Every US “peace process”
mediator has failed. Martin Indyk is next in line. He has said Israel must cede
the Temple Mount and the PA must give up the “right of return.” If he succeeds,
expect war.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, after a week of denials, is naming former
U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk to direct and maneuver the direct talks
between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, whose negotiators are meeting
officially Monday night for the first time in three years.
American officials, leaked the expected appointment on the basis of anonymity, one more carefully orchestrated step in a process that has been manipulated with “white lies” to make sure that the talk will resume.
Indyk’s qualifications are similar to those of every other American Middle East “expert” who has failed to force the Palestinian Authority and Israel to accept the American dream of a peace agreement.
Indyk, who thinks the Oslo Accords were the best thing since Abraham Lincoln went to a play, played a major part in the 2000 Camp David peace talks that fell apart.
As Bill Clinton’s Ambassador to Israel, he openly embraced Palestinian Authority demands, such as Israel’s ceding the Temple Mount, The only major Arab demand he rejected was the idea of flooding Israel with 5 million foreign Arabs whom the United Nations has decided belong in Israel.
Abbas once admitted that the demand is ridiculous, but enthused by years of Israel’s “goodwill” capitulation and the international apathy towards the PA’s refusal to live up to its own commitments, he has made the wrongly-termed “right of return” an absolute requirement. If and when he wins everything else from Israel, including the Temple Mount, a PA army and almost all of Judea and Samaria, he can win the Nobel peace Prize by making the “grand concession” of giving up to “flood Israel with Arabs’ tactic.
Indyk, born in Britain and educated in Australia, said in an Israeli newspaper interview nearly two years ago that the Oslo Accords were good for the Palestinian Authority and Israel. He did not mention the post-Oslo period, in which thousands of Israelis were and still are killed and wounded by PA terrorists.
Of course, he also has praised the Palestinian Authority for reducing terror, without crediting the “Apartheid Wall, an apt description when realizing that the security fence really does create Apartheid between normal human beings and suicide terrorists.
Indyk also wrote in his 2009 book “Innocent Abroad, “It was not reasonable to expect that Arafat, or any Arab leader for that matter, would agree to an end-of-conflict agreement that left sovereignty over the Haram al-Sharif [the Temple Mount] in Israeli hands forever.”
So it is clear that that Indyk is negotiating for chairman Mahmoud Abbas on that issue.
He wrote in The New York Times in 2010, “Does President Abbas, already a weakened figure, have the courage to defend the necessary concessions to his people, particularly when it comes to conceding the ‘right of return’ to Israel? Does Prime Minister Netanyahu have the determination to withdraw from at least 95 percent of the West Bank and to accept a Palestinian capital in Arab East Jerusalem? “
Besides his insistence that the failure of Oslo are less important than the fact the Yasser Arafat and Yitzchak Rabin signed them, Indyk’s record on the Middle East is graced with viewpoints that, like those of his predecessors, have proven to be dead wrong.
He played a major part in the 2000 Camp David peace talks that fell apart.
Indyk also wrote in another op-ed in The New York Times in 2010, “Today, nothing could better help Obama to isolate Iran than for Netanyahu to offer to cede the Golan, as four other Israeli prime ministers have, in exchange for peace with Syria, which serves as the conduit for Tehran’s troublemaking in the Arab-Israeli arena.”
If Netanyahu had followed Indyk’s advice, it is questionable whether Israel would exist today, and, of course that is exactly what most Arab countries see as the key to peace in the Middle East. If Netanyahu had followed his wisdom, it is just as likely that the United States would be at war with Iran today.
Indyk also was 100 percent wrong when he said in 2009 that Salaam Fayyad was “the only game in town” as prime minister of the Palestinian Authority. Fayyad vowed to build up PA institutions so they could support a state. Fayyad now is out of the picture, partly because Abbas and his Fatah henchmen could not stomach Fayyad’s attempts to overcome the institutionalized corruption, the very stuff that precludes the idea of a stable nation.
One black mark against Indyk from the Palestinian Authority side is that he is Jewish.
Indyk wrote in his book, “The fact that I had begun my Washington career eleven years earlier working at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC, often referred to as ‘the Israel lobby’) only reinforced the image in much of the Arab world and among pro-Arab Americans that Clinton’s policy had been taken over by a Jewish cabal.
“Behind that stereotyping lay the reality that our Jewish identities generated a deep desire in all of us to make peace since we all believed that Israel’s security depended on ending the conflict with its Arab neighbors and that American interests would be well served by doing so.”
Indyk forgot to mention that he is a director of the left-wing New Israel Fund, which does everything it can to dilute the Jewish identity in Israel and promotes getting Jews out of Judea and Samaria.
The trap for Indyk , and Kerry, and for Israeli negotiator Tzipi Livni, and for everyone else involved in the “process’ is that their personal need to succeed makes it a foregone conclusion that Israel is going to have to concede on everything except the forced immigration of foreign Arabs. He wrote in his book that he feels a “personal responsibility” for the failures of the peace process.
In order to reach their goal, U.S. mediators look at the facts with blinders and pre-conceived notions, such as defending Oslo.
The Zionist Organization of American noted last week, after it was clear that Indyk would take over the direct talks, that in 2007, he told a Congressional sub-committee that Abbas “has met all of the requirements, including removing, once he became president, ending the incitement of Israel in the Palestinian media and beginning the process of dealing with the demonization of Israel in Palestinian curricula. “
The ZOA added, “Unfortunately, Indyk’s claims were — and remain to this day — at variance with the reality of continuing demonization of Israel in the PA media, mosques, schools and youth camps. Only the month before making these false, laudatory statements about Abbas, Abbas told a Fatah rally that, ‘We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation … Our rifles, all our rifles, are directed against The Occupation.’ “Moreover, since making those remarks, Abbas has publicly lauded Jew-killing terrorists like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’s George Habash and Hamas’ Shekih Ahmed Yassin; personally sheltered wanted terrorists in his Ramallah presidential compound, including Khaled Shawish, wanted by Israel for the murder of 19 Israelis; and personally congratulated the ghoulish terrorist Samir Kuntar upon his release by Israel, for which Abbas’ Fatah also organized celebrations.”
American officials, leaked the expected appointment on the basis of anonymity, one more carefully orchestrated step in a process that has been manipulated with “white lies” to make sure that the talk will resume.
Indyk’s qualifications are similar to those of every other American Middle East “expert” who has failed to force the Palestinian Authority and Israel to accept the American dream of a peace agreement.
Indyk, who thinks the Oslo Accords were the best thing since Abraham Lincoln went to a play, played a major part in the 2000 Camp David peace talks that fell apart.
As Bill Clinton’s Ambassador to Israel, he openly embraced Palestinian Authority demands, such as Israel’s ceding the Temple Mount, The only major Arab demand he rejected was the idea of flooding Israel with 5 million foreign Arabs whom the United Nations has decided belong in Israel.
Abbas once admitted that the demand is ridiculous, but enthused by years of Israel’s “goodwill” capitulation and the international apathy towards the PA’s refusal to live up to its own commitments, he has made the wrongly-termed “right of return” an absolute requirement. If and when he wins everything else from Israel, including the Temple Mount, a PA army and almost all of Judea and Samaria, he can win the Nobel peace Prize by making the “grand concession” of giving up to “flood Israel with Arabs’ tactic.
Indyk, born in Britain and educated in Australia, said in an Israeli newspaper interview nearly two years ago that the Oslo Accords were good for the Palestinian Authority and Israel. He did not mention the post-Oslo period, in which thousands of Israelis were and still are killed and wounded by PA terrorists.
Of course, he also has praised the Palestinian Authority for reducing terror, without crediting the “Apartheid Wall, an apt description when realizing that the security fence really does create Apartheid between normal human beings and suicide terrorists.
Indyk also wrote in his 2009 book “Innocent Abroad, “It was not reasonable to expect that Arafat, or any Arab leader for that matter, would agree to an end-of-conflict agreement that left sovereignty over the Haram al-Sharif [the Temple Mount] in Israeli hands forever.”
So it is clear that that Indyk is negotiating for chairman Mahmoud Abbas on that issue.
He wrote in The New York Times in 2010, “Does President Abbas, already a weakened figure, have the courage to defend the necessary concessions to his people, particularly when it comes to conceding the ‘right of return’ to Israel? Does Prime Minister Netanyahu have the determination to withdraw from at least 95 percent of the West Bank and to accept a Palestinian capital in Arab East Jerusalem? “
Besides his insistence that the failure of Oslo are less important than the fact the Yasser Arafat and Yitzchak Rabin signed them, Indyk’s record on the Middle East is graced with viewpoints that, like those of his predecessors, have proven to be dead wrong.
He played a major part in the 2000 Camp David peace talks that fell apart.
Indyk also wrote in another op-ed in The New York Times in 2010, “Today, nothing could better help Obama to isolate Iran than for Netanyahu to offer to cede the Golan, as four other Israeli prime ministers have, in exchange for peace with Syria, which serves as the conduit for Tehran’s troublemaking in the Arab-Israeli arena.”
If Netanyahu had followed Indyk’s advice, it is questionable whether Israel would exist today, and, of course that is exactly what most Arab countries see as the key to peace in the Middle East. If Netanyahu had followed his wisdom, it is just as likely that the United States would be at war with Iran today.
Indyk also was 100 percent wrong when he said in 2009 that Salaam Fayyad was “the only game in town” as prime minister of the Palestinian Authority. Fayyad vowed to build up PA institutions so they could support a state. Fayyad now is out of the picture, partly because Abbas and his Fatah henchmen could not stomach Fayyad’s attempts to overcome the institutionalized corruption, the very stuff that precludes the idea of a stable nation.
One black mark against Indyk from the Palestinian Authority side is that he is Jewish.
Indyk wrote in his book, “The fact that I had begun my Washington career eleven years earlier working at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC, often referred to as ‘the Israel lobby’) only reinforced the image in much of the Arab world and among pro-Arab Americans that Clinton’s policy had been taken over by a Jewish cabal.
“Behind that stereotyping lay the reality that our Jewish identities generated a deep desire in all of us to make peace since we all believed that Israel’s security depended on ending the conflict with its Arab neighbors and that American interests would be well served by doing so.”
Indyk forgot to mention that he is a director of the left-wing New Israel Fund, which does everything it can to dilute the Jewish identity in Israel and promotes getting Jews out of Judea and Samaria.
The trap for Indyk , and Kerry, and for Israeli negotiator Tzipi Livni, and for everyone else involved in the “process’ is that their personal need to succeed makes it a foregone conclusion that Israel is going to have to concede on everything except the forced immigration of foreign Arabs. He wrote in his book that he feels a “personal responsibility” for the failures of the peace process.
In order to reach their goal, U.S. mediators look at the facts with blinders and pre-conceived notions, such as defending Oslo.
The Zionist Organization of American noted last week, after it was clear that Indyk would take over the direct talks, that in 2007, he told a Congressional sub-committee that Abbas “has met all of the requirements, including removing, once he became president, ending the incitement of Israel in the Palestinian media and beginning the process of dealing with the demonization of Israel in Palestinian curricula. “
The ZOA added, “Unfortunately, Indyk’s claims were — and remain to this day — at variance with the reality of continuing demonization of Israel in the PA media, mosques, schools and youth camps. Only the month before making these false, laudatory statements about Abbas, Abbas told a Fatah rally that, ‘We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation … Our rifles, all our rifles, are directed against The Occupation.’ “Moreover, since making those remarks, Abbas has publicly lauded Jew-killing terrorists like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine’s George Habash and Hamas’ Shekih Ahmed Yassin; personally sheltered wanted terrorists in his Ramallah presidential compound, including Khaled Shawish, wanted by Israel for the murder of 19 Israelis; and personally congratulated the ghoulish terrorist Samir Kuntar upon his release by Israel, for which Abbas’ Fatah also organized celebrations.”
No comments:
Post a Comment