repeated the notion that the expansion of housing in Gilo was “dismaying” because it could “unilaterally” preempt negotiations. One of the reporters asked Kelly if he could “give us just a brief synopsis of the progress that Senator Mitchell has made in his months on the job” — to which Kelly responded that the administration had gotten both sides to agree on a goal:

(Continue article)

.

State Department uses Islamist Anti-American Propaganda to Criticize Turkish Army Kicking Out Islamists

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
12 November 09

I’ve already written about how former President Bill Clinton, in line with the Obama Administration’s thinking, acted as an apologist and even booster of Turkey’s Islamist regime. Now the State Department is doing it. Indeed, this is a fascinating little example of how thoroughly Islamists bamboozle the West.

The State Department issued its annual religious freedom report. If you look at the section on Turkey, you will see that a main—perhaps the main—source is Mazlum-Der, which is the Association of Human Rights and Solidarity for Oppressed People. What could be better than human rights and helping oppressed people?

Unfortunately, Mazlum-Der is a front for the Islamist government in Turkey and the main oppressed people it’s concerned about are Hamas, Hizballah, and others of that ilk.

In fact, this group is headed by an Islamist member of parliament for the Adiyaman district who comes from the ruling party, Faruk Unsal, who has been personally involved in repressing those criticizing the regime through trumped-up treason charges! [To hide Unsal's identity, his name appears only on the Turkish, not the English language site, and neither tell you about his political role.]

As for the group, to give an example, on May 1 it organized a rally in Diyarbakir with Kurdish Hizballah calling for the regime to uninvite Israel to joint militry maneuvers. Clearly, the government had already decided to do so and assigned its front groups to show "popular support" for that step.
So the State Department, by using a radical group as a source, falls into the Islamist trap in several ways:

--Religious Muslims in Turkey are portrayed as victims of the military and judiciary. These are, in fact, the only two institutions that the AK hasn’t infiltrated and largely taken over yet. So Islamists use the State Department to discredit the army and courts to make it easier to complete their seizure of the state apparatus.

--There is no mention whatsoever of the real oppression going on, which is of secularists who are being forced out of jobs, not given government contracts, sent to jail, sued by the government, or even facing violence.

--While the report does discuss the situation of non-Muslims in Turkey, it leaves out the virulent antisemitism that the regime has been promoting. In addition, it doesn’t mention the fact that the government refuses to legalize the prayer houses of the Alevis, who constitute 10 to 20 percent of the population.

(Continue reading)

.

Déjà Vu Diplomacy

Rick Richman

Contentions/Commentary

28 August 09

The day before George Mitchell met with Benjamin Netanyahu in London this week, in the continuing effort to meet Palestinian preconditions for new final-status negotiations, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad announced a plan to create a Palestinian state within two years—“regardless of progress in the stalled peace negotiations with Israel.”

For those familiar with the history of the peace process, the Palestinian announcement and its timing provided a sense of déjà vu.

In the spring of 1998, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process was stalled. Prime Minister Netanyahu was seeking “reciprocity” from the Palestinians before further Israeli withdrawals from West Bank territory. Arafat was offering the umpteenth Palestinian promise to “crack down” on terrorism and agreed—“in principle”—to produce a detailed security plan in exchange for a further Israeli withdrawal that met his demands and a move to final-status negotiations.

That was good enough for the State Department, which turned to Netanyahu and told him it needed a “second yes.” Netanyahu raised concerns about the scope of the withdrawal—and Arafat threatened a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. On April 28, 1998, Hanan Ashrawi, then the Palestinian minister of higher education, spoke at the National Press Club in Washington and said Palestinians would declare statehood in one year regardless of where the peace process then stood.

At the time, no American administration had ever endorsed a Palestinian state. A week later, as Dennis Ross was traveling to Israel to meet with Netanyahu, Hillary Clinton spoke (via satellite hookup arranged by the State Department) to Arab and Israeli teenagers attending a “peace summit” in Switzerland. In response to a student who asked about her use of the word Palestine, Hillary used the word state nine times, sayingit would be “very important” for “Palestine to be a state.” In case Israel missed the significance of her words, the American embassy in Tel Aviv immediately released a report entitled “Hillary Clinton: Eventual Palestinian State Important for Mideast Peace.”

The White House said she was “not reflecting any administration policy”—only a “personal view.” But William Safire wrote in the New York Times that the explanation was “laughably implausible” and was “a calculated move by both Clintons to ratchet up the pressure on Israel” by warning that American policy might change if Netanyahu did not promptly move the process forward.

Now flash forward 11 years. A U.S. peace negotiator travels to meet with the Israeli prime minister to seek his concurrence in the latest Palestinian demands regarding final-status negotiations. The Palestinian “peace partner” announces a plan for a Palestinian state within two years without a peace agreement. The American consul general in Jerusalem, alerted ahead of time, tells the New York Times it is the first time he has seen such a “concrete plan” and that the Palestinians are working in a practical way toward their goal.

Undoubtedly, his apparent comfort with a unilateral Palestinian plan is simply his personal view.

Washington Summons Israel Envoy Over East Jerusalem Eviction

Barak Ravid
Haaretz
05 August 09

Washington issued another diplomatic protest over Israeli conduct in East Jerusalem on Monday, its second in as many weeks.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman summoned Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to Washington, to tell him that the United States views Sunday's eviction of two Palestinian families from homes in East Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood as a "provocative" and "unacceptable" act that violates Israel's obligations under the road map peace plan.

Oren responded by saying that the buildings in question have been Jewish-owned since before Israel's founding, and that a court ordered the families' evictions because they had violated the terms of their leases.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also denounced the evictions publicly on Monday, terming them "deeply regrettable" during a joint press conference in Washington with Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh. She said the evictions violated Israel's commitments under the road map and would impede progress toward peace, adding that the United States would not recognize any unilateral changes to the status quo in Jerusalem.

Two weeks ago, Oren received a similar American protest over a plan to build 20 apartments for Jews in the Shepherd Hotel compound in Sheikh Jarrah. That protest prompted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to retort that Israel would never accept Jews being denied the right to live anywhere in Jerusalem.

Shortly before Oren was summoned by Feltman on Monday, Israeli Ambassador to Sweden Benny Dagan was summoned to that country's foreign ministry for a similar rebuke. Swedish officials told Dagan that they did not understand the timing of the evictions, nor do they accept the legal arguments behind the move. Sweden currently holds the European Union's rotating presidency.

Dagan counterattacked, saying that Israel was "extremely frustrated with Sweden's conduct" as president of the EU. Israel, he said, has taken steps to make life easier for West Bank Palestinians, while the Palestinians have merely entrenched themselves in their hard-line positions, and the EU has done nothing to help.

The Swedes rejected these claims, noting there is "no difference" between Sweden's positions on the peace process and Washington's.

Foreign Ministry Director General Rafi Barak responded by summoning the Swedish ambassador for talks, during which he told her that Jerusalem considers Stockholm's criticisms of Israel, since assuming the EU presidency, to be excessive.

Related articles: British government must issue clarification over Jerusalem evictions controversy
The Sheikh Jarrah-Shimon HaTzadik Neighborhood
.