Please read the lead before you read the article so you understand that Obama
definitely does not have Israel's back and Clinton is dangerous to
Israel and daft! The AP must be unarmed so they do not kill Jews and she
wants to give them arms! Is she insane of Jewish blood is hefker for
her and her boss?
Credit: Telegraph
UK
First she was in Egypt.
There, she not only met with President Morsi, but promoted this Muslim
Brotherhood leader. In a thinly veiled statement, she suggested that the
military pull back and allow a "civilian" administration to govern. But
the military is our best hope for stability in Egypt! (See below as to how
it may well be that the military truly is in charge.)
The Obama administration has
responsibility for the downfall of Mubarak and the fact that there is a member
of the Muslim Brotherhood in his place now. You would think
Obama would have learned a lesson with regard to meddling, but in fact it
seems there's almost an eagerness to embrace the Brotherhood.
"We believe America’s shared strategic interests with Egypt far outnumber our
differences," Clinton cooed.
And then she willfully
permitted an Egyptian misrepresentation of the Egyptian-Israeli
peace agreement to pass.
This is what she said in an
official statement (emphasis added):
"More than three decades ago,
Egypt and Israel signed a treaty that has allowed a generation to grow up
without knowing war. And on this foundation, we will work together to
build a just, comprehensive, regional peace in the Middle East based on two
states for two people with peace, security, and dignity for
all."
What two states?
Well, in his statement, the
foreign minister of Egypt said via an interpreter (again, emphasis
added):
"I would like to add something
about the peace treaty. Mr. President has repeatedly reaffirmed, and on all
occasions, that Egypt continues to respect all treaties signed as long as the
other party to the treaty respects the treaty itself. And today, he once again
reiterated this issue and also reiterated that Egypt’s understanding of
peace is that it should be comprehensive, exactly as stipulated in the treaty
itself. And this also includes the Palestinians, of course, and its right to –
their right have their own state on the land that was – the pre June 4th, 1967
borders (sic) with Jerusalem as its capital."
There's only one problem with
this. The peace treaty with Egypt did not stipulate anything about Israel being
required to grant the Palestinian Arabs a full state based on the '67 lines,
with Jerusalem as its capital. (I'll come back in due course to the exact
wording of that agreement.) This is an addition by Morsi that gives him latitude
to claim it is Israel that isn't honoring the treaty.
And not only did Clinton not
correct this mis-statement, holding the Egyptians to their obligations according
to the treaty, she parlayed this into a pitch for a Palestinian
state.
And there's more. Now
Clinton is in Israel. She said all sorts of obligatory things about
standing strong against Iran. But, according to Israeli officials,
she also -- are you ready?? -- pressured Netanyahu and Barak to offer
incentives to the PA to bring them back to the table.
Bad enough in any
event. Breathtakingly stupid, actually. If Abbas needs
"incentives" to come to the table to discuss "peace," it means he isn't
interested in peace. Are Obama and Clinton too obtuse to notice this, or
don't they really care as long as there is the semblance of "peace
negotiations"?
There is not the remotest evidence
that Abbas wants to come to the table. I'm reading that the US is
concerned because Hamas is seen to be gaining influence in Judea and Samaria;
American officials believe that if Abbas makes progress on "peace" it will
enhance his standing.
But they've got it absolutely
backwards. The populace of the PA territories has been making it
clear that they are not looking for peace negotiations. They rioted when
Mofaz was to come meet with Abbas. (Those riots lasted some time and some
analysts believe this means Abbas is losing his grip.)
With this all, comes the most
stunning piece of information: What I'm reading is that Clinton wants Israel to
release PA prisoners and give the PA small arms. Let me say this again:
small arms.
If this is so, it is daft.
It is an outrage.
In any event, the notion of
providing the PA with arms is grossly unreasonable. There is a risk, at
all times, of PA security forces turning their weapons on us -- there is
precedent for this.
But under current conditions it is
over the top.
Just four days ago, there was a
report citing the outgoing commander of the Binyamin division, Col. Saar Tzur,
who said that since the release of prisoners in the trade for Shalit, there has
been a sharp increase in the number of attempted terror attacks. There is
a major point to be made here regarding the wisdom of doing such trades, but
let's skip past that for the moment.
What Col. Tzur said, according to
YNet, is that:
"...the Israel Defense Forces had
to increase its activities in recent months due to the ongoing attempts between
Hamas and Fatah to reach a reconciliation agreement, which has meant that the
Palestinian Authority has cut down its operations against possible terrorist
groups.
"Civilians don't notice it, but
we're working a lot harder."
The PA is attempting to merge with
the terrorist group Hamas, and is cutting back on its operations
against terrorists, and we should give the PA weapons?
There is no need to say more --
except to point out that Obama definitely does not have Israel's
back.
The task now is to attempt to
discover what, if anything, is being covered up, and how Netanyahu and Barak
will respond.
The thought occurs to me -- this
is speculative -- that there might be a quid pro quo at work.
Clinton talks tough on Iran, and wants Netanyahu to provide "incentives" to the
PA.
Arlene Kushner
----
No comments:
Post a Comment